Nature Conservation in India News & Discussion

The Technology & Economic Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to Technological and Economic developments in India. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2649
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: Nature Conservation in India News & Discussion

Post by Jarita »

Another action by minister of errrrr roads. 30,000 trees and no compensatory plans that are concrete.
Please do read.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cit ... 605553.cms

People don't want to talk about the severe environmental implications of the Road ministers actions on the roads thread so that nothing derails that useless investment with higher public cost than returns. The entire thread is congratulatory of the road ministers actions.

Also, the babu's don't want to exercise their brains and think of alternates that can provide connectivity at lower cost. Yes you may commute for 3 hours instead of 2 hours and 30 minutes but the public cost will be much lower. I wonder if our 82 average IQ has a play in this. What has got into us? I can have a more rational discussion with a person from Sri Lanka and Burma, heck even China regarding the environmental issues. This is mainstream in other parts of the world.

The write up below explains the mindset of the dispensation in India. We will have nothing left at this rate.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... s?from=mdr

I
t’s clear from these two statements that he sees environmental concerns as a luxury and as an enemy of development. In fact, he’s now working with the law ministry to enact legislation to ensure that airport and port construction do not need environmental clearances. His attitude is not unique; very many industrialists and businessmen and almost all builders and developers see environmentalists as jhola carrying nuisances (a small point here: if this group is the jhola carrying type, it’s becau ..
It’s strange that this attitude persists when evidence of climate change is all around us. Himalayan glaciers are melting at such an alarming rate that our rivers will run dry before long; paradoxically, sea levels are rising so fast that many parts of our coastal cities — including the sea front houses of their rich denizens — will be submerged sooner or later. A recent UN Global Assessment Report estimated India’s economic losses would be 4% of GDP annually if we don’t invest in building natur ..

while a 2018 World Bank Report said that 600 million Indians are moderately to severely affected by changes in temperature and rainfall.
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5461
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Nature Conservation in India News & Discussion

Post by Cyrano »

IPCC's scaremongering has become so hysteric its revealatory for the fraud it is. Climate Change madness is actually hurting real environmental causes.

We need food security, roads, railways, power, water, industry, transport, healthcare and material progress to give decent living to 1.3 billion people concentrated in our landmass. No matter how you do it, there will be environmental impact. So it becomes a question of tradeoffs.

To have any sane level of discussion on this, one has to keep ideology aside and identify these tradeoffs. This can be done easier in developed countries since they have mostly taken care of the needs listed above before becoming environmentally conscious and churning out IPCC reports and propping up Gretas. They have relatively low incremental development needs and therefore low incremental impact.

What about India ? We have huge needs and will inevitably create huge impact. I would think that the Indian dharmic nature ingrained in us would lead us to make better choices than any other culture facing equally tall challenges. That said, in most cases we will be compelled to choose development over preservation because no one wants to live in poor conditions today and feel good because they have saved this tree or that gecko. Its a luxury we can afford in may be 2 decades from now when we reach a certain level of prosperity and stability. Research has been done on this, and its said from about 5000$ of per capita income people start paying attention to their surroundings.

All this doesnt mean we should be recklessly destructive in our development phase today. But apart from some zealous voices that could be right or overstating their case, we need comprehensive catalogueing, census and cartography of our flora and fauna, terrestrial, riverine, marine systems, modeling of our various ecosystems integrating geospatial information and the capability to rapidly do impact assessments and suggest workarounds or mitigation plans to avoid putting brakes on much needed development efforts.

Given the low investment, quality of research and lack of interdisciplinary approach which is essential, we are unable to make compelling analyses. Just visit any moth eaten botany, zoology, geology university department and you'll see what I mean. How many of them have a good Flora fauna cartography of their region, use s/w modeling and can explain the biome ? What research have they published? Rare exceptions may exist, but by and large they will be clueless. Its some of these same and 50+yrs older gen people who are part of or advise the enviroment ministries.
Therefore we end up just reacting to emotional appeals often inspired by the west, who are not in the same situation as us. Instead of condicting informed public debate based on Indian data, circumstances, know-how and experiences. To fight for the environment you love, you must first study and know it intimately. I think we have some distance to go before we reach the required level there and make judicious compromises. And its always a compromise, a middle ground to be found.
JMT.
venkat_kv
BRFite
Posts: 459
Joined: 05 Dec 2020 21:01

Re: Nature Conservation in India News & Discussion

Post by venkat_kv »

Jarita wrote:Another action by minister of errrrr roads. 30,000 trees and no compensatory plans that are concrete.
Please do read.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cit ... 605553.cms

People don't want to talk about the severe environmental implications of the Road ministers actions on the roads thread so that nothing derails that useless investment with higher public cost than returns. The entire thread is congratulatory of the road ministers actions.

Also, the babu's don't want to exercise their brains and think of alternates that can provide connectivity at lower cost. Yes you may commute for 3 hours instead of 2 hours and 30 minutes but the public cost will be much lower. I wonder if our 82 average IQ has a play in this. What has got into us? I can have a more rational discussion with a person from Sri Lanka and Burma, heck even China regarding the environmental issues. This is mainstream in other parts of the world.

The write up below explains the mindset of the dispensation in India. We will have nothing left at this rate.

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... s?from=mdr

I
t’s clear from these two statements that he sees environmental concerns as a luxury and as an enemy of development. In fact, he’s now working with the law ministry to enact legislation to ensure that airport and port construction do not need environmental clearances. His attitude is not unique; very many industrialists and businessmen and almost all builders and developers see environmentalists as jhola carrying nuisances (a small point here: if this group is the jhola carrying type, it’s becau ..
It’s strange that this attitude persists when evidence of climate change is all around us. Himalayan glaciers are melting at such an alarming rate that our rivers will run dry before long; paradoxically, sea levels are rising so fast that many parts of our coastal cities — including the sea front houses of their rich denizens — will be submerged sooner or later. A recent UN Global Assessment Report estimated India’s economic losses would be 4% of GDP annually if we don’t invest in building natur ..

while a 2018 World Bank Report said that 600 million Indians are moderately to severely affected by changes in temperature and rainfall.
Jarita Ji,
i think this is what was being pointed by Sudarshan Saar in roads thread and in a different argument by Cyrano ji in the post above.
Do you not see the issue with the statement you seem to have casually made. what happens if we undertake 3 hours drive instead of 2 hours and 30 minutes. With the older vehicles and transport truckers running on the roads what is the net effect of particulate pollution and the effect on the vehicles traveling for a longer time and the effect on the road and rubber tires when you multiply this with many vehicles through out the country over a sustained period of time.

