The mystery of Maharashtra’s happy sugarcane leopards

Till the water flows in the irrigation canals, these cats will make happy headlines. Then they will be as doomed as any other leopard unless we learn to hold our nerve.

FirstPost, 30 March, 2013

A recent paper, Big Cats in Our Backyards, published by the journal Public Library of Sciencehas made headlines by reporting up to six resident leopards per 100 sq km in Maharashtra’s Sangamner region. The big cats hide in the dense cover of sugarcane fields during the day and prey on village (and town) dogs in the night. No significant man-animal conflict has been reported in the study area.
This is a great find in a country where leopards are frequently persecuted as blood-thirsty animals by lynch mobs and trigger- or trap-happy officials. This unwarranted hostility is also the reason why leopards kill so many people. Few of us expect a wild animal, particularly a carnivore, to show up outside forests. People panic at the sight of leopards near habitations and try to kill or catch and release animals in faraway forests.
But the leopard’s preference for smaller domestic prey often makes it a resident of fringe forests close to villages or, as the recent study has established, even cropland bereft of any wilderness. If trapped and removed, they try to return home. In the process, traumatised cats walk long distances, run into people, causing injuries and deaths.
The sugarcane leopards reported by the study are thriving in a densely populated agricultural landscape because people here apparently do not mind their presence. Why this particular community is more tolerant or confident than most others across the country is not explained in the study but its non-interfering conduct has succeeded in avoiding serious conflict. The lesson is that leopards, unless disturbed, rarely pose a threat to human safety.
Like all species, leopards need food and shelter. Most human habitats are packed with smaller livestock and dogs and offer more resources than many prey- and water-deficient protected forest areas (PAs). So be it the sugarcane fields of Maharashtra or the city forests of Shimla, the availability of good cover for safety is the deciding factor for the presence of leopards. These populations cannot be wished away by killing or by shifting a few cats which aggravates, even creates, conflict.
Image courtesy: Dhritiman Mukherjee.
Image courtesy: Dhritiman Mukherjee.
Of course, local extermination is possible through rapid and consistent mass killing but the strategy is neither legal nor sanctioned by our conservation policies. Poaching apart, the only other way a non-PA population can eventually disappear, over a period of high conflict, is through loss or destruction of functional cover. This fact questions the study’s first unsupported claim that the tolerance of the people is the prime reason for the high density of leopards in sugarcane fields.
The choice of the study site itself is perhaps responsible for the unusual numbers. Leopards live outside protected forest areas (PAs) in most parts of India. Going by media reports from across the country, chance encounters with people rarely occur during the night when leopards are active, scouting the villages and towns for food. It is mostly during the day that the leopard’s cover is blown, setting a lynch mob after it. This indicates a lack of cover that is so essential for the cat to stay safe during its passive day hours.
Sugarcane plants offer dense cover and the crop is harvested in batches at long intervals, ensuring months of uninterrupted privacy. Once there is reliable data on the frequency of human-leopard encounters in sugarcane fields, a comparative study in a non-sugarcane cropland may explain how a reduction in cover affects the intensity of conflict – and the density of leopards – outside protected forests.
So should we focus on non-PA areas, as the study demands, as a policy shift from our PA-centric conservation model? Yes and no. We certainly need to invest in unprotected fringe forests. But cropland, particularly the sugarcane fields highlighted in the study as suitable leopard habitat, is beyond the scope of large carnivore conservation.
Leopards get to use patches of fringe, non-protected forests in many areas because some social input – community tradition, administrative effort or civic activism — has secured those stretches against the axe. On the other hand, conservationists get to make a stronger case for the survival of these non-PA forest patches in the name of protecting the resident leopards. That is how different goals of conservation – species recovery and ecosystem integrity — overlap.
Things get tricky in a modified cropland such as sugarcane fields. The selection of the sugarcane crop was a purely economic decision and not to help the leopard. Similarly, if the obscenely water-intensive crop fails or is withdrawn from a drought-affected Maharashtra in the near future, concerns for leopards will not, and should not, weigh in. In such a scenario, these leopards will be flushed out as rapidly as they had moved in when irrigation was introduced here two-and-a-half decades ago.
Till that time, these resource- and cover-rich sugarcane areas are likely to draw carnivores to its capacity from the adjoining prey- and water-deficient forests. Over time, this may cause the bulk of the leopard population of the region to gravitate towards the sugarcane fields and get accustomed to easy domestic prey. Since the future of the sugarcane crop is not determined by any conservation input, a change in crop selection or land use may suddenly expose a large number of leopards, triggering major conflict.
Meanwhile, we do not need to reinvent the wheel. Over centuries, leopards have adapted to survive next to people without major conflict. The near foolproof cover of sugarcane fields only makes their job easy. While that cosy arrangement may not last too long, elsewhere they are already running for cover. So the next time you happen to spot a leopard, tell yourself it means no harm. Just that the poor cat does not have a sugarcane field to hide in.

Beyond The Sugarcane Fields

A landmark study on reducing man-leopard conflict misses the conservation point

Tehelka, 29 March, 2013

NO ANIMAL, not even the snake, attracts more bad press than the leopard. The worst victim of poaching in India, it is also the biggest killer of people among all large carnivores. The leopard’s prey preference for smaller livestock and dogs draws it close to habitations. The result is nationwide conflict, from Uttarakhand to Kerala and Gujarat to Assam.

