Vidya Athreya - Session 05, 2020-07-21

(00:00) Conservation and Animal Welfare Athreya discusses her engagement with animal welfare issues and organisations in her work. Highlights the difference in priorities and approaches between conservation science and animal welfare; says that biologists’ reliance on scientific metrics combined with their dismissal of animal welfare concerns leads to them losing an important ally in their work; explains that in her experience conservation cannot be separated from animal welfare, and there should not be a ‘dichotomy’ between the two. Discusses the implementation of recommendations such as euthanization; says that the actions of officers are determined by individual, complex, and subjective values and concerns that are beyond the scope of debate between animal welfare or conservation.

[Interruption from 00:04:51 to 00:05:12]

(06:57) Approach to fieldwork in conservation science Athreya talks about the importance of empathy in conservation science fieldwork. Disagrees with the notion that tensions with locals could be avoided if conservation scientists were local to the problem areas they worked in; talks about her early attempts at blending in with the locals and eventual realisation that that was not possible, and that her relationships with the locals could be formed due to her insistence on engaging with them as equals, and her honesty about the usefulness of her project. Analyses the drawbacks of the ‘hypothesis testing’ methodology taught to conservation students; suggests that in relatively new fields like shared spaces, conservation scientists need to be willing to unlearn textual knowledge, accept new knowledge from their interactions with locals, and admit their mistakes.

(13:03) Role of science in conservation decision-making; Power and bias in conservation science Athreya addresses the importance of science in conservation decision-making; says that science is trumped by politicians and power holders in different offices, with Norway and India as examples; talks about science’s ability to influence decision-making by altering public perception through the use of media; points out that even though science should ideally play a major role in decision-making, scientists can be biased and also subject to power relationships in society, and ‘blinkered scientists’ will not provide good solutions.

Athreya goes on to deliberate on the structure of power in conservation science; says that while scientists and locals are the least powerful and politicians the most, conservation scientists act as ‘catalysts’ in addressing issues, and can achieve change by liasoning with more powerful stakeholders like the Forest Department or even local communities. Delves into the agency of an individual in this structure through the example of Sanjay Sondhi, founder of the Titli Trust in Uttarakhand; says that even non-scientists can be effective as a ‘catalyst’ in the field as long as they make use of good science.

(21:36) Science and perception Athreya talks more deeply about how biases inform science. Considers how scientists bring ‘baggage’ to their study - for wildlife students the ‘baggage’ is confining the study of wildlife to wild spaces devoid of humans; talks about protected areas and their contentious historical relationship with indigenous people; cites the issue of elephants in shared spaces and says that most scientists’ interpretations of elephant behaviour are informed by preconceived notions of protected areas rather than research, and such suggestions become the basis for policy; comments that the personal relationships of scientists with officers are more important than research when it comes to making policy. Athreya deliberates on the ability to move away from one’s ‘baggage’ by being ‘humble, open-minded and questioning’; says that some men find this particularly difficult, elaborating that they are particularly ‘close-minded, opinionated, and political’; adds that it marks the distinction between a ‘good’ and ‘bad’ scientist. [Interruption from (26:36) to (26:59)].

(27:22) Changes in her worldview Athreya reflects on how her worldview has changed over the years by unlearning textbook knowledge from wildlife biology, interacting with locals, and listening to forest officers for a better understanding of their concerns and pressures. Recounts her first report from Junnar which recommended leopards be removed from crop lands, and how she changed her mind because of new knowledge from scientists and locals. Talks about how even her early wildlife work was not in ‘pristine landscapes’, recalling her interactions with Sabri Muthu, an indigenous person from Topslip, at Anamalai in 1989; and discusses the forced relocation of indigenous people from protected areas as a function of political pressure leading to lack of enforcement, and indifference to cultural and natural heritage in the Indian establishment, both conservation and administrative.

(35:03) Gender and conservation science Athreya talks about the difficulty of being a woman in carnivore biology, the small number of female field biologists, and how she needed Ullas Karanth’s support to secure funding to enable a large-scale project. Describes a prevailing ‘macho’ narrative of wildlife biology fieldwork that prioritises ‘pristine landscapes’ and excludes locals and ‘contentious conflicts’, and how it negatively impacts behaviour in the field. Talks about her hopes for the younger generation of conservation scientists to change this status quo due to their greater social awareness and access to knowledge. Explains how the first generation of conservation scientists in India, like AJT Johnsingh, were primarily influenced by Western ideas, but the work done by her and her contemporaries has expanded the discipline and allowed young conservation scientists to have access to ‘more narratives, more exposure [and] more resources’.

(40:49) Conservation as a global enterprise Athreya discusses her experiences with the globalisation of conservation science. Mentions that her projects relied on foreign funding; talks about the contributions of John Linnell, who she describes as her ‘guru’, and about her project with Raman Sukumar, observing that these collaborations were successful because Linnell and Sukumar were more interested in facilitating scientists to pursue their ideas than in dictating them. Athreya describes her more contentious interactions with filming companies from the USA and Britain that were only interested in showcasing the ‘maneater narrative’ of urban leopards; talks about the importance of telling one’s own stories. Briefly mentions how the foreign grants that funded her projects gave her the freedom to pursue her interests. Discusses the difficulty of being published in international journals in the 2010s as an upcoming Indian scholar, and how that was changed by the involvement of ‘big names’; also talks about the appeal of the narrative of shared spaces for journals, which she attributed to its multidimensionality. (47:44) Importance of storytelling to conservation science; social media; lockdown Athreya delves deeper into the importance of narratives and storytelling for society, positing that the right language and framing can make people care about wildlife more than ‘dry’ scientific facts. She says that the idea of shared spaces has attracted public attention because ‘people are drawn in by stories of hope’. Athreya also discusses her decision to join Twitter and then quickly leave it. Briefly talks about animal sightings in urban areas due to reduced human activity during the COVID-19 pandemic. (55:43) Advice for early career scientists Athreya elaborates on the importance of setting aside biases in order to find better solutions, and extensively reading the work of other conservation scientists while sifting out good and bad information, giving the example of how reading research on mountain lions helped her to refine her study of leopards. Talks about the need to ‘bury your ego’ in order to build relationships with stakeholders, emphasising the importance of not being judgemental about the knowledge, expertise and work culture of forest officers and the press; stresses the importance of engaging with forest officers because in her view systemic change in the forest department can only be brought about by individual action. Athreya advises that the ‘issue [should be] on the pedestal’, that is, for successful conservation efforts, the issue being addressed should take priority over individual concerns. Athreya ends by recalling her first encounter with a tiger at Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary in 1990. (01:05:37) End