Your intentions are noble Jarita ji, but can you flesh out workable solutions rather than actually harming the very environment in the long run. most of my other points will be a rehash of what Sudarshan Ji and Cyrano have pointed out, so avoiding repeating them.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Nature Conservation in India News & Discussion

Post by nachiket »

venkat_kv wrote: what happens if we undertake 3 hours drive instead of 2 hours and 30 minutes. With the older vehicles and transport truckers running on the roads what is the net effect of particulate pollution and the effect on the vehicles traveling for a longer time and the effect on the road and rubber tires when you multiply this with many vehicles through out the country over a sustained period of time.
We can't just look at this in isolation just for this 3 hour route. This is multiplied by the cumulative effect of such time and fuel savings for more long distance travel especially trucking once all such bottlenecks are removed on the entire route. There is a reason logistics costs are much lower in China and other countries compared to India. This has a direct effect on the competitiveness of Indian industries and affects the whole economy and job creation. This is in addition to the reduction in pollution when a truck travels 500km at a high average speed on an expressway vs at 15-20km/hr on a 2 lane highway choked with traffic. It gets even worse in the mountains where tunnels and wider, straighter roads can make a huge difference in every respect due to the trucks otherwise struggling to climb windy roads constantly in 1st gear spewing out the maximum amount of pollution for the entire duration.
sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3018
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Nature Conservation in India News & Discussion

Post by sudarshan »

nachiket wrote: We can't just look at this in isolation just for this 3 hour route. This is multiplied by the cumulative effect of such time and fuel savings for more long distance travel especially trucking once all such bottlenecks are removed on the entire route. There is a reason logistics costs are much lower in China and other countries compared to India. This has a direct effect on the competitiveness of Indian industries and affects the whole economy and job creation. This is in addition to the reduction in pollution when a truck travels 500km at a high average speed on an expressway vs at 15-20km/hr on a 2 lane highway choked with traffic. It gets even worse in the mountains where tunnels and wider, straighter roads can make a huge difference in every respect due to the trucks otherwise struggling to climb windy roads constantly in 1st gear spewing out the maximum amount of pollution for the entire duration.
The ultimate effect is a lot worse than just the pollution. Being sedentary is one of the worst health decisions one can make, the aim should be to keep moving every waking hour. So how does that gel with being stuck in a vehicle, unable to get out because a. you are stuck in rush hour traffic with no way to even open your vehicle doors; or b. you are (going with the example you gave) stuck traveling 15-20 km/hr on a mountain road, and have to be in the vehicle for 6 or 8 hrs. And all the associated stress, together with unhealthy snacks, dehydration, holding in your p** and p*** for long intervals, and sleep deprivation? It's a killer combo, and it would seem that the clogging of the internal roadways (arteries and veins in the body) correlates directly with traffic congestion. Reducing travel time and traffic-induced stress is, I would say, an excellent contribution towards the overall health of the population.

I had started another thread a couple of years ago to track the changes brought in by GOI, with regards to pollution control, nature conservation, etc. I believe the steps taken by GOI to fast-track the switch to BS-VI, together with incentivizing electric vehicles, reducing plastic waste, cleaning up the power grid, imaginative use of solar panels (for example - to cover canals used to divert river water), and going organic with crop production, already sum up to a solid pro-conservation contribution. The BS-VI switch has been on track, despite COVID, and all vehicle manufacturers in India have already adapted, or bowed out of the offending segments to be in compliance with BS-VI. On top of that, India is already at 35% renewable component in power production, with the 2030 target of 40% being on track. Fantastic news. But what's the use of cleaning up the vehicles, if traffic is going to continue crawling along, forcing vehicles to operate in low efficiency polluting mode all the time? Or if there is no plan to retire older vehicles, which continue to chug along another 10 or 20 years? The GOI does seem to have a comprehensive game plan for once, and road widening or building new roads seem to be a critical piece of the entire puzzle. I like it.

Jarita has valid points, but I feel (s)he is missing the fuller picture.
rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4451
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Re: Nature Conservation in India News & Discussion

Post by rsingh »

Classical splitting of hair. We are famous for that. If they are planting leafy trees on both sides? What is the problem? Just because we read articles and watch doc about ecosystem doesn't mean that we stop progress.I give a damn to Nat Geo bird watchers. There are sanctuaries everywhere and eco-bridegs are right solution There has to be fine balance and that is being done.People have made carrier by protesting everything in the name of humanity.

One question other hand. Why we have flood destructions to this scale. We have to check if it was due to inaction of PWD or was it result of rivers not being worked on. I suspect it is both. It is a huge financial burden on people. Why not river beds are dragged when needed. Why we are blaming land mafia when they are cleaning river beds? Yes it has to be controlled in an efficient way. Simple as that. Am I missing something?
rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4451
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Re: Nature Conservation in India News & Discussion

Post by rsingh »

Sundarshan Saar, thanks bringing sense of proportionality to this thread. There used to be Eagles and other predator brides that cleaned the environment. There used to be migratories near shallow ponds in our villages. Everything is finished. I am talking about Haryana and Punjab. Excessive fertilisers are being used. Pesticides have polluted water. Yes we are getting more and more yields but at what cost. 20 % of that is rotting in at collection centers and FCI warehouses.Just because there was overproduction ( actually lack of planning),wheat bags are left alone to be destroyed. I do not know how the responsible adhikari even sleep. :evil:
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5461
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Nature Conservation in India News & Discussion

Post by Cyrano »

Pestcides are a huge problem for birds. Insects that survive pesticide sprays (their bodies are now coated with them) are eaten by birds which then lay eggs whose shells are very fragile. Few chicks if any survive and slowly species move away or disappear in those regions or become extinct. :(
This is very well researched and documented.
Al least we don't eat everything that hops or flies like the Chinese do which has made almost their entire country bird-free.
Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2649
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: Nature Conservation in India News & Discussion

Post by Jarita »

The fuller picture is that a country like India can only support so much road infrastructure. We are beyond the stage where we can support excessive road infrastructure. Unfortunately, our planning is not road free, public transportation, walking city focused. With our limited real estate and heat islands all over, we can't afford to keep concretizing the whole country. We can actually plan cities with reduced cars to release real estate for homes, parks and public areas. We can plan walking cities. This will also reduce the heat island effect in our cities and make them more liveable. However, when you have a constant focus on roads, roads and roads which are for vehicles and not walking, then vehicles become necessary to move from point A to point B. That planning is not there. That is also the reason we have so much flooding in our cities. There are no sinks for rainwater. You talk about landslides, its the vegetation that holds the soil. That is true of the mangroves as well. The destruction of the mangroves have made us more prone to Tsunamis and cyclonic impact.

Planting the trees elsewhere is casually given as a solution. This does not happen in most cases in India. Firstly, it takes time for a tree to become a carbon sink. The older the tree the more of a sink it is and the more of an eco system it supports. Cutting one is very costly from an impact perspective. Secondly, if you track compensatory plantations in India, you will see that most of them get washed away or die out. The compensation is NOT matching the initial destruction. Infact, even if it were, the ecosystem destruction would have already happened. These compensatory plantations have to be looked after. Please study how many actually recover. After they are looked after it takes years for them to become carbon sinks. Right now it's not working out.

Regarding roads through reserves and protected areas, once you build a multilane road, overpass or underpass, that forest/ reserve is likely to go in a few years. A small track running through for rangers is different from a multi lane thoroughfare. The choice between the small percentage of reserves we have (+ large bio diversity we host) and the convenience of reducing travel by 30 minutes is one that the people of the country have to make.

https://weather.com/science/nature/news ... threatened
As much as 57% of tiger breeding grounds in TCLs are within about 3 miles of a road.