Against this background, a recent paper, Big Cats in Our Backyards, published by the Public Library of Science, an open-source scientific publication project, has important clues to co-existence. The study recorded up to six resident leopards per 100 sq km in the Sangamner sub-division of Maharashtra’s Ahmadnagar district. They lounge in the ample cover of sugarcane fields during the day and scout the villages and towns for dogs in the night.
The arrangement is working without significant conflict in this densely populated agricultural belt where people don’t panic at the mere sight of leopards. This is against the conventional practice of trapping every “stray” leopard and releasing them in faraway forests. The study establishes that the cropland leopards are not “stray” animals but residents with cubs and cannot be whisked away.
If trapped and released away from home, leopards, like all cats, try to return and run into people at unfamiliar places. Since trapping is a traumatic experience, such encounters rarely end amicably. The lesson from the study is that leopards among people are not necessarily a threat to human safety as long as they are not disturbed. The study also found a degree of traditional tolerance towards these animals in the rural communities; this, of course, can be enhanced by compensating villagers for livestock losses.
While the findings offer insight into the leopard’s adaptability, judging larger carnivores by the same parameters may backfire. Sugarcane fields also attracted tigers in Lakhimpur Kheri district of Uttar Pradesh. Many blame the intolerance of the local residents for the resulting conflict. But tigers need large prey and recurrent loss of cattle cannot be compared to that of chicken. More importantly, an accidental encounter with a leopard usually ends with a deep scratch or two, but a tiger can break the human skull with an irritated swipe.
The paper also paints the cropland model as an alternative approach to conservation. That claim is suspect. First, the so-called “backyard leopards” live in a modified habitat. A cropland is a monoculture plantation which, compared to natural forests, performs little or no ecosystem services, such as hosting biodiversity or acting as carbon sinks or watersheds. No matter how many leopards find shelter in cropland, no amount of plantation can compensate the loss of a forest.
Secondly, sugarcane is being promoted across large areas in certain states for purely economic reasons. The presence of leopards in these fields is incidental and a change in crop selection or land use may expel them rapidly in the not so distant future.
Thirdly, having resident populations on cropland does not necessarily help genetic exchange. When wild animals disperse from a forest, they don’t search for another forest. They merely look for a suitable habitat with good cover and prey, which usually happens to be another forest, where they settle down and join a new population.
If leopards find sufficient artificial cover and domestic prey base to settle down in cropland outside the parent forest, it results in an expansion, and not dispersal, of a wild population. When two neighbouring populations expand, they draw closer. But the extension of a forest population in a sugarcane field, in fact, creates two sub-populations.
Cropland leopards are known for their obesity. Animals thriving on easy domestic prey are unlikely to disperse to forests where they would have to hunt in the wild. But resource-rich cropland may keep drawing more individuals from forests, creating a dense sub-population buffer between two diminishing wilder populations. Does this affect gene flow? Unlikely. Will this alter population distribution and dynamics? That calls for another study.

Not switching off lights this evening? It doesn’t matter

Campaigns like Earth Hour offer us cheap moral capital: feel good saving the planet for an hour every year and enjoy life as usual during the remaining 8769.

FirstPost, 23 March, 2013

I have asked this question a few times since 2007. Are you among those two billion people who will switch off their home, shop or office lights for an hour at 8.30 pm this evening to send a powerful global message that it is possible to take action against climate change?
Please do not feel guilty if you count yourself with a few billion others who have different plans for the evening. It really does not matter; unless you are prepared to mind your unnecessary appliances every hour and every day. Switching off for an hour is too damn easy, and dangerous.
he Empire State Building turns off its lights during Earth Hour last year. AFP
he Empire State Building turns off its lights during Earth Hour last year. AFP
Seven years ago, we were told to turn off lights for an hour and save the planet. Since 2007, when more than 2.2 million obliged, the movement has gown phenomenally, with 1.8 billion switching off in 2011. Last year, the dark hour was observed in 152 countries and territories across 7,001 towns and cities.
The annual global consumption of electricity, however, has shown no significant downtrend since 2005. Sydney, where the Earth Hour movement famously began in 2007, recorded a 16.6 per cent growth in power consumption in 2007-08.
In contrast, Delhi, a “developing” city with a higher population and no history of Earth Hour campaigns till 2009, was recording much less annual growth (4-5 percent) in power demand. What no climate change campaign could have done was probably achieved via the simple expedient of a power tariff hike and stricter anti-tampering initiatives. Now, after four years of Earth Hour celebrations, the capital has recorded a 10 per cent rise in power consumption last year.
Tokenism is always dangerous. Campaigns like Earth Hour offer us an easy bargain and cheap moral capital. Switch off for an hour, have fun (there is no bar on music blasts), and feel good that we have that you have voted for the planet. The next day, and the next 8759 hours, life goes on as usual. Naturally, the guilt of our civilisation requires heavy purging.
But celebrating a cause a day limits our options to just 365. So we have started observing different days the same day. A few days back, we celebrated the World Sparrow Day worrying about the vanishing birds while remembering to take time out to be cheerful because 20 March was also the World Happiness Day. In fact, every year we start on that balancing note but it probably discourages property litigations when we observe the World Family Day and the World Day for Peace together on 1 January.
But it is often gets trickier than that. Day before yesterday, on 21 March, asked to mind both World Poetry Day and World Down Syndrome Day, I did not flinch. But then, someone sent a reminder to observe International Day of Forests and World Puppetry Day as well. Really, how does one club the World Helping Day with World Blasphemy Day (30 September) or remember to remember victims of chemical warfare while observing the International Dance Day every 29 April?
At times, this scheduling of symbolism appears thoughtful though. We have designated 10 December as both Human Rights Day and International Animal Rights Day, perhaps to discourage man-animal conflict. It may not be a coincidence that the International Day of the Girl Child (11 October) is also the National Coming out Day. On 15 October, we reach out to the hinterland celebrating the International Day of Rural Women. I guess it helps that the Global Handwashing Day is also observed the same day.
Seriously, does tokenism help? Many of us accept the need to cut down unnecessary and unsustainable consumption. Some of us do not. But most of us simply do not care — either because we are too rich or too poor or just indifferent. This evening, at least 1.3 billion will anyway observe the Earth Hour because they live outside the global power grid. They do it every year without being counted.
But how many of those who switch off for an hour and are duly counted are expected to make “permanent lifestyle compromises” should their governments make a few mandatory by law? The answer lies in the refusal of most governments who do not risk green reforms because their people are not prepared to accept corresponding lifestyle changes.
I often wonder if the campaigners could invest their resources in enrolling people who would make commitments of cutting down, say, 20 per cent of their annual energy consumption. Members — individuals and organisations — would furnish energy bills to justify their pledge. It is not impossible to log such members on a global web register and quantify the change.
Instead of a billion switching off for an hour because it is fashionable, the campaign would do better to enrol even a few million converts making lifestyle changes because they care. Over time, this community could grow by convincing others. It would have been hard work and the figures would not have made the glamorous jump from 2.2 million to 2 billion-plus in just six years. But in the long run, this could have forced governments’ hands. But all these are speculation.
So will I switch off this evening? I have asked this question a few times since 2007. I anyway might; I have the privilege to enjoy darkness.

