An open invitation to man-wild conflict

The proposed Mekedatu project will not only destroy 53 sq kms of pristine forests but also aggravate the human-wildlife conflict. Karnataka’s Cauvery Sanctuary belt is prone to frequent human-wildlife conflict. Other protected areas such as Kodagu and Chamarajanagar, Hassan and Kali Tiger Reserve areas too witness conflicts. A new project will only make matters worse and adds another layer of peril to these sensitive zones that are already battered by challenges. The project, if implemented, is sure to unleash innumerable and unforgivable problems.

The pre-feasibility report of Mekedatu Balancing Reservoir and Drinking Water Project, observes that various endangered species in the location are captured (Chapter 4 of Site Analysis). Woefully, a few are endemic to the Sanctuary itself. However, the report does not mention any solution, understandably because the only viable option is to abandon the project. The project, if commenced, will harm habitats of countless wild animals, and leave in its wake immeasurable and irreplaceable destruction.

It will have a ripple effect on the Cauvery Sanctuary’s Sangama, Halaguru, and Mugguru ranges of the Kanakapura subdivision. From the human-wildlife conflict perspective, the Mekedatu project sounds the death knell to the Cauvery Sanctuary and its adjoining forests. Damage caused in one part of the forest will have a longstanding impact on other parts as well. For example, in the recently carved Mugguru range of the sanctuary, a total of 757 incidents of human-wildlife conflict have been recorded, out of which 665 incidents are of crop loss and the rest of loss of livestock and properties. No loss of human life is reported so far, but that may not be for long.

Ill-planned development activities in fragile habitats will only increase the incidence of conflict.

The reasons for man-wild conflicts are many, the most notable being loss of habitat or destruction of the elephant corridors, changes in cropping pattern,s and encroachment of forest land. Elephants, leopards, and wild boars are the animals frequently found in conflict with humans.

Following protests staged by the locals and their demand to address the increasing raids of elephants and other wild animals to their fields, the forest department has taken temporary measures. To arrest further conflict, the department has put up railway barricades, solar fences, solar tentacles and elephant-proof trenches along the edges of forests. The cost to maintain these measures, however, is high – the Mugguru range alone has accounted for more than Rs 5 crore in four years and the compensation or ex-gratia paid to the victims adds to the cost borne by the exchequer.

Nestled between Bannerghatta National Park to the north and MM Hills Sanctuary and BRT Tiger Reserve to the South, the Cauvery Sanctuary forms one of the best wildlife corridors in the country. It also connects the forests of Tamil Nadu and Kerala through other protected areas making it one of the richest elephant habitats. Any harm to the Sanctuary leads to further fragmentation and increased conflict. Big wild animals like elephants, gaurs and tigers need continuous forests that are free from human interference for their movement and other ecological purposes. There are enough scientific studies available to substantiate why development projects, such as the one under discussion now, in fragile ecosystems are an invitation to danger.

India is currently left with 4 per cent of its land as Protected Areas (PA) that come under the purview of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. But unfortunately, no PA is free from habitat loss either through railway lines, roads, dams, or others. Giving a green signal to the Mekedatu project does more harm than good even if trees are planted elsewhere to make up for loss of flora. The plan to give an alternate site to grow forests in the districts of Ramanagara and Chamarajanagar will not help recreate the rich biodiversity of the ranges we stand to lose. It is not a viable solution to the man-animal conflict. Wild animals cannot be given a change of address! Planting trees will not make a forest with all its diversity; we have to protect large blocks of forests and prevent their fragmentation.

The policymakers would do well to focus on innovative alternatives for fulfilling increasing demands for drinking water and power, using technological advancements instead of depleting forest covers. If not, the human-wildlife conflict will aggravate, and the cost of remedial measures will increase with no permanent solution. The best way to reduce the conflict is to say ‘no’ to further habitat loss by minimising human interference.

It is time people in power thought of alternatives that leave our forests alone and safe.

(The writer is a HR Professional and a wildlife conservation enthusiast)