“Tiger habitats have declined by 40% since 2006, underscoring the importance of maintaining roadless areas and resisting road expansion in places where tigers still exist, before it is too late," Carter said. "Given that roads will be a pervasive challenge to tiger recovery in the future, we urge decision makers to make sustainable road development a top priority.”



https://www.trafalgar.com/real-word/9-a ... itat-loss/

Indian elephants are the first species on our endangered list due to habitat loss. Elephants are not only seen as a cultural icon throughout India, they also help to maintain the integrity of the forests and grasslands. An increase in the human population throughout India has left little shared land for these magnificent creatures. Due to humans overstepping into protected areas and clearing forests for roads and other development, this is causing a significant reduction in these beloved animal’s homes. Indian elephants are left with no other choice but to confine to areas without reliable food and shelter.


https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ind ... 307086.cms
The village of Mebar, high up at 10,000 feet in the western Himalayas, is barely half a square km. Home to about 500, the village in Himachal Pradesh is hemmed in by three hydel projects and it is losing its green cover, only to be compensated with “forests” that have no trees.
“Half of our 200 Chilgoza trees were cut for these projects. Then, we are told afforestation is happening, but 5km away. Even those don’t survive,” Parmeshwar Negi, a local resident told TOI. The problem Negi and his village have been facing has been documented in a study published in ‘Land Use Policy’ journal on Elsevier this month.
Environmentalists Manshi Asher and Prakash Bhandari found only 10% of the saplings planted in plots marked for afforestation in Kinnaur, along the Tibet border. In three of the 22 plots they surveyed, not a single sapling was found. On paper, they were all compensatory “forests”.


Last edited by Jarita on 19 Aug 2021 23:15, edited 1 time in total.
Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2649
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: Nature Conservation in India News & Discussion

Post by Jarita »

Cyrano wrote:Pestcides are a huge problem for birds. Insects that survive pesticide sprays (their bodies are now coated with them) are eaten by birds which then lay eggs whose shells are very fragile. Few chicks if any survive and slowly species move away or disappear in those regions or become extinct. :(
This is very well researched and documented.
Al least we don't eat everything that hops or flies like the Chinese do which has made almost their entire country bird-free.

Vulture extinction in India was because of livestock drugs.
After work on possible viral causes of the decline, the culprit was discovered by Dr. Lindsay Oaks and his team at The Peregrine Fund in 2003 to be diclofenac.[13] Diclofenac is a common anti-inflammatory drug administered to livestock and is used to treat the symptoms of inflammation, fevers and/or pain associated with disease or wounds. It was widely used in India beginning in the 1990s. The drug is fatal to vultures, however, and a vulture is exposed to a mortal dose of diclofenac if it eats from the carcass of an animal that has been treated with diclofenac recently.[14] A simulation model demonstrated that if only 1% of carcasses were contaminated by diclofenac, Indian vulture populations would fall by between 60% and 90% annually, and a study of carcasses showed that about 10% were contaminated.[15]
But forget birds, what about the cancer trains from the pesticide rich areas in India.

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/punjab- ... se-1654354
The couple did not use water filters. "We drank straight from the hand pump. Then we realised fertilisers have made the water poisonous. Then we got a filter. But by then my wife already had cancer,'' Magar said.

In another coach, Randhir Singh is travelling to buy chemotherapy medicine for his wife and a friend. ''I have been doing this for 6 years. My wife has stomach cancer,'' he said.

Bhatinda is in Punjab's Malwa region, where a lot of chemicals are indiscriminately used for pest control, said agricultural expert Dr SS Chahal. "Unlike in other countries, the farmers don't spray it only on the crop. It is all over the area, which results in the soil getting affected,'' he said.
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5461
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Nature Conservation in India News & Discussion

Post by Cyrano »

Yes, humans and animals & plants - all suffer due to (indiscriminate) use of pesticides = poisons. India need not reinvent the wheel here - Europe is mostly a good example to follow in this respect. In terms of all they ban usage of and focus on organic "bio" food cultivation including permaculture etc.
rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4451
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Re: Nature Conservation in India News & Discussion

Post by rsingh »

Problems are well known. What is the solution. People want to prosper.why to stop their progress? There are villages where they carry injurd person for two days. What is his fault? Why he has to suffer. Vilagers want proper roads. We need a proper public transport. Belive me we have cheapest transport in the world. Railway is very effective for intercities. We need universal connectivities. All villages. We need to provide accessible health are and education for villages.
No body is making highways by destroying coastel flora and flora. Ourcpolution is negligible as compre to passionate preacher of ecology. I order a package from Amazon. Have you seen package? My medical protein drink come in a plastic bottle that I can use for next 50 years.million of tons of salt is being used to clean roads. European tires are dumped elsewhere. I have to keep two set of tires....summer and winter.it is cheaper to buy new fridge then to repair one.
I know what Jarita ji is writing. I have biology background. But the magic world is sustainability. And I mean real sustainability. There are most of fake sustainability gurus. Fairtrade and oxfam bla bla is complete whitewash. Why would I pay 2 Euro for a simple chocolate then a proper brand chocolate. It is safe and hygienic. Why should I pay for Toyota trucks and 1st class ticket for so called volunteers who are unemployed in their own countries. JMT.
sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3018
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Nature Conservation in India News & Discussion

Post by sudarshan »

Jarita wrote:The fuller picture is that a country like India can only support so much road infrastructure. We are beyond the stage where we can support excessive road infrastructure.
Ji, you make all these statements with no supporting data. Do you have data to show that we are beyond the stage of supporting excessive road infrastructure, or even that we have excessive road infrastructure currently? With the data, we can talk specifics. I did post those links showing road density in India, but since then I've come to the conclusion that km/ km^2 is a flawed metric which artificially shows India as being a lot higher than most of the world. Km-foot/ km^2 is what I'm looking for, not finding it currently.
Unfortunately, our planning is not road free, public transportation, walking city focused. With our limited real estate and heat islands all over, we can't afford to keep concretizing the whole country.
Do you seriously think "road free" is a good idea, and only public transportation is good enough? I hope that's not what you're saying. Please clarify. With no roads, services like ambulances, fire vehicles, emergency vehicles, policing, all become practically impossible. These can't happen on public transport. Airlifting is not an option. Helicopters are very very fuel inefficient.
We can actually plan cities with reduced cars to release real estate for homes, parks and public areas. We can plan walking cities. This will also reduce the heat island effect in our cities and make them more liveable.
I agree. But again, without data, we're talking in circles.

Planting the trees elsewhere is casually given as a solution. This does not happen in most cases in India. Firstly, it takes time for a tree to become a carbon sink. The older the tree the more of a sink it is and the more of an eco system it supports. Cutting one is very costly from an impact perspective. Secondly, if you track compensatory plantations in India, you will see that most of them get washed away or die out. The compensation is NOT matching the initial destruction. Infact, even if it were, the ecosystem destruction would have already happened. These compensatory plantations have to be looked after. Please study how many actually recover. After they are looked after it takes years for them to become carbon sinks. Right now it's not working out.
I'm with you on this. Planting trees by the highway in no way compensates for chopping down a forest. A forest is defined as having a crown density of >40% (dense forest) or 20% to 40% (sparser). Trees by the highway are laughable compensation. Also, the biodiversity is missing - a forest isn't just trees, it's an entire ecosystem of shrubs, plants, grass, animals and birds, reptiles, streams and brooks. Planting a few (probably non-native species) trees all along a highway won't give you any of this. Even a plantation takes time to develop, and it takes time for animal populations to build up (birds would migrate much faster of course). And with a plantation, there's still the question of non-native species. If it is truly a question of chopping down 30,000 trees for a half-hour reduction in travel time along one road, with no compensation for those trees elsewhere, then that is a very bad deal.

However, now I have a question for you. At what point would you agree that it is a reasonable deal? 1000 trees for a 4 hour reduction? 100 for a 12 hour reduction? What is your comfort level? If it is going to be "no trees to be chopped down under any circumstance" then you've lost me. So please define the level of compromise that you're comfortable with.