Bending Green Norms Will Not Resolve Our Energy Or Growth Crisis

We should optimally use what we have ripped open before rushing to mine the next forest

Tehelka, 22 March, 2013

Coal Minister riprakash Jaiswal is a worried man. He was worried the day former environment minister Jairam Ramesh floated his ‘go, no-go’ formula to keep the best forests out of bounds for miners. This weekend, Jaiswal warned that large tracts of coal-bearing forests would become inaccessible if the government accepted the norms proposed by Ramesh’s successor Jayanthi Natarajan to identify “inviolate forests”.
Jaiswal’s frustration found an echo down south where Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa, in a letter to the PM last week, described the proposed Western Ghats Ecology Authority (WGEA) as an assault on the country’s federal structure in the name of conservation. It is, after all, the state government’s prerogative to decide policies on land use, industry and development projects.
Constituted by the Centre in 2010, the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) in its report proposed setting up of the WGEA as a statutory authority to “function in a networked fashion” with six constituent states to protect the Western Ghats for its immense ecological services. Jayalalithaa, in fact, drew strength from the WGEEP report by pointing out that there was nothing to indicate any shortcoming in the efforts of her government in managing the Western Ghats.
However, it is an open secret that huge tracts of forested land adjoining national parks and sanctuaries have been acquired by Tamil Nadu’s politicians, their families and associates. This investment is now threatened by the WGEEP norms, which include a ban on SEZs and big industry, even the setting up of new tourist centres or fresh agricultural land use in the highest conservation priority areas.
Jaiswal and Jayalalithaa are no exceptions. Union Finance Minister P Chidambaram proudly claimed in his Budget speech last month that the newly formed Cabinet Committee on Investment (CCI) had already cleared a number of projects. The same evening, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh emphasised that the CCI would tackle the problems of wildlife, forest and land (tribal rights) clearances to clear roadblocks facing growth.
Nothing strengthens the CCI’s agenda more than the absurdity of having to buy coal while sitting on a 100 billion tonne reserve and its fiscal impact. Of course, we cannot bear the burden of importing coal. In fact, we don’t have to. The present annual production deficit of coal is around 20 percent. Jaiswal himself conceded that but for corruption and inefficiency, the productivity could increase by 25-30 percent. Now factor in a 25-35 percent transmission loss of power that is generated by burning coal. A long overdue investment in grid reform can lower the demand for coal by at least 20 percent.
The ancient open-cast mining technology used in India cannot extract beyond 150 m depth. This means mines are abandoned without extracting 20-30 percent of the tapped reserve. There are still not enough rakes to transport coal from the mines. Even this limited infrastructure is stretched because we do not segregate the shale at the mining sites and ferry up to 45 percent fly ash in coal. Yet, we demand vast tracts of virgin forests to be opened for mining when most private miners are interested in hoarding rather than mining the allotted reserve. The same profit motive is at work when power utilities try to pressure the Coal India (CIL) for subsidised coal by opting for import rather than procuring at nonsubsidised prices through e-auction from the CIL.
Does a 100 billion tonne reserve justify wasteful and unscrupulous use? It apparently does, in the national interest. Last month, the CCI had to clarify that rules are equally applicable after CIL executives demanded impunity against prosecution for violating green norms because they were only trying to strengthen India’s energy security. But then, we also export massive quantities of iron ore dirt cheap by ripping our forests apart while countries with larger reserves hold on to their stock.
Of late, a surge of environmental awareness is making the dangers of such deliberate short-sightedness increasingly apparent. However inconvenient for business-as- usual, this is no more just a Luddite’s cause. It is about the water, food and livelihood security of millions, and even the poorest have elbowed in on the debate. They, like every Indian, have the right to good life and need growth to meet their aspirations. But natural resources that fuel growth are finite. If we do not ensure optimal use of what we have already ripped open before rushing to mine the next forest, our economic crisis will outlive our last wilderness.

How green activism relies on shock-and-awe to deliver

Alarmist strategies often force action in an atmosphere of indifference. But the knee-jerk nature of the response such campaigns inspire seldom addresses real issues.

FirstPost, 19 March, 2013

Every year since the 1980s, thousands of olive ridley turtles die entangled in fishing nets used by mechanised boats or trawlers along the Indian coast. The numbers are particularly staggering along the Odisha coast where they congregate for arribada or mass breeding. The spectacle of hundreds of dead turtles washed ashore makes news every breeding season.

The species and its habitat are protected under green Acts. The Orissa Marine Fisheries Regulation Act (OMFRA) restricts trawling in the near-shore waters. Yet, tardy enforcement allows the killings to continue. On top of that, nesting beaches are being damaged by casuarina plantations promoted by the forest department itself. There is little effort to protect these sites from artificial lighting that disorients turtles and ends up killing hatchlings.
The green activists have been raising these issues with the governments, communities and other stakeholders for decades with very limited success. Naturally, the tenor of activism has only got shriller with time. This has little enthusiasm for good news such as thousands of olive ridleys nesting at one of its three mass-nesting beaches in Odisha.
Unlike the Devi river mouth and Gahirmatha, Rushikulya has been hosting massive arribadas in recent years. These numbers do not weaken the legitimate cases for reining in the trawlers, removal of casuarina and restricting the use of artificial lights. But wary activists apparently fear that celebrating the happy news from Rushikulya will make the task of rallying support for the turtle and pushing a reluctant administration more challenging.
Unlike the ridleys, gharials (the fish-eating river crocodile with a long, narrow snout) reached the brink of extinction in the 1970s with only around 200 left in the wild. The conservation response was to declare their key riverine habitats as protected areas and launch a programme to collect eggs, rear hatchlings in captivity and release juveniles in the wild. Till now, more than 5000 gharials have been released and yet the species remains critically endangered.
Every census, enumerators scout the Chambal river in motor boats to count gharials. But the noisy engines make sure that for every gharial counted, two slide away unnoticed. No correction of this under-estimation is done in order to sustain the picture that gharials are still in need of “emergency help” through the rear-and-release programme.
This makes conservation a lot easier. While logic demands that we mend the hole rather than keep pouring into a leaky bucket, the convenience of hatching and releasing some gharials every season just does not compare with the challenges of fixing field problems of water shortage, sand mining, fishing or riverbank agriculture.
But the so-called long-term issues of habitat protection can be avoided only as long as a fire-fighting mode of conservation can be justified. Reporting fewer gharials serve that purpose. Ironically, gharial numbers may in fact plummet if rear-and-release stops. That, however, is far from an alarming scenario.
If it becomes evident that the gharial is struggling in the wild on its own, conservationists and managers will be forced to ask why. But as long as rear-and-release keeps destabilising the population, the natural status of the species will remain unclear and the factors threatening it unaddressed.
No other species enjoy more media space here than the tiger. Sundry experts and activists are quoted to create a spectre of poaching every time a dead tiger is found anywhere in the Indian wild. Given that the tiger’s usual lifespan in the wild is around 12 years, at least 100 of India’s 1500-odd tigers are expected to die annually due to natural causes, including territorial fights and starvation due to injury or old age. Most of these dead tigers rot or are scavenged unnoticed.
jay2
Gharials reached the brink of extinction in the 1970s with only around 200 left in the wild. Image: Rajeev Chauhan
Yet, every tiger carcass found is supposed to be the handiwork of poachers. Since tiger bones fetch more money than skin these days, no poacher would leave the skeleton to rot with the gut. While forest officials are notorious for finding a natural reason of death for every dead tiger, this does not justify the other extreme of sensational take-no-chances activism.
These are just three examples of alarmist strategies popular with conservationists and activists alike. To be fair, this has evolved through harrowing experiences of even the most legitimate cases not being heard. Hard facts and logic are often poor tools to garner public support so vital for pushing indifferent policymakers and cold-hearted business interests. So activists try the green equivalent of the military strategy of shock-and-awe to achieve rapid dominance in the public space.
It works, at least spasmodically. A tiger cub or a panda melts a million hearts and keeps raising much more than a million buck. Some of the support gets translated into actionable strategies including legislations etc. But alarmist strategies play on emotions to succeed. The reaction, therefore, is often knee-jerk. So even when such strategies succeed in triggering action by the powers that be, it addresses issues mostly in all sorts of ad hoc manners.
It is easy though to be condescending. If the social consensus seems to be that no species deserve help if it is not in an imminent danger of going extinct, what choice do the green activists have? If only the ends were happy enough to justify these means.

