‘The Vanishing’ Delves Into the Politics Behind Decisions That Impact Animals

Usually, books about decision-making tend to centre around foreign policy, economics and realpolitik. The Vanishing marks a fresh addition to the genre in the wildlife and environmental space.

Books about decision-making usually tend to centre around foreign policy, economics and realpolitik. The Vanishing marks a fresh addition to the genre in the wildlife and environmental space.

Elephants in Odisha. Credit: Aditya Chandra Panda

Early on in The Vanishing you meet Abhimanyu and Ganesh. They are joined by Master Bull. These are not the names of people, but male elephants in Odisha’s little-known Chandaka sanctuary. This is a good way to perceive Prerna Singh Bindra’s The Vanishing: you are likely to encounter more named wild animals than people, with stories set in remote but astounding places. The author’s loyalties lie with the natural world rather than the built one, encircled by harsh political realities.

Narrating case-studies of decisions impacting wild animals – like the royal Bengal Tiger, the Indian one-horned rhinoceros, the great Indian bustard, the Bengal florican and the olive ridley turtle – Bindra delves into the politics behind decision-making. Usually, books about decision-making tend to centre around foreign policy, economics and realpolitik, this book marks a fresh addition to the genre in the wildlife and environmental space.

Bindra is a wildlife conservationist and a writer, and she served on the National Board for Wildlife – which appraises projects near protected areas – from 2010 to 2013. She narrates the story as someone who has been a (sometimes effective/ sometimes ineffective) crusader for wildlife; this dichotomy jumbles the book’s tone and can confuse the lay reader. But she has some excellent examples of botched decision-making to quote from, and the processes – or lack of them – behind deciding the fate of acres of forests, rivers and habitat.

She doesn’t hesitate to name names. In 2011, the environment ministry’s “top wildlife official” Jagdish Kishwan said that projects that come to the Wildlife Board should not consider elephant reserves and corridors. This was to set the tone for further deterioration. Even the ministry in charge of wildlife seemed to be washing its hands off it.

“It was also clear that Jairam Ramesh was under a lot of pressure. He had refused some big-ticket projects that were detrimental to wildlife… he had taken on the coal industry… Ramesh admitted that the PM admonished him on more than one occasion that ‘while ecological security is all very well, what India needs is rapid economic growth.”

The issue is not just of valuing development or wildlife but also a lack of compliance of environmental laws. This deliberate disdain for due diligence towards environment impact assessments continues in the Modi government, the author holds. Projects that had been rejected on grounds of harming protected areas and species kept coming back on the table. She questions the GDP-based “growth at any cost” model, asking why nature is not valued more. Some tragicomic examples highlight the randomness – and persistence – of projects which are perceived to be for the greater good and national interest.

Prerna Singh Bindra <br /> <em>The Vanishing: India's Wildlife Crisis</em><br /> Penguin, 2017

Prerna Singh Bindra
The Vanishing: India’s Wildlife Crisis
Penguin, 2017

Bindra writes about how she was conned into going for site clearances for a cement plant by Jaypee near Kaimur in Bihar during her Wildlife Board tenure. Ironically, the highly polluting project, which was sub judice, had already been constructed without requisite and statutory clearances. “The land on which the factory was proposed was forest land. The environment clearance granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests was on ‘wrong grounds, supporting the interest of Jaypee Associates’. Nor had the company bothered with legal procedures under forest and wildlife laws but had squatted on it, constructed the plant, flattening trees, paving roads – the works,” Bindra writes.

Another thermal plant by Jaypee, also near Kaimur, had started construction without wildlife clearances.

Other examples seem like unintentional jokes with far-reaching consequences. A viscose factory, near Karnala bird sanctuary, was touted as being for the greater good. Why viscose, and in that particular place, Bindra asks, stating that the fate of projects is decided in “less than the time needed to cook Maggi instant noodles”.

In India, projects that divert forest land or adversely impact wildlife are meant to have ‘mitigation measures’. These measures are usually towards ensuring the persistence of a target species, and for habitat restoration. Bindra mentions a classic case of mitigation with no common sense.

“I recall the discussion of a proposed bridge over a riverine sanctuary, with dolphins as its flagship species. Conditions proposed included building speed-breakers on the bridge, so as to avoid accidents with wild animals of the sanctuary. Such touching concern was misplaced, unless the sanctuary’s Gangetic dolphins had evolved to stroll on roads!”

She also establishes, through many examples, how project developers frequently lie. In a post-truth world with set agendas, it is even more ominous that propaganda takes over fair decision-making and project appraisal. NTPC, for instance, professed complete ignorance when it was found that a dam they were making would submerge parts of a sanctuary in Kol in Himachal Pradesh. A proposal for land diversion for Keladevi sanctuary in Rajasthan omitted stating that Keladevi sanctuary was part of the much better-known Ranthambhore tiger reserve, and would impact it. Maps for many projects were wrong, and distances from the project sites to wildlife sanctuaries were misrepresented. Bindra writes how a wildlife official told the CBI (during a probe into granting iron and manganese mining leases to JWS Steel) that officials were instructed to withdraw any information which would hurt a project’s prospects, as “the job of the wildlife board was to make sure project clearances were obtained”.