I also want to point out, since comparisons with the USA keep coming up. Most of the forests in the USA today, are replanted ones. The virgin forests are gone, and now people lament that the forests are no longer representative of original native species. So the USA ain't doing as great as it seems to be.
Regarding roads through reserves and protected areas, once you build a multilane road, overpass or underpass, that forest/ reserve is likely to go in a few years. A small track running through for rangers is different from a multi lane thoroughfare. The choice between the small percentage of reserves we have (+ large bio diversity we host) and the convenience of reducing travel by 30 minutes is one that the people of the country have to make.
No disagreement, but same question as above.

The rest of your post is about specific examples, and on the face of it, those particular examples do look bad. But if you want to argue in general terms about public transport and road development, then it's better to come at it with backing data and alternative solutions. What fraction of personal to public transport are you proposing? 0% and road-free? Road-free means no emergency services. 100%? I most certainly am not for that either.
rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4451
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Re: Nature Conservation in India News & Discussion

Post by rsingh »

India has 20 % of worlds population and we are desperate to increase our living standards. Your maid wants to dreams of her child enjoying your lifestyle. It is up to govt to bring right policies with Long term solution. And ecologists are supposed to offer viable solution for our country. Any solution that put halt on progress is useless. No need to debate. I do not know about much about states but Haryana,Punjab , Kerala, WB have trees on both side of roads multi line highways are a new phenomenon in India. Wait and see. At least we are are trying to plant There are no trees along European highways.
Most of the canals have trees on the banks. What else we do.
Having no roads is not a solution. No car zone is a good idea. More and more cities are coming with this idea. It can be implemented in some exclusive zones. It has to be viable.
V
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Nature Conservation in India News & Discussion

Post by nachiket »

Is there any data to support that building a single road through a forest or reserve leads to the entire forest going away as is being claimed? Especially if animal underpassess are constructed in the reserve? I would be surprised to see any forests left in the US and Europe if that was the case.

Also we seem to be getting confused between inner-city roads and inter-city highways. Building more public transport in cities is always a good idea as is making them pedestrian friendly. Unfortunately most of our cities have neither good public transport nor good roads leading to absolute chaos. So whatever we build is an improvement. This has nothing to do with building roads through forests though. We were talking about time reduction and reduction in pollution due to greater average speeds, straighter alignments and reduced traffic congestion on highways and expressways which lie outside the city. Whatever you do within the city does not make a difference here.
Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2649
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: Nature Conservation in India News & Discussion

Post by Jarita »

nachiket wrote:Is there any data to support that building a single road through a forest or reserve leads to the entire forest going away as is being claimed? Especially if animal underpassess are constructed in the reserve? I would be surprised to see any forests left in the US and Europe if that was the case.

Also we seem to be getting confused between inner-city roads and inter-city highways. Building more public transport in cities is always a good idea as is making them pedestrian friendly. Unfortunately most of our cities have neither good public transport nor good roads leading to absolute chaos. So whatever we build is an improvement. This has nothing to do with building roads through forests though. We were talking about time reduction and reduction in pollution due to greater average speeds, straighter alignments and reduced traffic congestion on highways and expressways which lie outside the city. Whatever you do within the city does not make a difference here.

You cannot compare Europe to India where biodiversity is concerned. India has 7-8% of the worlds biodiveristy. The comparison of Indian reserves and flora and fauna has to be with regions where that still exists across the globe. Europe is now green but has very few large animal species left. There is substantial evidence of how even a single large road can cause forest fragmentation and extinction of species. In fact it is one of the biggest drivers of extinction. Please check the articles posted above re extinction risk of Indian elephant and tiger.



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270763/
Roads have a number of direct, negative impacts on mammals. They can impede animal movements (thereby decreasing access to habitats and preventing gene flow; [13]), result in roadkills [14], [15], cause behavioural avoidance of traffic [16], [17] and roadside habitats [18] and promote elevated hunting pressure [19]. Over time, roads can also increase the susceptibility of mammal habitats to human colonization and exploitation [20], [21]. A review of 79 empirical studies demonstrated that roads have a net negative effect on animal abundance and species richness, particularly for large-bodied mammals [22]. In fact, population densities of sensitive mammal species can decline up to 5 km from linear infrastructure such as roads [23]. When the knock-on effects of habitat loss and fragmentation are considered, these distances become much greater.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 016-0044-x

And with cities, the key is the philosophy of planning. Instead of constantly building new roads through our cities which take up precious real estate we need to create walking friendly cities and vehicle free zones. That will enable cities to free up real estate and fix issues of greenery. There is a lot of work behind car free zones and cities globally. However, in India that is not yet a philosophy. It's important for better quality of life.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Nature Conservation in India News & Discussion

Post by nachiket »

Jarita wrote: You cannot compare Europe to India where biodiversity is concerned. India has 7-8% of the worlds biodiveristy. The comparison of Indian reserves and flora and fauna has to be with regions where that still exists across the globe. Europe is now green but has very few large animal species left. There is substantial evidence of how even a single large road can cause forest fragmentation and extinction of species. In fact it is one of the biggest drivers of extinction. Please check the articles posted above re extinction risk of Indian elephant and tiger.
So which regions should we compare with? And have the Indian people agreed to give up basic infrastructure available to their peers across the globe because they live in a country with greater biodiversity? Along with accepting the follow on effects of lack of industrialization, access to govt. services and markets, lack of jobs and poverty. All the while watching other countries improve their lot and progress far beyond us. If you are honest about what will happen and a majority of the people still support you I have no objections. But they should know what they are signing up for.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270763/
Roads have a number of direct, negative impacts on mammals. They can impede animal movements (thereby decreasing access to habitats and preventing gene flow; [13]), result in roadkills [14], [15], cause behavioural avoidance of traffic [16], [17] and roadside habitats [18] and promote elevated hunting pressure [19]. Over time, roads can also increase the susceptibility of mammal habitats to human colonization and exploitation [20], [21]. A review of 79 empirical studies demonstrated that roads have a net negative effect on animal abundance and species richness, particularly for large-bodied mammals [22]. In fact, population densities of sensitive mammal species can decline up to 5 km from linear infrastructure such as roads [23]. When the knock-on effects of habitat loss and fragmentation are considered, these distances become much greater.
This actually tells me that your statement earlier about the whole forest/reserve "going away" just because one multi-lane road is built through it is rather alarmist. Nobody is saying that there will be zero impact. But making hyperbolic statements does not serve anyone. The ideal way to solve this is to look for ways to reduce the damage. Animal underpasses, fencing, removing human encroachments in sensitive areas etc. should be taken into account. The options can't be just between build the highway or don't.
And with cities, the key is the philosophy of planning. Instead of constantly building new roads through our cities which take up precious real estate we need to create walking friendly cities and vehicle free zones. That will enable cities to free up real estate and fix issues of greenery. There is a lot of work behind car free zones and cities globally. However, in India that is not yet a philosophy. It's important for better quality of life.
One thing to note is the cities considering vehicle free zones already have a extensive and well integrated public transport systems including underground and elevated metros, buses, street cars etc. that offer people a decent commute to their workplaces. Plus they also have existing road networks which are well designed and follow certain standards for a decent amount of traffic to most areas of the city. The vehicle free zones being considered are for limited areas only to reduce congestion. We have none of this. You have to offer people something in return for taking something away.
Haresh
BRFite
Posts: 1491
Joined: 30 Jun 2009 17:27

Re: Nature Conservation in India News & Discussion

Post by Haresh »

Born to be wild: India’s first captive-bred endangered vultures set free

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... elease-aoe
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5461
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Nature Conservation in India News & Discussion

Post by Cyrano »

Jarita ji,
Indian cities, even towns are already so huge that walking is impractical, even if one is willing to risk limb and life to fight it out with all kinds of traffic, because foot paths are mostly non-existent or encroached. Walking and cycling in your neighbourhood is OK, but any distance beyond a couple of kms in chaotic traffic, heat, dirt and dust is very discouraging in most places. Those who do it are doing so out of necessity ie the poor.