Out Of The Woods?

Are India’s beleaguered tiger populations bouncing back? Is the worst over?

Outlook Traveller, March 2013

Bad news is usually big news. But even good news can become great news if the media suffers from bad news fatigue. The first time tigers made happy headlines since the Sariska wipeout was in 2011 when the second quadrennial all-India tiger census claimed that the numbers had gone up by 12 per cent between 2006 and 2010.
Tired of slamming the government’s conservation failure, the figure-happy media played out the numbers in banner headlines. So, while tigers still make more news when they turn on cattle or people, the media has been 
celebrating tiger booms, big and small, in several reserves since.
So, are our tiger numbers really on the rise? Have we finally been able to turn the tide that wiped out much of India’s tiger population during 2002–2005? Will spotting tigers in the wild become less a matter of chance for tourists?
On its opening page, the 2011 census report by the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) and the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) quoted biologists Richard Hutto and Jock Young: “Any monitoring program is a compromise between science and logistic constraints.” In India, the trade-off is much worse.
Since the 1970s, the forest staff studied pugmarks and counted more tigers per tiger. In 2002, Project Tiger and the WII decided to replace the error-prone pugmark census method with a scientific estimation protocol. But eleven years later, India’s tiger numbers remain equally suspect.
The first all-India tiger estimation (2006–08) report said that “these population estimates have high variances” and would not be used for monitoring trends. They would just about meet the need for “converting a relevant ecological index to a more comprehensible concept of numbers”.
Between 2006 and 2010, those numbers were said to have gone up from 1,411 to 1,706. But in 2011, 13 new areas were added and accounted for a total of 288 tigers. This brings down the actual population gain to just seven tigers, or less than 0.5 per cent. Even that could be reasonably cheered if the count itself was not suspect.
The new estimation method is three-pronged. Phase one is about collecting field data on signs of tiger presence. In the second phase, satellite data is used to assess the habitat. Phase three requires camera traps to be set up in selected pockets for capturing tiger images. This data is then extrapolated to arrive at numbers for larger landscapes.
As early as 2006, a peer review by international experts questioned the feasibility of the massive exercise when there were not even enough GPS sets. It also pointed out that the new method, too, relied on the “integrity of the primary data collectors, data compilers and their supervisors”—the same reasons why the NTCA junked the old pugmark count method.
On the ground, camera trapping was done in small forest patches adding up to 10,000 sq km and this data was extrapolated to obtain tiger numbers for 80,000-90,000 sq km of India’s tiger forests. Worse, the cameras were used for far too long at most locations.
Tigers move across large areas and sampling several small patches within a landscape results in the same tigers getting clicked in different sampling areas. Cameras kept on for too long record many old tigers that die during the estimation process and young ones just passing through. Naturally, such tigers, unlike the surviving resident tigers, are not clicked repeatedly. Since the estimation depends on the numbers of tigers photographed and those clicked more than once, over-exposure leads to overestimation.
If the data was compromised, the analysis was not above board either. On the extrapolation process, the 2006 peer review cautioned that “there is also no detailed write-up of the technical analysis, explicitly identifying the analytical techniques”. The only paper was published on the new protocol, in 2011, and that did not cover the entire method.
For greater transparency, the NTCA in November 2011 began Phase IV of the monitoring process—an annual exercise to be conducted by the state Forest Departments “in collaboration with outside experts/organisations”.

 
 
Camera traps are set up in selected pockets. Cameras kept on for too long record many old tigers that die during the estimation process and young ones just passing through
 