It is in these portions – that detail specific instances of destructive projects and dissent – that the book shines, throwing almost too much information at you in a rushed, breathless manner. The chapters India’s Notional Board for Wildlife and Failing our Gods are easily the best in the book.

Failing our Gods is both about elephants and people. Set in Odisha, it focuses on elephant men – a squad who watch pachyderms to prevent their direct confrontation with people. Here, a vivid portrait is drawn of the commitment of ground staff, their sense of humour towards their odd, tiring but emotionally-fulfilling job; also detailing how the elephants, stuck in an inhospitable landscape may be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. The stress strikes both man and beast, and Bindra asks if we can take the elephant’s point of view for better conservation planning.

It is when the book tries to give a more holistic picture of conservation that it seriously falters. And while we have richness of detail, the book may also make perplexing reading. It is difficult to fathom if it is envisaged as a call to action or as a chronicle of human hamartia, often containing adjacent sentences of hope and despair in an inconsistent tenor.

Author Prerna Singh Bindra. Credit: Twitter

Author Prerna Singh Bindra. Credit: Twitter

Bindra is a traditional conservationist, in that she believes in the beauty, grace and goodness of animals and the inalienable nature of wilderness. This construct of wilderness is one that has come under serious scrutiny of late. It is suggested that there is no real wilderness, and even wild spaces have been shaped by people; thus it follows that we need to preserve ecological processes rather than romanticised notions of wild, open spaces. Bindra’s narrative is intensely more emotive and personal than titles like Making Conservation Work (Shahabuddin and Rangarajan), which provide research insights on species, or George Monbiot’s Feral which makes an objective call for re-wildling, with little personification of wildlife.

There is nothing wrong in traditional notions of the goodness and beauty of animals, but the anthropomorphisation may tire an ecologically minded reader. Bindra describes wet-eyed elephants, graceful tigresses, and hard-working turtles trying to lay their eggs on disturbed beaches: “turtle moms are fussy about their nests,” she says. Some of her descriptions are hyperbolic and the characterisation of people is also in binaries, a problematic aspect for a book on conservation. Those living near wildlife are broadly characterised as forest-dwellers wanting to leave the forest, possessing a sweet acceptance of wildlife; and others as killing animals with bloodlust.

The fact is, India is dealing with both issues, and there is an active lobby which believes tribals should stay in forests, even if they do not have wildlife conservation as a goal. It would be befitting for a book on conservation to address the Forest Rights Act and its connotations for forest-dwellers. Nuances on animal behaviour also require understanding nuances on human behaviour, particularly if the two overlap spatially. Other contemporary issues, such as states wanting to cull animals, climate change and increasing artificial translocation of animals as a management tool, find minimum or no space in the book; and that makes it slightly dated.

But this is still an important book. It straddles personal account with journalism, and more than anything is a relevant documentation of India’s decision-making for wildlife and environment. Tigers don’t vote, but Bindra hints, more than lightly, that they should play a far more important role in India’s destiny.

Neha Sinha is a Delhi-based conservationist.

Q&A: A Plastic Ocean – Can a Movie Help Us See This Invisible Crisis?

“It’s the images that sell a film, if you don’t have those, you’re dead in the water. So we thought, what about the effects on big charismatic animals, the baleen whales that feed on plankton?”

It’s the images that sell a film, if you don’t have those, you’re dead in the water. So we thought, what about the effects on big charismatic animals, the baleen whales that feed on plankton?

Plastic pollution a water body. Credit: olenalavrova/shutterstock

Plastic pollution a water body. Credit: olenalavrova/shutterstock

Scientists have warned about the dangers of plastic pollution and microplastics in the environment for a while now. But most people still aren’t convinced of the link between carelessly discarding a water bottle and damage in the seas. After all, plastic in the ocean doesn’t have the powerful symbolism of nuclear plants or oil spills: most of it is below the waves, often invisible to the naked eye.

A new documentary feature film, A Plastic Ocean, wants to change all that. It follows several popular films on the oceans that have successfully shifted attitudes and even shaped legislation. The End of the Line triggered a wave of media attention on unsustainable fishing practices, while SeaWorld finally agreed to halt its orca breeding programme after the “Blackfish effect”.

I’m a media sociologist specialising in science communication. As part of my research I recently spoke to the movie’s producer, former BBC Blue Planet producer Jo Ruxton. She discusses the film, and her hopes that it will create a cultural shift in public perceptions and behaviour concerning plastic pollution.