We are building large roads in major thoroughfares, with no easy crossing points or walk ways/bicycle paths. Once you get off them you are in "residential colonies" with markets which are mostly self sufficient except for work or going out to big shops, entertainment, temples, train/bus stations or airports etc. Poor town planning for decades has made our cities grow like cancerous wounds on the face of the earth. Impossible to rip everything out and rebuild pedestrian or eco friendly habitats. We already know all this.

Rural to urban migration is still happening and will continue for some decades, these problems will only get worse. Remedying like you suggest is unaffordable and practically impossible.

BTW, Do you live in India? Which part?
Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2649
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: Nature Conservation in India News & Discussion

Post by Jarita »

Cyrano wrote:Jarita ji,
Indian cities, even towns are already so huge that walking is impractical, even if one is willing to risk limb and life to fight it out with all kinds of traffic, because foot paths are mostly non-existent or encroached. Walking and cycling in your neighbourhood is OK, but any distance beyond a couple of kms in chaotic traffic, heat, dirt and dust is very discouraging in most places. Those who do it are doing so out of necessity ie the poor.

We are building large roads in major thoroughfares, with no easy crossing points or walk ways/bicycle paths. Once you get off them you are in "residential colonies" with markets which are mostly self sufficient except for work or going out to big shops, entertainment, temples, train/bus stations or airports etc. Poor town planning for decades has made our cities grow like cancerous wounds on the face of the earth. Impossible to rip everything out and rebuild pedestrian or eco friendly habitats. We already know all this.

Rural to urban migration is still happening and will continue for some decades, these problems will only get worse. Remedying like you suggest is unaffordable and practically impossible.

BTW, Do you live in India? Which part?

Please read the links on car free zones. Of course our cities are a mess but we have to invest in the next 5 years, what do we invest in.

To your point, urban migration is happening. So if the real estate of the city is taken over with multi lane roads, massive parking spots etc where will we have places to live and play. Then urban sprawl becomes a reality and you absolutely need cars for everything. There are several cities in the world that are moving to car free zones. They are not building more roads and instead blocking off zones to create residential blocks. The question is, why are we not thinking that way. We can actually accommodate more people and yet make our cities more liveable. Yes public transportation is key for that. But decent public transport also reduces the need for road and parking real estate because the load is much higher. Governments basically have to say that we will reduce vehicular traffic in the cities and not build more roads (fix what we have) by creating car free zones. The how exists but the plan has to be there.

I will put more links on how it has been done.
Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2649
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: Nature Conservation in India News & Discussion

Post by Jarita »

This actually tells me that your statement earlier about the whole forest/reserve "going away" just because one multi-lane road is built through it is rather alarmist. Nobody is saying that there will be zero impact. But making hyperbolic statements does not serve anyone.
Did you read the links or just ignored them. Please provide evidence of how highways through reserves do not lead to habitat loss. Underpasses and overpasses are a band aid. Happy to provide studies to support my point. The links provide actual data. And there is more.
Highways and multilane passageways should not be built through reserves. The how is explained above.


It would be good to see the data on real estate consumed by roads and the heat island effect on cities. I have been trying to inventory it for major cities. Not finding some key data points.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Nature Conservation in India News & Discussion

Post by nachiket »

Jarita wrote:
This actually tells me that your statement earlier about the whole forest/reserve "going away" just because one multi-lane road is built through it is rather alarmist. Nobody is saying that there will be zero impact. But making hyperbolic statements does not serve anyone.
Did you read the links or just ignored them.
I should ask you that question. Your own link mentions what can be done to mitigate the impact on the environment due to road development. Literally the first solution mentioned is this:
Maintain and improve forest connectivity on either side of existing roads
The integration of green infrastructure options (e.g., underpasses, overpasses, road signs and culverts) into proposed road designs, along with incorporating measures to evaluate their efficiency of use may be beneficial for the movement of mammals through fragmented habitats [75]–[78]. In Cambodia, the preservation of forests on both sides of Provincial Road 48 and 76 was highlighted as a key strategy [79] to ensure the dispersal of arboreal species such as the Yellow-cheeked Crested Gibbon (Nomascus gabriellae).
You have conveniently dismissed that as a band-aid.
Please provide evidence of how highways through reserves do not lead to habitat loss.
You are asking me to provide evidence for a claim I never made. This is what I said in my previous post:
Nobody is saying that there will be zero impact. But making hyperbolic statements does not serve anyone. The ideal way to solve this is to look for ways to reduce the damage. Animal underpasses, fencing, removing human encroachments in sensitive areas etc. should be taken into account. The options can't be just between build the highway or don't.
Your own link mentions a list of measures that can be taken to minimize impacts. Even they are not suggesting a blanket ban on all roads through forested areas because unlike you they know it is not practical and are not in the business of proposing utopian solutions that will never get implemented.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9097
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: Nature Conservation in India News & Discussion

Post by nachiket »

One important thing to note from that study is that the major loss of habitat is not caused by cutting trees for the road itself but secondary effects like increasing human encroachments due to expanding settlements, the road helping the timber industry to transport timber, increase in poaching due to better access, hindrance of animal movement etc. It should be possible to build the road to serve its original purpose to provide a communication link between two parts of the country separated by the forest while also cracking down on poaching, banning any expansion of human settlements on the forest land and providing underpasses and culverts etc. It is not a simple binary choice to either build the road or not.
Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2649
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: Nature Conservation in India News & Discussion

Post by Jarita »

Your own link mentions a list of measures that can be taken to minimize impacts. Even they are not suggesting a blanket ban on all roads through forested areas because unlike you they know it is not practical and are not in the business of proposing utopian solutions that will never get implemented.
I am glad you read it and acknowledge that the studies I post are objective. Because I leverage those papers. Infact, I have written papers on why India should not have to comply with carbon constraints given how little our overall contribution to the mess has been.
However, mitigation has not happened and been successful in India. For example Tiger habitats and Elephant habitats have both been damaged through road building. No one is advocating a ban but the bigger the road and when the goal is traffic and cargo that cuts through, the impact is greater. Our animal reserves are a small fraction of India's forests. At this point, beyond access to rangers, we should not be cutting through animal reserves. Through the rest of the ecologically sensitive areas, maintaining roads is fine but widening is another risk factor. The roads minister is has dodged environmental clearances in very sensitive areas. At a time like this, it's almost criminal.

https://www.indiaspend.com/in-indias-bi ... ts-can-do/
This is the story of the widening of NH-4A. In this story, we will also explore how seemingly small-scale disturbances in ecologically sensitive areas are likely to have a compounding impact on wildlife, endanger public health and exacerbate natural disasters.

While PAs help retain forests, road projects such as NH-4A, and human activities have the opposite effect. "The chances of forest loss 4 km away from a road is 21% lower compared to the chances of forest loss closer to the road," said Meghna Krishnadas, project scientist at Laboratory for Conservation of Endangered Species at Hyderabad's Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, based on a 2018 study that she was a part of in the Western Ghats. In other words, proximity to a road makes a forest vulnerable to loss.
The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), an agency under the Central Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH), undertook the widening of 82 km of the 153-km highway on the Karnataka side at an estimated cost of Rs 1,395 crore in March 2018; almost the entire 82-km stretch passes through the Western Ghats.