 
So far, less than 25 per cent of tiger reserves have roped in independent organisations such as the Wildlife Conservation Society or Aranyak for Phase IV. As a result, population estimation in most tiger forests is still a sarkari preserve. For example, when Kerala’s Wayanad sanctuary claimed 80 tigers in a 344.44 sq km patch last year, it counted all the tigers shuttling between Bandipur and Nagarhole national parks as local residents. Such travesty of science is likely to continue.
Of course, tiger numbers have gone up in at least ten reserves. Pench in Madhya Pradesh is doing remarkably well with more than 50 tigers. From 26 to 53, Ranthambhore’s tiger population has doubled since 2005. The numbers have been consistently high in Nagarhole-Mudumalai-Bandipur (together around 400), Corbett (200 plus) and Kaziranga (100 plus) while Tadoba in Maharashtra is witnessing a baby boom with 32 cubs. Panna (17) and Sariska (9) are starting again from scratch and can only improve.
But these ten happy reserves make up only about 11 per cent of India’s tiger habitat. The rest draw an indifferent, even grim, picture. Indravati (Chhattisgarh), Palamau (Jharkhand) and Valmiki (Bihar) are controlled by insurgents and security forces. Others, such as Simlipal (Orissa) or Nagarjuna-sagar (Andhra Pradesh), have no objective monitoring mechanism in place. A few, including the famed Kanha (MP), are in fact recording a slide in tiger numbers.
Unfortunately, in the absence of enough wildlife passageways, tigers from the few surplus reserves cannot move to the nearest forests. So, a few plush reserves make no real difference to larger tiger-deficient landscapes. While young tigers routinely walk out of saturated reserves to explore other forest areas, few find safe access. Most end up either getting poached or fuelling man-animal conflict.
Last December, irate villagers made the forest department shoot a tiger for cattle-lifting in Wayanad. Every few months, tigers walk out of Ranthambhore and reach as far as Mathura and Kota. In Uttar Pradesh, between 2008 and 2012, three tigers showed up at Faizabad, Lakhimpur-Kheri and Rehman Khera close to Lucknow. More than 50 people have been killed by tigers near Tadoba since 2006.
But if your interest in tiger numbers depends on your chances of spotting one in the wild, and if you are yet to get over the Supreme Court’s order to gradually phase out tourism from the ‘core critical areas’ of tiger reserves, think again. Each of those ten reserves that are throwing up good tiger numbers is a prime tourist destination, but tourism could not arrest the slide in Madhya Pradesh’s most popular reserve, Kanha.
Instead of numbers, what should really worry conservationists and tourists alike is the big cat’s shrinking range. Even as the official census recorded a 12 per cent rise in tiger numbers between 2006 and 2010, almost 23 per cent of India’s tiger forests were wiped clean of tigers. Cats are prolific breeders and achieving population growth in secure reserves is not a big deal. But restoring tigers in 21,000 sq km of forests—largely in Andhra Pradesh, Orissa and Karnataka—where they went extinct since 2006, will be next to impossible.
If this trend continues, the wild cats will soon vanish from most forests across the country. A few pocket reserves will continue to hold sizeable populations till inbreeding—reproduction within a small closed group—takes its toll. Meanwhile, since entire reserves have been designated as ‘core critical areas’, those tigers may never get to oblige visitors if tourism is eventually taken out of core forests.
If tourists want tigers to show up in lesser forest areas where the industry may eventually shift, they cannot leave the task of defending wildlife corridors only to conservationists anymore. Forest connectivity will benefit wildlife tourism. It will help tigers and other wildlife more.

2013 in the Indian Wild

A red alert from the ministry, a damning report at Bangkok and our killing fields

Tehelka, 15 March, 2013

THE NATIONAL Tiger Conservation Authority sounded a countrywide red alert against poaching last week. On 7 March, a report released at the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species meet in Bangkok extrapolated figures from global seizures to claim more than 100 cases of tiger poaching every year since 2000.

Most of these pelts and bones originate from India, home to more than half of the world’s wild tigers. Leopards are a bigger victim with an estimated 200 poached annually and a large number falling prey to man-animal conflict. Seizures, carcasses and lynch mobs often make headlines, but rarely present the scale of the slaughter that continues despite international attention and domestic initiatives. Barely 10 weeks into 2013, consider the numbers India’s killing fields have to offer this year:
JAN-FEB Uttarakhand Police recover 22 leopard skins and arrest 14 people in different operations.
JAN-MARCH 13 rhinos poached in Assam. Railway tracks claim six elephants.
6 JANUARY Tiger poached on the outskirts of Pench in Maharashtra.
11, 12 JANUARY Raids in Nepal lead to seizures of seven tiger skins and 53 kg of tiger bones, including 140 canines that amount to 35 tigers. Many believe the consignments were from Uttarakhand.
12 JANUARY A problem tigress shot dead near Navegaon in Maharashtra.
13 JANUARY A leopard trapped for the third time in Mumbai’s Aarey Colony.
17 JANUARY A tiger carcass found in the buffer of Pench in Madhya Pradesh.
21 JANUARY A leopard trapped at a village near Palamu, Jharkhand.
24 JANUARY Leopard caught in a cable wire trap near Shiroda in Goa.
27 JANUARY Man arrested for electrocuting a leopard near Panna in MP.
28 JANUARY A sloth bear killed on NH-6 near Navegaon. The same day, a leopard was found dead in Gujarat’s Junagadh.
29 JANUARY Two arrested with wild boar meat from Panna. The same day, a leopard trapped near Siliguri, West Bengal.
2 FEBRUARY Two poachers held with leopard and deer hides in Similipal, Odisha.
4 FEBRUARY Two held with a leopard pelt, two bear gall bladders and a leopard cat pelt near Rudraprayag, Uttarakhand.
7 FEBRUARY Tiger found poisoned in Rajaji National Park, Uttarakhand.
9 FEBRUARY Villagers hang leopard from a tree in Dibrugarh, Assam.
11 FEBRUARY An elephant carcass, probably poached, found in Saranda, Jharkhand.
13 FEBRUARY 15 freshwater turtles recovered from a smuggler in Chandigarh.
15 FEBRUARY Leopard poisoned near Haldwani in Uttarakhand. A dead lioness dumped inside a walled well in Gujarat’s Amreli district.
20 FEBRUARY Four persons, including family members of forest guards, arrested for killing four leopards inside Mumbai’s Sanjay Gandhi National Park.
21 FEBRUARY Three men held with five tiger pelts and a porcupine from Chinhat, Uttar Pradesh. Another held in Mumbai with a leopard skin.
23 FEBRUARY About 30 kg of pangolin scales seized from three men in Uttarakhand.
25 FEBRUARY A leopard trapped in Karnataka’s Hassan district.
26 FEBRUARY Ailing leopard cub dies near Nagpur as a range officer let his family pose with the animal for hours before allowing any medical help. A leopard found dead inside Kanha Tiger Reserve.
27 FEBRUARY Villagers lynch a leopard in Poonch, Jammu & Kashmir.
3 MARCH Two poachers arrested while cooking a leopard cub they hunted near Kumbhalgarh sanctuary in Rajasthan.
4 MARCH Four held for poaching a tiger in Melghat.
6 MARCH Female leopard, fifth since 2011, was knocked dead on NH-6 near Nagzira sanctuary. A leopard was captured in a village near Nagarahole Tiger Reserve.
9 MARCH Man held at Mumbai airport with 97 turtles.
11 MARCH Tiger found dead with signs of bleeding from the nose and the rectum in Sunderbans.
Yet, this is only the tip of the iceberg, because for every killing on this laundry list, at least five went unnoticed. For all the alerts and reports, there is little investment in building a workforce trained to investigate, prosecute and, most importantly, gather field intelligence. If laws and guns alone could save the wild, this count would have been different after four decades of the Wildlife (Protection) Act and a ban on hunting.

