A Wild Opportunity

This piece finds place in THE HINDU, SUNDAY MAGAZINE, 18th August, 2013.

There’s more to Conservation Education than just conducting workshops, awareness programmes and seminars, says Nimesh Ved

We had just shown an image of a locally occurring primate, shared its English name and, as planned, asked students what its local name was? The reaction was a confused silence, as most of the students didn’t understand the term “local name”.

We then discovered that students in Donbosco School at Saiha hailed from Mara, Mizo and Lai tribes (each of which could have a separate word for the primate). Two teachers were present, one was from Assam and the other from Kerela. There were few students from other states too. So there was not one but many different names used for that one primate. In a society as diverse as ours we need to be more local and that is what Conservation Education (CE) is all about.

CE program at Saiha in Mizoram had us undertake a range of activities that include film-screenings, church-newsletters, youth club gatherings and of course, tea-stall discussions. These were organized on a regular basis over a period of three years with different segments of society and efforts made to generate synergies with local practices. Experiences, like the one above, ranging from abysmally stupid mistakes to moments of pleasant atonement have left behind confusions and questions.

I ponder at times on the need to bring CE to the mainstream of society; the idea being to get wildlife issues in day-to-day talks.  However, the problem is that wildlife-centric groups themselves are not willing to allocate additional time for deliberations on CE. Yet, during workshops and seminars, one will hear that CE is vital to conserve the wildlife values that still exist in our land. Is it worth our time to plan if (and how) we can utilize and build on the spaces available within existing practices and structures for CE?

Recently, I was quite surprised when I was handed a brochure with printed material on only one side. Doesn’t it make more sense to act than talk? Ironically, we are unwilling to put in extra time and efforts to save resources (paper in this case) but will talk of issues like relocation at such events.

I recalled a meeting where the hosts made it clear that, at the venue, they utilized electricity only to the extent that they could generate. This meant a projector was not possible, but we managed with laptops. Yes, it may not always be possible but can’t we make a beginning, however small? Can’t we ask ourselves difficult (but pertinent) questions when we organize events?

Someone asked if games like “Web of life” really helped increase players’ knowledge or sensitivity levels. The issue resurfaced while talking with a friend some time ago. He remarked that tools (exercises, activities and games) to create awareness on livelihood issues were passé and there was an urgent need to sit together and talk with people. As Frits Hesselink said in his Communicating Nature Conservation: 10 frequently made mistakes: “We often forget that the most powerful tool is a face to face communication”. I also recalled some of the events where we had played such games and wondered (not very happily) on the impact (if any) they have had. Do we feel the need to question our actions?

Another aspect of CE that continues to surprise is the lack of importance to communication. CE requires a level of dexterity in wildlife and communication. While considerable efforts are put in to collate information that can be disseminated, there appears to be a dearth of understanding (and corresponding investment of effort) on how best this information can be shared. Whether we need further information collation in this age of ‘information-overkill’ too is debatable. Do pace, language, simplicity, depth, familiarity with topic, brevity, local customs (and other aspects) figure in our deliberations to augment knowledge and interest levels on wildlife?

WWF defines environment education as “a life-long process that encourages exploring, raise questions, investigate issues and seek solutions to environmental and social problems.” One-time talks, preaching on wildlife and laying our rules may not work.

We need to be open and interactive. CE is an opportunity to create platforms to deliberate on wildlife conservation issues with different segments of the society (forest department, NGOs and researchers working on issues other than wildlife and many others) as opposed to imparting of messages and also as a corollary to the wildlife-research and conservation action. A presentation at a recent gathering referred to conservation as “10% science and 90% negotiation”.

Is it this exploration, deliberation and negotiation that we talk of when we talk of CE?

**

Many thanks to THE HINDU, Krithika and Pankaj. 

The piece carries a seperate image. These are from my times in Saiha.