The NHAI estimates that nearly 22,000 trees were cut along the 82-km road in October 2018 even as local activists have claimed that the number of hacked trees stands at over 100,000. Some of the chopped trees stood on land that was earlier a part of the 475-sq km Dandeli Wildlife Sanctuary, a PA.
In 2016, the Gadkari-led MoRTH had taken measures to expedite "languishing" road projects. This included eliminating the requirement for an EC for roads upto 100 km long.

In 2018, the NHAI proceeded with the project without seeking any fresh clearance after the 2016 tweaking of rules. Similarly, the government of Goa took into account the 69.07-km section from the Goa-Karnataka border to Panaji, in its Environment Impact Assessment report made for the Goa side of the road in July 2018; it neither sought a wildlife clearance nor an EC, for the widening project.
undamentally, roads create an opening in a forest. "And that [the opening] has a mushrooming effect wherein there is not just traffic but inflow of people and outflow of wild meat to markets and viruses [causing diseases] such as COVID-19," said Krithi Karanth of Bengaluru's Centre for Wildlife Studies (CWS). Karanth was one of the scientists involved in the study on forest fragmentation due to linear intrusions.

The fragmentation and the consequent mushrooming effect that Karanth and fellow scientists are now warning about was flagged nearly a decade ago by ecologist-scientist Madhav Gadgil. In 2011, Gadgil chaired the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel, better known as the Gadgil Commission, which recommended that there be no changes in land-use pattern in the Western Ghats. The panel's report warned of ecological disasters and sought an absolute ban on mining and large dams there.
Ignoring the Gadgil report has let to flooding and landslides becoming a regular feature in the western ghats region and nearby states.
KL Dubey
BRFite
Posts: 1753
Joined: 16 Dec 2016 22:34

Re: Nature Conservation in India News & Discussion

Post by KL Dubey »

Haresh wrote:Born to be wild: India’s first captive-bred endangered vultures set free

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... elease-aoe
Good. Meanwhile two other breeds, the Indian left-wing vulture and Indian lutyens vulture, continue to thrive. These breeds do not appear affected by diclofenac, but seem to be whipped up into a frenzy over the last few years due to Modi sarkar encroaching their habitats and food sources.
sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3018
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Nature Conservation in India News & Discussion

Post by sudarshan »

Jarita wrote: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270763/
Roads have a number of direct, negative impacts on mammals. They can impede animal movements (thereby decreasing access to habitats and preventing gene flow; [13]), result in roadkills [14], [15], cause behavioural avoidance of traffic [16], [17] and roadside habitats [18] and promote elevated hunting pressure [19]. Over time, roads can also increase the susceptibility of mammal habitats to human colonization and exploitation [20], [21]. A review of 79 empirical studies demonstrated that roads have a net negative effect on animal abundance and species richness, particularly for large-bodied mammals [22]. In fact, population densities of sensitive mammal species can decline up to 5 km from linear infrastructure such as roads [23]. When the knock-on effects of habitat loss and fragmentation are considered, these distances become much greater.
I went through this. What is interesting to me is that the authors don't say "don't build roads through forest." They don't say that roads have caused impedance of animal movements, reduction in population densities of mammal species, or those other things. They say roads *CAN* cause those things. Are roads actually causing those things to the feared extent? Don't know.

But the article proposes multiple mitigation steps. One of them is to "reroute the road." Do you agree with any of the mitigation steps proposed by the article which you yourself linked? It seems you do not. All you say is "don't build a road through a forest."

Fine. What is the alternative you propose, if any?

* Don't build the road at all? Which probably means - don't build any more roads anywhere in the country? Make do with whatever we have right now?
* Reroute the road (potentially adding hundreds of km to its length)? Adding length also increases traffic dwell time to that extent, which directly causes that much additional pollution.
* Build public transport? Which presumably means rail, because I don't think you're proposing that people walk or bike hundreds of km?
* So is it ok to build rail through that same forest? Probably not.
* Reroute rail around the forest?
* Or everybody is supposed to fly everywhere?

Basically - what is the alternative which you propose, when you say "stop building roads through forests?" To me, your stance seems like "don't build that road at all, never ever, full stop." If that is not your stance, could you spell out the alternative which you have in mind? We are talking about long distance travel, hundreds of km, so I hope you're not going to say "public transport, walk and bike."

The article, BTW, advocates greater policing on the road to prevent encroachments, hunting, or other illegal activities. It seems most of the negative impact on the forest is from those negative human activities, rather than the road itself. It's so easy to just blame the road though.
cause behavioural avoidance of traffic [16], [17]
Is the above a bad thing? Seems like, if animals learn to avoid traffic, like any other predator, that would be a good thing?
Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2649
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: Nature Conservation in India News & Discussion

Post by Jarita »

^^^^ The mitigation steps alluded too will work in relation to the total perimeter of the reserve and the degree to which the fragmentation has already occurred. Another factor is how close the roads are too animal corridors. Many of the larger animal species need largish space to hunt and find a mate. That is also true of flora driven ecosystems where space is required for the ecosystem to thrive i.e., a lake body. Some of the reserves in India are already too small for the perimeter required by large mammals. The roads - especially multilane roads, will fragment this further.

Below is a proposed mitigation plan which they hope will reduce the collision deaths and fragmentation cause by the utterly disastrous NH37 running through Kaziranga. However, it comes with it's own set of problems and any positive effects are yet to be seen.
Kaziranga is one of the largest wildlife sanctuaries in the world.

https://www.planetcustodian.com/longest ... ark/10817/
venkat_kv
BRFite
Posts: 459
Joined: 05 Dec 2020 21:01

Re: Nature Conservation in India News & Discussion

Post by venkat_kv »

nachiket wrote:
venkat_kv wrote: what happens if we undertake 3 hours drive instead of 2 hours and 30 minutes. With the older vehicles and transport truckers running on the roads what is the net effect of particulate pollution and the effect on the vehicles traveling for a longer time and the effect on the road and rubber tires when you multiply this with many vehicles through out the country over a sustained period of time.
We can't just look at this in isolation just for this 3 hour route. This is multiplied by the cumulative effect of such time and fuel savings for more long distance travel especially trucking once all such bottlenecks are removed on the entire route. There is a reason logistics costs are much lower in China and other countries compared to India. This has a direct effect on the competitiveness of Indian industries and affects the whole economy and job creation. This is in addition to the reduction in pollution when a truck travels 500km at a high average speed on an expressway vs at 15-20km/hr on a 2 lane highway choked with traffic. It gets even worse in the mountains where tunnels and wider, straighter roads can make a huge difference in every respect due to the trucks otherwise struggling to climb windy roads constantly in 1st gear spewing out the maximum amount of pollution for the entire duration.
Nachiket Saar,
I am not contesting your point, rather supporting it. I tried to only point out regarding 3 hour journey as it would be a simple case to extrapolate to the highways all over the country. But alas, Jarita ji is marching to the beat of his/her own drum without any compromises.
venkat_kv
BRFite
Posts: 459
Joined: 05 Dec 2020 21:01

Re: Nature Conservation in India News & Discussion

Post by venkat_kv »

Jarita wrote:The fuller picture is that a country like India can only support so much road infrastructure. We are beyond the stage where we can support excessive road infrastructure. Unfortunately, our planning is not road free, public transportation, walking city focused.