Why thriving wildlife trade should not surprise anyone

Guns alone cannot protect our open, crowded forests, we need reliable local intelligence. But before the fight can start, forest bureaucracy must stop denying that poaching exists.

FirstPost, 11 March, 2013 
AUDIOVISUAL LINK
The customary headlines that follow every CITES meeting were reeled out last week after a string of media releases from Bangkok on 7 March. There is global anguish over the shocking numbers — seizures amounting to 1425 dead tigers from 12 tiger range countries between 2000 and 2012, or, more than two killing a week.
The Indian media highlighted the five illegal trading hotspots in Delhi, Kolkata (Sunderbans), Ramnagar (Corbett), Balaghat (Kanha-Pench) and Sathyamangalam (the Western Ghats) which retained its notoriety even after the killing of brigand Veerappan and disbanding of his ivory hunting gang nearly a decade ago.
A spurt in tiger poaching that claimed at least 34 big cats in the first five months of 2012 continues across the country. Since mid-November, three tigers have died of electrocution in live-wire traps set by poachers in and around Bandhavgarh’s Khitoli range. Since mid-January, suspected poisoning has killed four tigers in Karnataka’s Nagarhole. Last week, a one-year-old tigress was rescued from a metal jaw-trap in Dudhwa, Uttar Pradesh, with a damaged paw.
Since 2000, more than two tigers have been poached every week. Pic courtesy: CITES/WWF
Since 2000, more than two tigers have been poached every week. Pic courtesy: CITES/WWF
While tiger mortality usually makes big news, leopards are being taken out at such regularity that making even a guesstimate has become a challenge. Since 2010, six dozen tigers and nearly 500 leopards have fallen to poachers. That is just the official count.
Compared to big cat pelts and bones, rhino horns command a much higher price. After a lull during 1999-2006, the lucrative trade made a strong comeback in Assam. In 2012, more than 22 rhinos were poached. This year’s toll has already reached 10, prompting a shoot-at-sight order against poachers.
Annually, up to 30,000 star tortoises worth several crores of rupees are harvested in our country. An estimated 50-70 per cent of India’s otter population has been hunted for their pelts. The paintbrush industry’s demand for 8-12 quintals of hair has killed more than a million mongooses – only 10-20g hair is obtained from each — since the 1990s.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to protect wild animals with physical vigil unless we convert open forests into fenced-in zoos. Even then, a large number of wildlife will continue to roam outside. The most effective deterrence to poaching is the fear of getting caught, prosecuted and punished. But after four decades of the Wildlife (Protection) Act and a ban on hunting, how are the syndicates still so active?
There are at least three reasons. We are yet to build the capacity to adequately combat poaching; the administration is mostly in denial; and the powers that be have strong incentive to back wildlife trade.
On paper, we have created the Special Tiger Protection Force in a number of reserves. The National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) has even introduced a high-tech thermal imagery system for round-the-clock surveillance last year and proposed to procure drones to watch over remote forest terrain.
But far from compensating for quality human resource, any sophisticated initiative depends on it for success. Yet, there is no initiative to build a motivated, trained and agile workforce and adequately incentivise it for consistent field results.
Every forest administration needs eyes and ears on the ground. Since the average bureaucrat is not a natural sleuth or an earthy man-manager, field officers should be handpicked for wildlife divisions. Every division also needs a dedicated legal cell with trained staff to ensure that cases do not fall through when rare arrests are made. But even six years after the creation of the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau, intelligence gathering and prosecution remains inadequate.
Unsurprisingly, the culture of denial is so deeply embedded in forest bureaucracy that most officers refuse to accept that poachers continue to be a threat in their territory. It is standard practice to play the jurisdiction card and disown animals that step out of park limits. Since officers in charge of less-protected areas neither have the resources to fight poachers nor are expected to, nobody is held accountable for poaching of, say, tigers in the Ramnagar forests adjacent to Corbett or rhinos across the road from Kaziranga.
When a suspicious carcass is found, the management tries to get away by attributing the death to anything — from food poisoning to snake bite – anything short of a suicide. Last year, an internal note of the Environment ministry pointed out that “many cases are straightaway declared as occurring due to natural causes or accidents without a detailed investigation to establish the same,” adding that “every case of tiger and leopard death would be henceforth treated as a case of poaching, unless otherwise proved beyond reasonable doubt”.
But a multi-billion dollar industry cannot bet its fortune on administrative laxity alone. So Veerappan funded political parties in two states for over a decade. Sansar Chand’s famous diary apparently had details of collusion with a number of Delhi’s political big guns. Insurgents protect trees for cover in their forest hideouts but have no qualms clearing Indravati of tigers or Manas of rhinos to fund arms deals.
During the 1980s and 1990s, when a number of prime north-east forests became inaccessible to the administration, more than 550 rhinos were poached. As the law and order condition improved in the late 90s, a shoot-at-sight regime forced an eight-year lull, particularly in Kaziranga, till the 2006 Assembly elections unleashed a cycle of “political reward killing”.
Poachers were back to claim 20 rhinos by 2007. Then again, after the 2009 Lok Sabha elections, around two dozen animals were killed till 2010. In 2011, only one rhino was poached till the Assembly elections in May. Nearly three dozen have been killed since till the Kaziranga administration finally retaliated last Wednesday gunning down two armed poachers.
While shoot-at-sight orders are necessary in places like Kaziranga to match the fire power of former militants joining the trade, this approach suits few other forests in India. Unlike Kaziranga, most of our forests house villages and opening fire at the sight of people in such areas is a recipe for disaster. Building an anti-poaching network based on field intelligence demands a lot of hard work. But there is no alternative if we are serious about protecting our wild.

Bleeding The Chambal Dry

Reckless water hoarding, diversion, sand mining and fishing are killing a pristine river that once used to recast its vast ravines every flood.

