JOIN USThe year 2015 has been a term full of new amendments. Some of them have been lavishly bestowed upon our environment and wildlife. These swift, double backing, overhauling changes that are unsparing in approach seem to provide band-aid solutions for persisting problems. Topping the list are the Karnataka Tree Preservation Act (1976) and the latest proposal to declare certain animals as wildlife vermin – both meriting much deliberation and criticism.
At this juncture, the decisions made need to be questioned: Are we resorting to short-term resolutions? What are their consequences? Are we endorsing ad hoc practices? Why aren’t science-based assessments adopted by policy makers to make informed decisions? And of course, why are we making the same mistakes again and again?
Lack of foresight
Many of these decisions seem to have been made without much thought and there are several examples of devastating impacts of such make-shift solutions. A case in point is the recent amendment to the Karnataka Tree Preservation Act – 1976, which allows felling of certain varieties of trees without permits from the Forest Department. The Bill authorises cutting of over 20 species of trees including mango, red cedar, coffee, guava and Melia dubia.
Introduced despite many disagreements, the Bill resulted in the felling of over 80,000 trees in just two months in three districts. “When the Bill was passed, thousands of trees were chopped. Riversides are being replaced by bruised or dwarfed trunks of massive old mango trees. Several hundred species of wild mangoes from dense forests, woodlands and riverbanks of Western Ghats made their way to saw mills and plywood mills. This move by the government has had a negative impat on the ecosystem,” says Thamoo Poovaiah, a member of Wildlife First organisation.
After this carnage, the State Government had to backtrack and the High Court ordered an interim stay on the felling of mango trees after a petition was filed. But unfortunately, stay on the order has been relaxed on two other species, namely pink cedar and wild-curry trees.
The decisions that have been made regarding the planting and protection of exotic species have proved to be unsustainable in the past too. Take the planting of eucalyptus trees in the Nilgiris’ grasslands for instance. First introduced in the Nilgiri Hills by the British in 1843, a native of Australia and Tasmania, eucalyptus today stays put on millions of hectares (ha) in India.
Over 1,000,000 ha of eucalyptus plantations were established by State Forest Departments and Forest Development Corporations in the country. Replacing rich grasslands with exotic species, the enthusiastic government underestimated its long-term ecological impacts. In March 2014, the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court banned eucalyptus, and proposed its removal from the Western Ghats. “Grasslands are rich biodiversity reserves, replacing them with crops like eucalyptus has been a very costly price forests had to pay in the past,” says Surendra Varma, a research scientist at Asian Nature Conservation Foundation.
The vermin label
A wild animal is termed ‘vermin’ if it is believed to be harmful to crops, farm animals, game, or those which carry disease like rodents. This year, Environment Minister, Prakash Javadekar declared, “In areas where farmers are facing huge problems due to animals, there is a procedure to declare them as ‘vermin’ like blue bull and wild boar for a particular period of time. We will give them (states) permission to declare such animals as vermin.”
Once the State provides a list of “nuisance animals”, farmers are allowed to hunt the animals for a limited period of time. There are provisions for such an amendment, of course –– the Section 62 of the wildlife act empowers the Centre to declare any wild animal, apart from rare and endangered species, to be classified as vermin, for a specified period of time, with the first targets being wild boars and monkeys. It is not the first time wild boars and blue bulls have made it to the list in India –– permissions were issued in states like Punjab, Kerala and Tamil Nadu a few years ago. Farmers in Kerala even received Rs 500 for killing a wild boar. This has led to disappearance of many species from surrounding forests and increased poaching of even threatened species.
Across the world, high densities of ungulates are a concern. Many countries have opted to regulate its population size through hunting. Allowing hunting of species as a population control measure has sometimes threatened the species by almost wiping out its population –– like in the case of grizzly bears and grey wolves. In Africa, species considered as a threat to communities are deliberately killed, to reduce their population, or even locally exterminated.
Unhelpful solutions
But most often, solutions have not helped either humans or wildlife. “All species are important and eradicating some from a region may have far-reaching consequences, upsetting the link between the species and their ecosystem. Eradication also leads to dramatic changes in the populations of species that are considered as problem animals. Not to forget the impact on the very landscape when small or large herbivores are targeted. The approach should be to understand the reasons that attract wild boars or any other animal closer to human habitats. Their population densities need to be
understood on a long term basis, before decisions to cull them can be legalised,” explains Surendra.
Are we still going to opt for hit and miss methods, putting at risk population densities of several wildlife species and the country’s rich biodiversity? Hunting has been overruled by several countries, and many unscientific deforestation policies are being rebuffed. In fact, most species today have lost their habitat to humans. When several other countries are opting for non-lethal, long lasting solutions, why are we heading in the opposite direction?