Planting the trees elsewhere is casually given as a solution. This does not happen in most cases in India. Firstly, it takes time for a tree to become a carbon sink. The older the tree the more of a sink it is and the more of an eco system it supports. Cutting one is very costly from an impact perspective. Secondly, if you track compensatory plantations in India, you will see that most of them get washed away or die out. The compensation is NOT matching the initial destruction. Infact, even if it were, the ecosystem destruction would have already happened. These compensatory plantations have to be looked after. Please study how many actually recover. After they are looked after it takes years for them to become carbon sinks. Right now it's not working out.
The way to fix this is to track the trees that are being planted and to update any steps within the process so as to fix it going forward as a matter of policy. The wrong way would be to stop building roads citing lack of forest cover. this is why people are called Eco-terrorists as they don't let any work get done nor do anything themselves.
Jarita wrote:
Please read the links on car free zones. Of course our cities are a mess but we have to invest in the next 5 years, what do we invest in.

To your point, urban migration is happening. So if the real estate of the city is taken over with multi lane roads, massive parking spots etc where will we have places to live and play. Then urban sprawl becomes a reality and you absolutely need cars for everything. There are several cities in the world that are moving to car free zones. They are not building more roads and instead blocking off zones to create residential blocks. The question is, why are we not thinking that way. We can actually accommodate more people and yet make our cities more liveable. Yes public transportation is key for that. But decent public transport also reduces the need for road and parking real estate because the load is much higher. Governments basically have to say that we will reduce vehicular traffic in the cities and not build more roads (fix what we have) by creating car free zones. The how exists but the plan has to be there.

I will put more links on how it has been done.
The many cities that you speak are probably in Europe, where population density is far less and have good tram, local trains, public transport that connects between their place of work and their homes. We aren't yet at the point in India. These cities that took the decision to block cars did so after reaching a critical mass of people possessing cars or other modes of personal transport and then arrived at that decision that worked for their smaller cities. You will need something similar in India before you start banning cars. And how do you propose the big cities that people live in, commute/transport everyday. Just bicycles or walking. how far do people need to walk/cycle to get to it.

how much money would be needed and what is the proposed tradeoff of ripping up the existing roads and putting in trams/trains where people commute. How much time, money for the additional construction and disruptions being caused to build this setup.
Jarita wrote:^^^^
Below is a proposed mitigation plan which they hope will reduce the collision deaths and fragmentation cause by the utterly disastrous NH37 running through Kaziranga. However, it comes with it's own set of problems and any positive effects are yet to be seen.
Kaziranga is one of the largest wildlife sanctuaries in the world.

https://www.planetcustodian.com/longest ... ark/10817/
Even in the link that you have given , it says that a flyover is being proposed by the existing govt to stop animals being killed from accidents. this is more of a workaround/compromise on a problem> if I had to guess you would have proposed to stop traveling on that NH altogether and saved those animals while contributing to pollution travelling on longer congested routes.
Jarita
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2649
Joined: 30 Oct 2009 22:27
Location: Andromeda

Re: Nature Conservation in India News & Discussion

Post by Jarita »

Fragmentation Of Habitat Is Causing Inbreeding Among Indian Tigers And That Could Be Disastrous
The research, published in the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution found that fragmentation of habitat has already disrupted the natural evolutionary process in wild tigers and will continue to do so in future as anthropogenic pressures increase, leading to higher inbreeding and lower survival.
While Indian tigers have the highest genetic variation compared to other subspecies of the feline across the world, their populations continue to be fragmented by loss of habitat, leading to inbreeding and potential loss of this diversity.
https://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/f ... 35003.html
rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4451
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Re: Nature Conservation in India News & Discussion

Post by rsingh »

Inbreeds? Not a problem. Pakistani population thrives mash Allah. Since when this is a problem. In mugal Raj was there separate inclosurs to stop inbreads? Just by throwing some word like DNA, molecular data we can not defend every slight variation. In villages at least 3 generation of cows are impragenatex by same bull. Next will be the same. Do not ghusao science everywhere. If this progrzmm is correct than we have to catch youge males and airlift them to different reserves. Such issues are to be taken in wide panaromic views. Some people try to make carriers out of such absurd findings and not giving practical solution. We are a developing country. We have to feed 1.5 billion people where 70% have no accès to proper health care centers.
Most of the kids are manutention. We need to protect wildlife, but not on the cost of development. There are enough reserves. Let's not over do.
sudarshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3018
Joined: 09 Aug 2008 08:56

Re: Nature Conservation in India News & Discussion

Post by sudarshan »

I find it concerning that opinions are being thrown around with no supporting data or references. I don't like the way that Jarita makes it a binary proposition between development and preservation, but to be fair, Jarita ji is the one who is on track with the topic of this thread, and the roads and development discussion is the one which is off-topic here.

But then the below:
rsingh wrote:Inbreeds? Not a problem. Pakistani population thrives mash Allah. Since when this is a problem. In mugal Raj was there separate inclosurs to stop inbreads? Just by throwing some word like DNA, molecular data we can not defend every slight variation.
Inbreeding in a wild population is a big problem. And all the above are opinions of one poster, with no supporting data or references.
In villages at least 3 generation of cows are impragenatex by same bull. Next will be the same. Do not ghusao science everywhere.
Those generations of cows are being fed and protected by humans. They are domesticated and tame. Inbreeding affects their fitness for sure, but it is not so much of a problem, because they are not fending for themselves in the wild, all humans care about is that they produce offspring and milk.

Inbreeding in a wild tiger population, OTOH, is going to directly affect their fitness and ability to fend for themselves. It is not the same situation as domestic cows, it could lead to extinction.
If this progrzmm is correct than we have to catch youge males and airlift them to different reserves. Such issues are to be taken in wide panaromic views.
"Catching young males and airlifting them" - basically, this is a suggestion to domesticate the tiger population to that extent. That humans should do "arranged marriages" for tigers, which are meant to be wild animals fending for themselves. Not a desirable solution, regardless of how workable it is. The idea of a reserve is that the tigers have their area to do their own thing without human interference (preventing human interference, ironically, requires human interference - like keeping poachers and scavengers away - that sort of thing). But humans interfering in the natural process, especially the mating, of tigers or lions or any other wild animals, is not the point of the reserve. It's a reserve, not a farm or a pasture. Humans are not meant to take over the dekh-bal of the wild population, we are not gods.
Some people try to make carriers out of such absurd findings and not giving practical solution. We are a developing country. We have to feed 1.5 billion people where 70% have no accès to proper health care centers.
Most of the kids are manutention. We need to protect wildlife, but not on the cost of development. There are enough reserves. Let's not over do.
"There are enough reserves" is an opinion. Do you have any supporting facts or references?
rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4451
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Re: Nature Conservation in India News & Discussion

Post by rsingh »

^^^^
There is no scientific evidence that proves that inbreeding in wild animals make blind,dumb or anything. There are so many wild animals and nobody is worrying about their breeding problems. This assumption that if tigers have larger area then you can prevent inbreeding. That is very farfetched idea. We are not talking about caged animal here. Let the nature work and why to be afraid of genetic mutation?
It reminds of khaki clad do-gooders who take random injured animal , give them extra immune enhancig madecines. That is direct intervention in nature. Why we want to make homogeneous tiger population. Let stronger to survive? Any way that is my last post on this topic. Agree to not agree. But I think we are paying attention to none issue. We can not connect one reserve with another reserve all over India. Be practical.
rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4451
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Re: Nature Conservation in India News & Discussion

Post by rsingh »