Tehelka, 8 March, 2013

FOR CENTURIES, dark, foreboding myths saved the Chambal the fate of India’s other great rivers. The Charmanyavati, describes the Mahabharata, originated from a mountain of dripping leather (charma) after King Rantideva sacrificed thousands of cows. If that was not intimidating enough, Draupadi, distraught by her humiliation after that infamous game of dice, cursed that all who would drink from the Charmanyavati that flowed through Shakuni’s kingdom be damned.
In a culture where rivers are worshipped, such disrepute meant that the Chambal, by all means mightier than the Yamuna, would be slighted as a tributary of the latter. Unsurprisingly, no great cities or shrines came up on its banks. This traditional isolation fostered the badland reputation of the ravines where all manner of black sheep — rebel tribesmen and later bandits — found refuge. But it also helped the Chambal remain one of India’s most pristine rivers.
Even today, it has the highest conservation value among the rivers in the greater Gangetic basin. The Chambal hosts the largest contiguous and most viable breeding populations of the critically endangered gharial and the red-crowned roofed turtle. The river is also one of the most important habitats of the Gangetic dolphin, Indian skimmer, black-bellied tern, sarus crane and a host of endangered turtle species.
One of the choicest wintering sites of migratory birds, the Chambal is also a big contributor of fish stock to the Ganga. For more than a dozen national parks and sanctuaries, such as Ranthambore, Keladevi, Kuno-Palpur, Madhav and Darrah- Mukundra, the river ark is the vital corridor for dispersal of wildlife in an otherwise fragmented forest landscape.
But the Chambal’s splendid isolation, albeit cursed, started to wane after Independence when people living in the arid districts of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh became too desperate. By 1960, the first dam on the river — Gandhi Sagar — was built on the Rajasthan-MP border.
In the next five decades, six major irrigation projects — Rana Pratap Sagar, Jawahar Sagar and Kota Barrage, Parbati Pick-up Weir, Harish Chander Sagar and Gudha Dam — 12 medium, 134 minor and several panchayat-level projects came up in the Chambal basin. There are hundreds more in the pipeline while work continues on several dozens.
The bane of mainstreaming — storage, extraction and diversion of water, sand mining, fishing and riparian cultivation by flattening ravines — is disrupting the Chambal’s water flow (see graphic), polluting and fragmenting its aquatic ecosystem and the forest landscape that support more than 550 species.
Downstream of Kota Barrage, the river now depends entirely on its tributaries, which are mostly seasonal and heavily harvested themselves. The result is an alarming drop in pre-monsoon water flow and the water level (see graphic). So much so that only 10-15 percent of the Chambal’s 435-km-long, high-potential gharial and dolphin habitat between Pali in Rajasthan and Pachnada in Uttar Pradesh retains the minimum depth required for the species during the driest periods between May and July.








The Trickle
Nobody outside the government knows the Chambal’s discharge and flow rates. It is part of the Gangetic basin, which makes the data classified. So, nobody can tell if the Central Water Commission’s 1992 guideline, that the minimum flow in a river should not be less than the average of 10 days’ minimum flow in its natural state, is being followed while harvesting huge volumes of Chambal water in the name of helping farmers.
Between 1990 and 2007, the average quantity of water used for irrigation by Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh through Gandhi Sagar Dam and Kota Barrage decreased by 22.6 percent and 41.4 percent, respectively, while the use of water for industrial purpose increased by around 300 percent. By 2003, almost 41 percent of all water use was non- irrigational. The impact is evident.
At Kherli village, around 40 km downstream from Kota Barrage, farmers are happy that they get enough canal water from the barrage during the October-February crop season. Less than a kilometre away at Bhakto ka Ghat, one can walk across the knee-deep waters of the Chambal that is barely 15 m wide. “The river’s level will go down by another foot or so by the end of summer, but it never dries up,” assures a farmer in between dips in the canal water.
Of course, it doesn’t. Base flow or groundwater surge keeps big rivers trickling even in the worst of times. Besides, the run-off from the agricultural fields also reaches the Chambal. The irony is not lost on an elderly villager watching the lush fields: “Now, the Chambal waits for a few drops of its own water to flow back via canals and fields. Can you believe we needed boats to cross the river here when I was young?”
The sad trickle continues downstream of Kota Barrage till the Kali Sindh contributes some water. The still narrow and shallow stream gains some respectability at Pali where the Parbati joins in. “At the confluence last April, the depth of Parbati was 3.7 m while the Chambal was just 0.6 m deep. The Parbati’s flow was 0.4 foot per second, the Chambal’s was zero,” says wildlife biologist Niladri Dasgupta, who has been studying the river.
Graphic: Naorem Ashish
Click to Zoom
A river’s health depends on the quality and quantity of its water. Barring a few stretches — for example, Rajasthan’s Kota-Keshoriapatan belt where a minor tributary brings industrial effluents — the Chambal’s water is of an enviable ‘A’ category as per the Central Pollution Control Board standards. It is the water quantity — water depth and flow — that threatens the river ecology.
According to studies conducted by the Wildlife Institute of India (WII), the Chambal’s water flow receded to as low as 16.38 cubic metres (or 16,380 litres) per second during June-July in 2009. The average lean flow of the Chambal is 58.53 m3/sec in April. For a perspective, compare this with the peak monsoon flow of 2,074.28 m3/sec in August. The lean flow works out to be less than 3 percent of the peak flow.
“This never happens in a natural system. The dams and irrigation canals were meant for utilising surplus monsoon water. But these projects refuse to release any water in the river channel during the summer months,” explains Dr Rajiv Chauhan, an Etawah-based wildlife biologist who red-flagged the mysterious epidemic that killed around 100 gharials in 2007-08.
Even the overall flow in the Chambal has been showing an annual slide of 3.4 percent since the 1990s. The WII’s Chambal studies statistically established that river depth decreases with a fall in river flow. The minimum flow and depth required for gharials is 151 m3/sec and 5 m while Gangetic dolphins, India’s national aquatic animal, need at least 266.42 m3/sec flow and 7 m deep waters. By 2011, gharials were losing half of their Chambal habitat during February-June, while dolphins found themselves out of depth as early as November.
When riverine habitat shrinks, it also gets fragmented, trapping aquatic animals in relatively deeper segments of the riverbed called pools. Being territorial, gharials don’t leave their own areas for longer stretches of deeper waters. In such a scenario, starvation is a distinct possibility as animals are trapped in pools too small to sustain them with enough fish stock. There are instances when dolphins inadvertently reached shallow waters chasing fish and got fatally stuck.
Shallow waters allow increased human interference, including access to otherwise inaccessible nesting islands. Confined in pools, the animals become vulnerable to secondary threats, such as local contamination, blast fishing or poaching.
Poor river flow also alters the natural morphology of deep pools. Dams restrict siltation and sand deposition downstream, limiting breeding sites of ground-nesting species such as gharials, skimmers and turtles. To make matters worse, dams conveniently release unseasonal water, often during nesting periods, drowning sandbanks and river islands formed by the sediments carried by the Chambal’s tributaries.



