By Purva Variyar
We walk up the cobbled stone steps, Dr. Anish Andheria and I, in a forest situated right in the middle of Mumbai’s hyper-urbanised, noisy suburbs. We soak in the beauty and significance of this small preserve better known as the BNHS (Bombay Natural History Society) Nature Reserve. We find a lovely spot to sit down and have this conversation. “Does science add to or take away from the beauty of nature and all its creations?” I ask Dr. Andheria, a scientist and one of India’s leading wildlife conservationists, who is the President of the Wildlife Conservation Trust (WCT), an organisation that takes an uncompromising scientific approach to develop solutions for complex conservation issues, and backs its policy recommendations with hard data and evidence. “Science is just a tool to unravel the secrets of nature. Science gives us the language to interpret nature. However, it would be foolish and arrogant of us to think that science, even with all its advancements, can explain nature fully,” he says.
I constantly wonder about people’s perceptions about nature. Does a botanist view a flower differently than others? Devoid of scientific understanding of a flower, fish, forest, or fungus, how do most people perceive the environment? What do they think of when they see a tiger in the forest? Do they think of its ecological role in the ecosystem, its place on the evolutionary tree, or how its fate is deeply intertwined with their own?
Dr. Anish Andheria (extreme left) studies maps with Forest Department staff in Karnataka while surveying bottlenecks along elephant corridors. Photo Courtesy: Dr. Anish Andheria.
Similarly, I wonder about climate change too. In the current scenario, where anti-science narratives are gathering steam, why do so many people consider human-induced climate change – and its very evident impacts – a hoax or propaganda? Climate scientists and other experts are armed to their teeth with hard data and clear evidence. Wildlife biologists regularly highlight the utter ecological devastation responsible for not only biodiversity loss and species extinction but also how it impacts the ecosystem services crucial for our own food, water, and climate security. Why then are decision-makers and proponents of ecologically-destructive infrastructure projects not listening to scientists and experts?
In India, protectionary environmental laws are being overturned and diluted to ease project clearances in eco-sensitive zones and Protected Areas, ghoulishly unheeding the advice and warnings of conservation experts.
Failing to explain the methods to non-scientists and expecting them to simply stomach the findings is, according to Carl Sagan, “perverse”. And within this gamut of people to whom it is particularly necessary to communicate scientific methods and findings most articulately and convincingly, are the decision-makers and policy-makers, in whose hands the critical decisions impacting the environment and us ultimately rest.
“The onus of communicating the truth about the climate [crisis] is on people of science. To also influence decision-makers is complex and of prime importance,” says Dr. Andheria, “I realised that we [at WCT] need to have a multi-pronged approach, something that is very heterogeneous, inter-disciplinary and inter-sectoral, when trying to inform policy. Not just biology, but we also have to understand how conservation interventions will impact the environment, communities, and economy.”
So how does he ensure that WCT’s research work culminates into conservation solutions, I ask him. How is his scientific temper reflected in WCT’s usual conservation approach?
“Nothing that WCT does is theoretical. Everything that the team is working on is actually going to translate or has already translated into some management action. By addressing complex conservation problems at the landscape scale, our approach helps address multiple issues and solve problems, because we are forced to look at and study a multitude of factors simultaneously.”
“There is a high probability of failure when focusing on a single issue. But when you look at the entire system, using an intensive data-driven approach, it gives you unbiased information on a variety of components, or opportunities to address the existing systemic lacunae. It is always more fruitful to apply a landscape-level approach to studies and surveys, and collect a large amount of data, especially when one is invested in solving complex, multi-sectoral challenges,” he explains.
Gharials detected by an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle as part of WCT’s data gathering and wildlife monitoring efforts in the Ganges plains. Photo: WCT-TfW.
Every conservation intervention and initiative by WCT is backed by long-term research and a feedback loop to gain an unbiased understanding of a problem because oftentimes, a seemingly obvious solution may not truly solve the problem. It will need a nuanced understanding, which can only be unmasked using scientific methods. A case-in-point is WCT’s award-winning Heater of Hope project in which a systematic scientific (both social and ecological) approach helped identify a crucial gap and develop an effective solution. A team of economists, social scientists, and psychologists at WCT conducted large-scale socio-economic surveys in villages located in the Brahmapuri Forest Division in Maharashtra to understand the community’s fuel consumption pattern. The study found that their dependence on firewood for water heating did not decrease despite the provision of cooking gas (LPG), and this continued to put a strain on the surrounding forests as villagers continued extracting firewood. This in turn led to negative human-wildlife interactions. The study revealed that ‘up to 97 per cent of the households continue to depend on firewood for heating water on account of the lack of a viable alternative’.
“Based on the analysis of granular household-level data gathered from surveying over 2,000 households across 49 villages in Maharashtra, the findings shaped our understanding of the water heating needs of the households in the region and led to the design and distribution of efficient and affordable biomass-fuelled water heaters. Since then, forest visits have reduced by 30 per cent per year in the target villages that adopted the sustainable water heater, thus reducing the risk of negative interactions with wildlife; firewood consumption by households using the water heater has reduced by at least 70 per cent; women’s exposure to smoke has reduced by eliminating the need to blow air as is required in a traditional chulha; and there has been a decrease of an estimated 1.5 tonnes of CO2 emissions per year per household. Over 11,400 households have already procured the water heater,” explains Dr. Andheria.
