Vidya Athreya - Session 03, 2020-07-09

(00:00) Working with Ghule, change in perspective Athreya shares more details about her work with Ashok Eknath Ghule at Akole, and discusses how her perspective changed in the time she spent there. She talks about how Ghule, as a local farmer, brought a different perspective compared to her urban biologist one; discusses how Ghule’s knowledge of the people and leopards informed her, giving the example of camera traps; says there was a lot of humour in his perspective, unlike hers which was serious and focussed on the conflict. Reflects on spending time with the locals which she realised in retrospect made people more receptive to her work.

[00:04:45 - 00:06:00 – Restricted access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in]

(06:51) Social Scientists Athreya discusses how the Norwegian project made her realise the importance of social science studies in human-wildlife conflict, mentioning John Linnell. Recounts her discovery of Waghoba and the realisation that people revered leopards; also noticed how political ecology and social power played into the resolution of these conflicts. Athreya explains that she was cautious about who was recruited because they could ruin her relationship with the locals built over several years; talks about recommending recruiting Sunetro Ghoshal through a recommendation by Janaki Lenin, as he was a naturalist and a social scientist; says one needs to know about both animals and humans to study their relationship. Athreya also delves into the importance of qualitative rather than quantitative questionnaires for social analysis, recounting her experiences with the Lisu people of Namdapha, Ghoshal’s research into the attitudes and beliefs of both believers and non-believers of Waghoba, and her own work in Himachal Pradesh; she is still trying to convince her colleagues to realise the importance of social scientists.

[00:10:16 - 00:10:46 – Restricted access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in]

(18:58) Perception and context in wildlife-human conflict Athreya talks about the expansion in her interests from studying leopards to studying human-leopard relationships; interdisciplinary thinking in her opinion is rare in India, but she saw it a lot in the IUCN task force on human wildlife conflict; talks about the need for vocal social scientists, and mentions the work of elephant biologist Anand Kumar; reflects on her own successes by saying, you have to be aggressive to be heard in this field of large cats and large wild mammal biologists.

Athreya also talks about how the human-wildlife conflict is an issue of perception, comparing the divergent experiences with big carnivores in Norway and India to argue that it is not the extent of material damages but what is believed to be damage, and the context of the area’s relationship with the wild, that determines the course of the conflict; this is why India accepts much higher damages from leopards than Norway does from wolves. Athreya says that if the conflict is ‘in the mind of the people’ then it is really vital to know what ‘what it is about the people’ that creates it; says humans are easier to understand than animals, especially because we have no insight into leopard cultures and society, and no unanimous agreement that they exist. Athreya also elaborates on how context shapes human-wildlife interaction; talks about the colonial ‘lens of claws and fangs’ because white colonists had never lived with large carnivores; says that when they saw these animals in their native habitats, their mindset was ‘one of removal’ and against shared spaces, even amongst biologists.

(27:02) Engagement with the Forest Department; Translocation of leopards Athreya discusses her personality being advantageous to her work as officers would treat her like an ‘agony aunt’ and confess insider, and sometimes illegal, information to her; attributes this to her quality of being a ‘neutral listener’ who hears without judgement and talks about the importance of being respectful to everybody regardless of disagreements; gives various examples of such interactions with forest officers and says that officers would do what was easiest, in the ‘Indian jugaad style’ given the immense complexity of their work much outside the remit of what they have signed up to do.

Athreya also scrutinises the efforts to stop translocation, saying that while they have stopped in Bombay because of public pressure the same cannot be said for rural landscapes, where political pressure makes it easier to capture leopards even when the Forest Department knows it is illegal and dangerous; expresses that her colleagues still disagree with her research and advocate translocation of leopards that they then collar. Athreya also discusses the interplay of the government, the public, and media. She explains that for the public to recognise other solutions extensive work is required from NGOs which is why change could be implemented in Bombay; suggests that the lack of long-term media engagement in rural areas vis-a-vis media schools and wildlife beats in urban areas also made the change disbalanced. She delves into the extensive legal empowerment of the forest department, but posits that after the 1980s it became easier to give in to calls for capture, even though trap cages were very expensive; says that if the administration was allowed to work by the book it could stop translocation; opines that the shift in the 1980s was the increasing political power of the local people which while good overall, was bad for leopard-human conflicts.

(37:23) Translocation and Generalisation in Ecological Research Athreya elucidates how she came to the conclusion that translocation was the problem. She mentions a paper on stress in captive cats caused by transfers; talks about veterinarians from whom she learnt about capture myopathy in deer and rabbits (death caused by severe stress as a result of pursuit, capture or transportation); discusses Aniruddha Belsare’s method of isolating the leopards after tranquiliser darts hit to prevent stimulus and stress from changing the animal’s physiology; and talks about her observations of stress in even domestic cats; says that while the stress of translocation does not inevitably lead to animals killing people, it increases the possibility.

Athreya goes on to contemplate how general recommendations should be made with animals that are so individually distinct. She says that she disagrees with people who claim that site-specific recommendations are necessary because laws require ‘generalities’, even in the human context – how we cannot say human communities are specific so laws and policy need to be at each village level – we need to have laws and policy that are broad based; briefly discusses how formal research techniques like microchipping were the primary source for guidelines only at Junnar. Athreya outlines the four generalities in a successful conservation project that she drew from the ‘Living with Leopards’ project in Bombay [SGNP, Mumbai]: basic knowledge, better training and capacity building for the relevant agency, partnerships, and engagements with all the stakeholders.

(46:02) Knowledge in conservation in the Bombay project [Living with Leopards] Athreya talks about the kinds of knowledge dissemination in conservation, differentiating between the kinds of knowledge relevant for urban contexts as compared to the rural context. She explains that knowledge was created differently, in 2 sets; in awareness sessions for the people, biological knowledge was conveyed in simple and direct guidelines, and in workshops for the media they prioritised good visuals and stories that fascinated the public and portrayed the animal in a positive light.

Athreya examines her view of why the Bombay Project was so successful. She attributes it to the fact that it was both transparent and inclusive; meetings were open to all and everyone was invited to contribute in whichever way they chose to the camera trapping and awareness building activities. She explains that the Bombay project had to be a collaborative project; Athreya credits the ‘stature’ of the forest officer of Mumbai at the time, Sunil Limaye, for giving them access to the police, and also credits his efforts to improve training; she says that communicating with housing societies as an individual was difficult, and it was important at the time for every NGO working on the issue to send out the same message, therefore the forest department’s involvement was necessary to be the leader and enact meaningful change, and once again the individual in-charge, Limaye, was vital to the process.

(52:08) Relationship with the Media Athreya discusses her relationship with the media during the collaring project at Akole; mentions that she never interacted with media persons during the project; describes her trepidation before the media workshops after the project on account of an injured leopard having been photographed in a house, but says that after the workshop they briefly discussed the incident and it did not become an issue; explains her change in perception regarding the media and the subsequent increase in her interactions with it; briefly talks about Arti Kulkarni’s movie on the leopard crisis. Athreya further discusses the substance of the workshops; she spoke as a biologist and Limaye as the management, and both points of view were necessary to engage with the media. Athreya also assesses the response to these workshops, mentioning her paper on the content analysis of headlines that found a change in framing.

Athreya also discusses the 2014 film Ajoba directed by Sujay Dahake; says her contribution was to provide all the material that was requested; assesses the effectiveness of this form of communication in human-wildlife conflict especially in the way it provides a positive image of the animal; and also critiques the film for not choosing a ‘more powerful female actress from the local Marathi movie industry’ and not exploring the biologists engagement with locals.