The Damage
It is no paradox that gharials, the most charismatic species of the Chambal, are more visible here than ever. An acute decline in their numbers during 1999- 2006 saw the reptile’s status being changed to “critically endangered”. But in spite of losing more than a hundred gharials to a mysterious epidemic in 2007-08, the Chambal population has not dipped below the 1,100-mark — simply because too many young gharials are being released here under a re-stocking programme.
While the focus of Project Crocodile’s rear-and-release strategy was on egg collection and returning juvenile gharials to the wild, little attention has been paid to improving field conditions. Never mind that wherever habitat loss and other threats finished off a gharial population, no restocking could revive the species. After more than 5,000 juveniles were released countrywide, gharials are still breeding only where they had a residual population to begin with.
“More than two-thirds of the world’s wild gharials are in the Chambal. This population needs to stabilise naturally to give us a correct picture. The available financial and human resources should be invested in securing the habitat, not to keep filling it up artificially,” says Tarun Nair, who has been studying the gharials.
Uttar Pradesh has abandoned the rear-and-release strategy but replaced it with the practice of covering the nests with thorny branches or nets. But barriers don’t let other females nest and even stop hatchlings from emerging when forest staff forget to remove the covers in time. Experts, including Nair, recommend in-situ protection of entire nesting sites rather than individual nests.
On both banks of the final 600-km stretch of the river, a total of 1,810 sq km was notified as the tri-state National Chambal Sanctuary (NCS) by Uttar Pradesh (1979), Madhya Pradesh (1982) and Rajasthan (1983). But illegal sand mining continues to be rampant along the Chambal, particularly in the Rajasthan-Madhya Pradesh stretch (see graphic). The Banas, an important tributary, is also scarred by mining.
Sand mining is by far the most serious threat to the nesting habitat of gharials and turtles. Even for basking, gharials prefer sand banks for the moisture it provides. Stone quarrying — both manual and using dynamite — is also common in the upper sections of the Chambal and is destroying key otter habitat.
Unlike mining, which affects reproduction rates, gill nets, hook-lines and dynamite used for illegal fishing (see graphic) along the Chambal kill gharials, dolphins and other species. Juvenile gharials are particularly susceptible to gill nets. During a field survey conducted by the NGO TigerWatch in 2009, volunteers recorded 97 fishermen catching 10-200 kg fish daily in a 110-km stretch downstream of Pali. Apart from entangling gharials and dolphins, fishing in such quantities takes away the prey from aquatic predators.
Farmers are no less an adversary. Riverbank agriculture, involving flattening of ravines with earthmovers, is altering the Chambal’s ecosystem. Thousands of these squatters have set up noisy pumps to directly extract water from the river for their agricultural plots. Oil leaks from these pumps and use of chemical fertiliser and pesticides so close to the river are now endangering the very purity of the Chambal.
Since ravines are considered wasteland, the loss of this unique habitat does not even register with the policymakers. Ravines act as flood barriers and stop aquatic animals from drifting far from the river during floods. Rapid replacement of ravines with agriculture also compromises the Chambal’s corridor value so critical for forest connectivity in the landscape.
Unfortunately, the capacity of three state forest departments to protect the NCS is woefully inadequate. The only motorised boats are available with the Madhya Pradesh forest department. In Uttar Pradesh, the recent mass transfers of the ground staff has left no experienced hands in the field. Sources in the department claim that collusion between a section of the ground staff and fishermen is making it tough to stop illegal fishing despite the best efforts of the top brass.
Rajasthan, the least equipped of the three states to protect the Chambal’s riverine ecology, has recently requisitioned a few motorised boats. When contacted, Forest Minister Bina Kak assured that she would soon shift the headquarters of her department’s Chambal unit from Sawai Madhopur to a more strategic location in Dholpur.
But effective protection will be impossible unless range offices are created for every 50-km stretch with permanent guard posts at every 10 km of the 600- km-long sanctuary. Capacity building and better infrastructure is also essential for a change in the defensive mindset. Reports of a dozen gharial deaths “with 2007-like symptoms” near Etawah in UP in the recent past has so far elicited the familiar response: denial of any crisis.

The Bottomline
For any management input to work, the Chambal must have enough water. Since the declaration of the NCS in the early 1980s, several lift-irrigation and other developmental projects have come up in gross disregard of the law, without either Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) reports or green clearances.
Any project within 10 km of a sanctuary goes to the National Board for Wildlife for clearance. But the bypasses are many. For example, the 2008 EIA report of the Dholpur water-lift project mentioned that the lift is 18 km away from the Van Vihar sanctuary, conveniently omitting the fact that the river itself is a sanctuary. It went on to claim, “As there is no significant flora and fauna in or around Chambal river, there should also not be any ecological impacts from the increase in (water) abstraction.”
Weighing against this was a WII report that warned, “extraction of water through the proposed Dholpur lift will reduce the optimal habitat of the gharial to almost 20.5 percent and of the dolphin to almost 0 percent in the months of March and April”. Yet, the lift is in place, feeding drinking and irrigation water to places as far as Bharatpur.
Of the three major tributaries of the Chambal, the Banas already loses much of its water to dozens of irrigation projects. The proposed linking project to connect and take water from three dams — Patanpur on Parbati, Mohanpura on Newaj and Kundaliya at Kali Sindh river — to either the Gandhi Sagar or Rana Pratap Sagar reservoir will deny Chambal its other two lifelines.
In modern times, environmental water requirements are considered a compromise between water resource development and the maintenance of a river at ecologically acceptable conditions. Since different ecological functions require different flow types, a river needs a range of lean period flows, rather than a fixed minimum flow. To maintain the habitat suitability of gharials and dolphins in the Chambal, indicate WII studies, a minimum flow range of 151-266 m3/sec is necessary.
It is only fair that the mighty river that gathers more than 10 times its minimum flow requirement during monsoons is allowed its essential share during the lean months. For that, adequate quantities of water have to be released from the Kota Barrage and other dams in the Chambal basin. Given the current water deficit, no new projects — be it river-linking or lift irrigation — is viable on this river or in its basin as any additional harvesting of water will have to be compensated by releasing water from, or lowering the capacity of the existing projects.
Consigned to a policy blackhole with little public attention, the Chambal can’t expect this turnaround to come easy. The river that made good of an ancient curse may yet choke under the “blessing” that is development.