“WCT’s water heater model is being adopted and replicated across many villages in Maharashtra and other states. It has also been incorporated into Maharashtra’s village welfare scheme to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This is the beauty of a disciplined, scientific approach. It helps paint a real picture and allows us to work towards building solutions that are impactful, scalable, and replicable. Solid tenets of science,” he tells me.
A WCT field staff member tests one of the many camera traps installed systematically across various critical forest blocks in the Central Indian landscape to study tiger presence and distribution outside Protected Areas. Photo: WCT.
“Another good example would be the negative impact of linear infrastructure such as roads and railway lines on wildlife and forest integrity. It does not take an expert to understand that a road cutting through the forest hampers animal movement. Nor is it difficult to fathom that it is easier for an animal to cross a two-lane highway than a six-lane one, and that overpasses and underpasses will offer a safe passage to many terrestrial animals, reducing the number of road kills. But it isn’t as straightforward as that when it comes to making a decision about building an over- or underpass on an existing road, or diverting a road to avoid cutting a forest into two,” he adds.
“In such controversial situations too, science comes to the rescue, as by asking the right questions and carrying out unbiased investigations, it is possible to find a path that is sensitive to both infrastructure growth and ecological needs of wildlife. It takes irrefutable, quality data and evidence to convince decision-makers and project proponents. In the case of the critical Kanha-Pench Corridor in central India, where WCT collected data and made a case for installation of mitigation structures, we were aware that the national highway (NH44) was influencing the territorial decisions of female tigers in the area. Our data also suggested that by building underpasses, corridor connectivity would actually improve!”
Even WCT’s approach to improving the quality of life of frontline forest staff – be it in the form of healthcare, conducting law enforcement training programmes, or providing amenities such as vehicles and safety gear – is backed by systematic psychological surveys and analysis, I point out.
“You cannot copy-paste any solution in conservation. Science will help you to be rooted and malleable, which means you will have to keep monitoring interventions over time, and continuously adapt to the changing demands of a dynamic ecosystem,” says Dr. Andheria.
The WCT’s survey of select rivers in the Satpura Tiger Reserve helped understand the near-threatened Eurasian otter’s occurrence in the region. Photo: WCT/Madhya Pradesh Forest Department.
Conservation is a complex game with layers of ecology, sociology, anthropology, economics, politics, and more, influencing both the problems and the solutions. The discipline and objectivity of science helps conservationists navigate these complexities and arrive at the truth closest to the absolute truth.
“Nothing is sacrosanct. Ecosystems are constantly in a state of flux. Political scenarios are highly volatile. Climate change too adds many impediments. The economy oscillates between highs and lows. People’s attitudes change. So, you will have to constantly measure the system that you are working with. No solution is permanent. Looking at these externalities objectively, through a scientific lens, allows you to stay on course,” Dr. Andheria tells me.
We know that science attempts to remain un-self-serving and unbiased. That science demands discipline, logic, reason, and honesty. That it invites sensible arguments and debate. We also know that science holds the answers to major problems facing humankind. It has repeatedly shown that rewilding and restoring wildlife populations and natural habitats holds the key to resolving the climate crises, water, food and air insecurities, and mitigating the worst impacts of our imminent transition into the era of ‘global boiling’.
“Then why do we continue to see so much resistance to science, and so much apathy towards alarming scientific findings instead of acting upon them?” I resignedly ask.
“One of the reasons is that our myopic financial aspirations have clouded, or rather, blinded us. We do not believe in biological fitness anymore. Financial interests are incentivised whereas environmental protection is not. Even our education system does not foster an appreciation of nature, nor does it emphasise the critical significance of healthy and functioning ecosystems in humanity’s survival. WCT is currently undertaking a study to understand the financial inequities borne by people living in and around natural habitats across India on account of the disproportionate distribution of funds under the ‘Forest & Ecology Grant’ or the green grant. In India, funds under the green grant are allocated to states based only on forest cover, a faulty criterion. The government does not incentivise states and their people to preserve other types of ecosystems such as grasslands, mangroves, deserts, etc. We hope to change this using the findings from our study to inform policy,” says Dr. Andheria.
The WCT’s work model for community-based conservation projects, which use the frameworks of economics, psychology, sociology and anthropology. Artwork: Akshaya Zachariah/WCT.
“I keep saying that the gross domestic product (GDP) calculation has to be real, which means just the exchange of money is not GDP, we must factor in the destruction of the environment for economic gain in the GDP calculations and prioritise biological fitness over financial fitness.”
A simple economic evaluation of how much climate-related disasters are costing us will tell you that the cost of damage reparations already exceeds the cost of implementing decarbonising and nature-based measures. Then why are we still dragging our feet on climate and conservation solutions? Perhaps science has the answer.
Both of us ponder over this as we trudge along the beautiful forest path.
We really need to listen to science!
Purva Variyar is a wildlife conservationist, science writer and editor, and heads WCT's Communications vertical. She has previously worked with the Sanctuary Nature Foundation, and The Gerry Martin Project.