Lesley Henderson: You’ve always been interested in the ocean through your work as a filmmaker and have spent several years living on islands around the world. Was there something specific that prompted you to create this film?

Jo Ruxton: I’d heard about the so-called “Great Pacific Garbage Patch”, a floating continent twice the size of Texas and ten metres deep. I started looking into it but couldn’t find any pictures or anything on Google Earth. I went out to the centre of the North Pacific to look for it on an expedition with scientists and volunteers and but we still couldn’t see it.

Then we started to do surface plankton trawls about 400 miles off San Francisco just to see what was in there. The closer we got to the centre the more plastic we found. Every trawl was coming up jam-packed with plastics but when you actually looked out on the water you could hardly see anything. There were a few floating bits around but it certainly wasn’t a ten metre deep continent.

I talked to the scientists and found out that plastic becomes very brittle in sea water because it’s subjected to sunlight, waves and salt and it takes about 20 years to get from the coast to the centre. It breaks up until it’s smaller and smaller and now of course it’s mixing with the plankton. That to me was a much more insidious story because if it’s mixing with the plankton it’s clearly getting into the food chain which can’t be good for the plankton and the fish that are feeding on it.

A group of sperm whales recently stranded in Germany were starving – their stomachs were full of plastic. Credit: Christian Charisius/EPA

A group of sperm whales recently stranded in Germany were starving – their stomachs were full of plastic. Credit: Christian Charisius/EPA

LH: So were there particular visual challenges of filming microplastics? How did you overcome these?

JR: It’s the images that sell a film, if you don’t have those, you’re dead in the water. So we thought, what about the effects on big charismatic animals, the baleen whales that feed on plankton? We used interesting scientists: seeing a woman walk along the side of the jetty with a crossbow slung over her shoulder and finding out she’s a professor about to go and shoot dolphins to take blubber samples makes you sit up and watch.

Another scientist was doing night dives and trawls looking at lantern fish travelling up from the depths and finding pieces of plastic in their stomachs. The visual images of squid hunting at night in torch light are quite special. To get people interested it was a case of finding the right animals, getting the images, and getting some fun stuff in there including “boys toys” like a submersible.

LH: How did you approach presenting the scientific information about the risks to human health posed by microplastics?

JR: We used lay people (champion free diver Tanya Streeter and journalist Craig Leeson) to ask the questions. Though we’ve really simplified the science, every statement we make has been backed by peer-reviewed papers.

Tanya Streeter checking the health of a reef in Fiji. Credit: David Jones, Author provided

Tanya Streeter checking the health of a reef in Fiji. Credit: David Jones, Author provided

This link between chemicals leaching out of plastics and plastics attracting chemicals was particularly difficult to explain. Tuvalu was the most important sequence: here was a place drowning under its own plastic waste. They’re just burning it, and kids are playing with bonfires as they come home from school. We filmed a family group of 30 and five had cancer and two more had died of it in the previous 18 months. We know that furans and dioxins have been linked to cancer and we know that those gases are produced when we burn plastic but no one’s linked the two.

LH: In the film you show deposit schemes in Germany where people receive money for recycling plastic bottles – was part of your aim to try to create value for plastic?

JR: The movie has for key messages: it’s about health, value, charismatic animals and it’s about the environment. I care about all four but even if people don’t care about their own health they might care about money, if they don’t care about people and the environment then they care about money.

LH: Why a feature documentary film rather than other forms of media or education?

JR: There are a lot of short films on the internet but I think there is now more of an appetite for big environmental films. The End of the Line brought huge change, the whole Hugh’s Fish Fight changed policy in Europe, Blackfish too – it’s not just the tree huggers who are going to see it. An Inconvenient Truth was basically a power point presentation but was powerful enough to get a lot of people sitting up and thinking.

So why not have one about plastic pollution? It is a growing concern, we’re finding out more and more about it and perhaps this is the way forward. I can go and give lectures to 100 people at a time but a successful film can reach many more people.

LH: How do you envisage that audiences will engage with A Plastic Ocean?

JR: I think it will be an eye opener. One of the reasons environmental films are so hard to get commissioned is because they’re very doom and gloom. It’s people who already care who come and watch them and they come out feeling like they’ve been punched in the stomach and guilty every time they eat a fish or start the car up. But the last 20 minutes of this film is dedicated to “what we can do” in terms of legislation, technology, or changes in our behaviour.

LH: So what you’re trying to do is trigger a cultural change?

JR: Yes cultural change is probably the biggest thing along with legislation. If there is an oil spill it’s all hands on deck to clean it up and restore the habitat. If plastic was reclassified as hazardous that’s exactly what we would be doing: restoring habitats and doing something positive with all that plastic.

The Conversation

Lesley Henderson is Senior Lecturer in Sociology & Communications, Institute for Environment, Health & Societies, Brunel University London.

This article was originally published on The Conversation.