Divya Mudappa - Session 04, 2022-06-18

(00:00) Getting the Forest Department to think differently about wattle removal Mudappa talks about how the Forest Department was keen on removing invasives due to an order issued by the Tamil Nadu court to eradicate invasives. The department had planned to completely remove them. She explains that the en masse eradication of wattle using a JCB (bulldozer) was not a good strategy as it would disrupt the regeneration of shola grasslands in Kodaikanal and wipe out the existing native herbaceous flora. She then organised a group of volunteers to help remove the wattle individually in a phase-wise manner in Grass Hills in the ATR, to which the Forest Department agreed. Mudappa recalls that the Forest Department approached them for wattle removal because Nisarg Prakash and P. Jeganathan, her teammates, had carried out wattle surveys earlier. She explains that the officers’ willingness to listen to the team makes a difference in collaborating with the Forest Department on conservation issues. She says that their restoration work does not get affected owing to their track record and permits that they get from the Chief Conservator of Forests (CCF). She describes how they begin from scratch with every new officer and recalls how most have been indifferent, some eager to collaborate, and a few have been difficult to work with.

(12:47) Mudappa’s take on providing opinions and statements and being part of Government Committees Mudappa says that the team is not approached for opinions on local conservation issues as often as they should because they have a lot to offer. She talks about the workshops they conduct for the Forest Department. She describes how plantation companies never consult them and do not take their opinions seriously. In case of amendments to State or National level wildlife policies, Mudappa says that the team gets contacted by the media. Mudappa was a member of the Elephant Task Force constituted in 2009-10 along with Vivek Menon, R. Sukumar, Ajay Desai, Suparna Ganguly, P. S. Easa and others, headed by Mahesh Rangarajan, where they submitted a report to the then Forest Minister, Jairam Ramesh. She says that she does not provide statements on issues about which she does not have in-depth knowledge. She recalls making statements about the Madhav Gadgil Report and the Kasturirangan Report to the media as she felt that she had more knowledge about them. In cases where she is pressed for an opinion without the luxury to research more, she provides them as a conservationist but not as a subject expert.

(24:14) Role of formal academia in conservation Mudappa believes that the work of an academic and a conservation practitioner are different. She says that academics need to have rigour and discipline and are trained to approach issues in a certain way; whereas a conservationist’s approach depends on other influences. Mudappa explains that had they continued to pursue their academic goal it would have taken at least two decades. She explains how in restoration, due to lack of time they cannot try and find the best possible approach to solving an issue. She says that there needs to be a balance between research and implementation where the solution also needs to be applicable. She feels this generally in the context of conservation. She believes that to be a good conservationist, a good knowledge of natural history and the ability to understand a system is important. She also feels that a good scientist may not be able to deal with conservation issues on the ground.

(32:44) Personality traits of a conservationist and a scientist; advice for students who wish to pursue conservation Mudappa says that a wildlife researcher does not interact with people as much as a social scientist, whereas a conservationist has to. She explains that being involved in conservation is essential but it comes with having to interact with people which is difficult. Mudappa says that if a student expressed their desire to do conservation, she would ask them to take up a course that would give them the opportunity to read, interact with people and understand what conservation is. Although conservation cannot be taught like a prescription, she believes that a course exposes students to a variety of issues. If she feels that the student already knows a lot, then she would advise them to develop skills that help them implement some conservation action. She encourages the students joining her team to know that conservation is not as black and white as it may seem. Mudappa says that most wildlife science courses focus more on ecology and less on people and their interaction with the land and nature around them.

(39:48) Challenges in interacting with people Mudappa says that both Sridhar and her skills and aptitude complement each other, but both find it difficult to interact with people. She says she finds it more difficult than Sridhar to talk to a room full of managers, but once she starts talking it gets better. She describes that AnandaKumar and Ganesh Raghunathan are fantastic at talking to a large group of antagonistic people. She talks about how the managers ignore what she says, but listen to Sridhar when he says the same. She realised that there was a gender bias and still continues to see that with her teammates Kshama V. Bhat and Srini, where Srini is heard more. Mudappa says that if she has something important to say, she does so irrespective of whether they listen to her because the goal is to work on improving the situation. She says that the younger officers listen to her because they know that she has worked on this landscape for a long time. She recollects some incidents where they would receive letters from the Field Director (FD), Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) or the Deputy conservator of Forests (DCF) that would be addressed to Anand Kumar or Sridhar but not to her which initially irked her but does not anymore as she does not enjoy these meetings. [Archivist’s note: Interviewee refers to T. R. S. Raman by their nickname, Sridhar, throughout the interview] [Archivist’s note: Interviewee refers to K. Srinivasan by their nickname, Srini, throughout the interview] [00:43:11 - 00:43:18 - Restricted Access. Contact archives@ncbs.res.in for details]

(45:55) Does the need to be academically inclined constrain from focusing on work with respect to fundraising, PhD Programmes in conservation organisations Mudappa explains that most funds they get have strictly been for conservation work, which depends on the reports submitted. However, she says that having come from an academic background, they felt compelled to publish to prove the credibility of their work. According to her, their research backgrounds and publications may have added some weight to their funding proposals. She adds that they felt compelled to publish for the scientific community and the Forest Department, but not necessarily to the plantation companies as it does not matter to them. Despite the Nature Conservation Foundation (NCF) having its own PhD programme, Mudappa does not feel confident in supervising the candidates. She thinks she is not as rigorous a scientist as she has imagined one to be and supervising a PhD student is an academic goal and not a conservation one. She believes that the PhD programmes offered by conservation organisations are good and important for students who want to pursue further studies, build their confidence in the field and want to have credibility.

(56:51) Mudappa’s opinions and ideas of conservations that have evolved over time Mudappa says that she was not against animal species collection earlier and she still thinks it is necessary but now believes that it should be done more responsibly. She feels that species should not be killed just for the sake of it and justice must be done to it by a deeper understanding of the species. Mudappa believes that most animal deaths in conflict situations arise due to friction between two different groups of people. She explains how a farmer would be empathetic towards a captured or killed elephant but would be annoyed with the researchers, the Forest Department or the politicians who may not have helped the situation. She adds that she does not believe that species is more important than individuals. She believes that tribals and human settlements should not be moved out of sanctuaries. She describes a settlement near Topslip, Tamil Nadu which consisted of malnourished and blind people where food and health care could not be transported due to bad roads. In such cases, she thinks that they could be moved to a place closer to hospitals and schools for their betterment, but not because she thinks they are bad for conservation. She says that with all the destruction that has been happening, these communities have the least negative impact on nature despite their occasional hunts. She says that now she would argue against moving the settlements away from forests. With respect to invasives, Mudappa explains that one cannot really do much due to the extent of the invasion. Therefore, she believes that spending a lot of conservation money on it is not going to make much difference. She describes the spread of some invasives in their field sites and its impacts on the local wildlife. She says that if she had the influence of not allowing newer introductions of invasive or potentially invasive species, she would do so. She thinks exotic species may help mined sites recover owing to the eroded topsoil. Mudappa says that exotic species in forest restoration were used earlier due to ease of accessibility but now they are not used. Her stance on wildlife trade and trafficking remains the same, that it is very wrong.