Freeing sea turtle nesting beaches from Casuarina plantations – A case study from Tamil Nadu

Post Script – Lessons Learnt

This section details the good, the bad and the ugly of the campaign.

The Good

1. Rising above limitations:  Although not an experienced conservationist or campaigner, Akila Balu demonstrated that it is possible for an ‘ordinary person’ to achieve extraordinary results.  I believe these are the qualities that made her effective:

• Genuine concern for the issue
• The courage to follow her convictions
• willingness to persist to the end despite many obstacles.
• A non-confrontational attitude while dealing with officials.

2.  Marshalling good evidence: (I’m adding this point thanks to John Mauremootoo’s suggestion in the comments to this case study). Before we took up the campaign in earnest, we made sure that we had all our facts right. We did field surveys, took photographs, dug deep for useful documents, spoke with Forest Officials, fishing communities and other conservationists working on the coast. We were aware that any errors on our part would be a blow to the whole campaign.

3.  Networking: When we could not find a person in Tamil Nadu to advice us on some fine points in interpreting wildlife law and developing our campaign strategy, we turned to Praveen Bhargav, Managing Trustee, Wildlife First, Bangalore.  Although not a ‘turtle expert’ Praveen was able to understand the contours of the case.  He was not only a good sounding board for our ideas but also gave us excellent advice from time to time based on his wide experience as a conservationist.  The lesson here is the need to network as widely as necessary and seek advice from those who have certain knowledge, skills or talent, even if they reside elsewhere.

4.  Finding allies within the system: During most campaigns one comes across allies within the system – ie., those who agree with your stand, or who are at least willing to give you a fair hearing.  Maintaining a good working relationship with these allies is half the battle won because they know exactly how the system works and can help bring about a resolution from within.  In this case, we found the World Bank’s Task Team Leader of the Emergency Tsunami Restoration Project, Christoph Pusch, not just receptive but also willing to go all the way in rectifying the problem.  From the Government side, the Tsunami Relief Commissioner, Mr. C.V. Shankar, IAS, was genuinely sympathetic to the plight of the turtles and did everything he could to ensure that the issue was resolved satisfactorily.

The Kancheepuram DFO, Mr. Sugirtharaj Koil Pillai, IFS, was cooperative, courteous and genuinely concerned.  His Division had the highest amount of plantation, and he had to work harder than anyone else during the uprooting phase.  But he took it in the right spirit and never showed any resentment towards us for causing him difficulties.

5.  Working for a common cause:  Although SSTCN and TREE Foundation both work on sea turtles along the Chennai coast, there was no rivalry or one-upmanship when it came to ensuring the resolution of this problem.

It needs to be put on record that Supraja Dharini, Chairperson of TREE Foundation, had the courage to given an honest and unequivocal recommendation to the Forest Department on the adverse impacts of the plantations and the need to remove them up to 45 m from the high tide line.  In doing so, she risked upsetting Forest Officers with whom she enjoyed a cordial working relationship. By putting the turtles first, she proved herself to be a true conservationist and patriot. Fortunately, despite initial adverse reactions from the Forest Department, her relations with the Department did not suffer in the long run.

6. Maximizing reach: When we sent the letter to the President of the World Bank, we were not entirely sure that he would act.  Indeed we never received even an acknowledgment from his office.  We could only be sure that the letter had reached its destination because we had used a reliable courier service, which gave us proof of delivery.  To this day, we do not know whether the World Bank President’s office ordered the Bank’s Delhi office to investigate the matter, or whether the Delhi office took the initiative on its own. Since we had circulated a soft copy of the letter to a number of NGOs, it is possible that some of them forwarded the letter to the World Bank’s Delhi office.  So marking soft copies to a number of organisations by email turned out to be a good strategy.

The Bad

6.  Despite little scientific evidence to show that Casuarina plantations had any ability to mitigate the effects of tsunamis, why did the TNFD embark on this costly and useless project?  The answer might be as simple as this:  after the tsunami from the sea, there was a tsunami of funding and loans heading towards the affected countries. Every government department wanted a slice of the pie.  The TNFD probably did not want to sit on the sidelines and do nothing while other departments received millions of dollars.

7.  But why did they plant right up to, and in some cases, even inside, the high tide line?  From what we learned, the Department had overestimated the land available for planting at the time of submitting the proposal.  Therefore field officers were told to plant wherever space was available so that the target could be achieved.

8.  Why did the World Bank fund the project without any due diligence on its part?  When we posed this question to the World Bank team, they told us that under normal circumstances they would have weighed the pros and cons carefully, but since this was considered an ’emergency’, the usual protocols were given the go by.

The Ugly

9.  Why did the PCCF, who was supposed to be a “good man”, react with such hostility when Akila met him on behalf of SSTCN?  There appeared to be two reasons. The first one was perhaps, simply, ego. How dare some two-bit NGO tell the head of the Forest Department what was and wasn’t good for wildlife?  These were the sentiments he is reported to have aired during an internal meeting.  The second reason, undoubtedly, was the fact that admitting to a mistake and ordering the removal of Casuarina would have raised serious questions from the Government’s audit department, perhaps even leading to an enquiry and personal penalties.

10.  Why did the PCCF, after having specifically requested TREE Foundation to do a survey on the impact of the plantations, send a lengthy and hostile questionnaire in response to their report?  My feeling is that this was probably the handy work of some officials in his office, who felt that they should put up a defense on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Forest Department.

11.  When we wrote to Robert Zoellick, the President of the World Bank, we were aware that he had once served on the Board of WWF international.  We therefore sent a copy of the SSTCN letter to WWF India and requested them to also write a letter to the World Bank President supporting SSTCN’s demand for removal of Casuarina. However, although it was WWF that had initially asked Akila to ascertain the impact of shelterbelt plantations, they did not accede to our request. Instead, we were told that since the World Bank probably received hundreds of letters like these every year from around the world, it was pointless to write to them!

(The author acknowledges the inputs of Akila Balu and Praveen Bhargav in preparing this account)