My one suggestion , Issue and solution to absolutely bizarre ideas serve nothing . People are protestasting about noise pollution for dogs during Diwali, but they want to watch how specular was Sydney new year pthakas. Stop selfloathibg and work on REAL issues.
About data.....do research . Eg

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4414642
There has to be sense of measurement , proportion, demographic and common sense. We have solve other important issues .
jaysimha
BRFite
Posts: 1696
Joined: 20 Dec 2017 14:30

Re: Nature Conservation in India News & Discussion

Post by jaysimha »

Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
Government releases Desertification and Land Degradation Atlas of India
Posted On: 17 JUN 2021 7:34PM by PIB Delhi
https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePa ... ID=1727987

On the occasion, the Minister of State released the latest version of “Desertification and Land Degradation Atlas of India. It has been published by Space Application Centre, ISRO, Ahmedabad. The Atlas provides state wise area of degraded lands for the time frame 2018-19. It also provides the change analysis for the duration of 15 years, from 2003-05 to 2018-19.
The event also observed release of Coffee Table Book “India Hosting UNCCD-COP 14” and a short film on UNCCD-COP 14. The commemoration of this event encourages individuals and groups to take initiatives that can keep the land healthy and productive.
I could not get the link for the above report..
anyone gets it,, pls post..
TIA..
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5461
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Nature Conservation in India News & Discussion

Post by Cyrano »

rsingh ji,
I wouldn't be so categoric. If a large Tiger habitat is broken up into smaller pieces that prevent animal movement, then the stock of tigers in any one isolated patch of land will be forced to breed among themselves over generations. Any undesirable mutations will be reinforced and normally recessive genes will be expressed. In a way, this is no different from "sagothra" marriages in humans that are strongly discouraged for the same reasons. This is also the reason why breeding in zoos often fails among many species due to lack of genetic variety. Please look up this topic.

Photogenic apex predators are the tip of the iceberg so to speak. Tiger/Lion/Eagle/Vulture etc. conservation is important, because to preserve an animal at the top of the food chain means all other animal and plant species below it need to be preserved.

It is indeed worth pondering what kind of future we want. One with superb 8 or 12 lane roads that connect one urban sprawl with another separated by expanses of highly industrialised farms producing crops and food animals (using tons of fertilisers and pesticides) with rare impoverished natural habitats between them? That is what parts of Europe are already. What I observed when driving from Paris to Amsterdam for example perfectly fits this description. For long stretches the stench from pig farms is unbearable even with windows up and A/C on. Surely you are aware of this.

India's population density, monsoon dependency and already impoverished, polluted, pesticide laden agricultural soils will create a lot more pressure on the land and ecosystems. By the time we achieve Western Europe's level of "development" our lands may end up far worse and irreparably so. Is that the future we want?

Sujalam, suphalam, malayaja seethalam, Sasya syamalam matharam
Subhrajyotsna pulakita yamineem, Phulla kusumita druma dala shobineem

- why do we have these words in our national anthem celebrating our "land" its waters, flora ? As far as I'm aware no other national anthem celebrates nature like this.

We need inclusive development, inclusive not just of peoples on our land and their needs, but also inclusive of pristine, protected, preserved nature that deserves continued celebration. So what if it takes more money and time to build roads and rail lines in order to achieve this? Isn't it a price worth paying to have our lands resemble that we hail with pride and glory in our national anthem itself?

Pause and ponder....
venkat_kv
BRFite
Posts: 459
Joined: 05 Dec 2020 21:01

Re: Nature Conservation in India News & Discussion

Post by venkat_kv »

Cyrano wrote:rsingh ji,
I wouldn't be so categoric. If a large Tiger habitat is broken up into smaller pieces that prevent animal movement, then the stock of tigers in any one isolated patch of land will be forced to breed among themselves over generations. Any undesirable mutations will be reinforced and normally recessive genes will be expressed. In a way, this is no different from "sagothra" marriages in humans that are strongly discouraged for the same reasons. This is also the reason why breeding in zoos often fails among many species due to lack of genetic variety. Please look up this topic.

Photogenic apex predators are the tip of the iceberg so to speak. Tiger/Lion/Eagle/Vulture etc. conservation is important, because to preserve an animal at the top of the food chain means all other animal and plant species below it need to be preserved.

It is indeed worth pondering what kind of future we want. One with superb 8 or 12 lane roads that connect one urban sprawl with another separated by expanses of highly industrialised farms producing crops and food animals (using tons of fertilisers and pesticides) with rare impoverished natural habitats between them? That is what parts of Europe are already. What I observed when driving from Paris to Amsterdam for example perfectly fits this description. For long stretches the stench from pig farms is unbearable even with windows up and A/C on. Surely you are aware of this.

India's population density, monsoon dependency and already impoverished, polluted, pesticide laden agricultural soils will create a lot more pressure on the land and ecosystems. By the time we achieve Western Europe's level of "development" our lands may end up far worse and irreparably so. Is that the future we want?

Sujalam, suphalam, malayaja seethalam, Sasya syamalam matharam
Subhrajyotsna pulakita yamineem, Phulla kusumita druma dala shobineem

- why do we have these words in our national anthem celebrating our "land" its waters, flora ? As far as I'm aware no other national anthem celebrates nature like this.

We need inclusive development, inclusive not just of peoples on our land and their needs, but also inclusive of pristine, protected, preserved nature that deserves continued celebration. So what if it takes more money and time to build roads and rail lines in order to achieve this? Isn't it a price worth paying to have our lands resemble that we hail with pride and glory in our national anthem itself?

Pause and ponder....
Cyrano Ji,
My guess regarding the Tiger habitat is that it shows the limitations of the habitat. When the habitat was started it was to preserve the tiger populations, we have probably reached a stage where the quoted tigers have stabilized in that reserve atleast that we are seeing interbreeding.

is there any other way to prevent interbreeding than what rsingh ji has proposed. you can take the extreme step of putting humans in enclosures and expand forest reserves such that tigers from one part can freely intermingle with another reserve. but is this possible with our population and current scenarios, even if we stop building newer roads? In zoo's people do introduce animals temporarily to get newer offspring with a different genetic material than one existing in the zoo (Berlin zoo often has loaner animals and also loans out some of the animals as do other zoos around the world).

We don't have to be Europe in terms of getting our produce a pesticide and fertilizer bath.One way is go organic, not the organic of the west where certain certified pesticides, chemicals are classified as organic and okay.

One solution is zero budget farming that is being taken up in the southern states of karnataka, parts of Telangana, Andhra, Maharashtra and tamil nadu. You need a desi variety cow and neem, garlic trees/plants to do the farming. It uses very little water compared to the present setup of crops standing in water. the side effect are weeds that will grow for paddy. but even this will take time as the first two years the crop output will be low (but since farmer doesn't spend on fertilizer and pesticides he will break even or so is claimed, but will make a lot of money by the 4 year onwards. but this involves taking care of your desi cow or bull.

We should focus on solutions that will work (obviously not all will work for everyone), otherwise we will have poverty and people passing that as some great respect for ecology/nature. Remember that poverty is also one of the causes for naxals coming into the hinterlands where the road connections are so so and spread their agenda about getting rid of the inequality in the society and bring some imagined utopia.

We are just beginning to build things, one of the focus has to be drainage in newer cities or colonies such that atleast rain excess water doesn't stay for long otherwise every monsoon we see our cities submerged with waterfall of various hues giving darshan from flyovers.

Anyways i seem to have gone OT, but i would like solutions rather than a maximalist position of no roads or only roads everywhere.
rsingh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4451
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 01:05
Location: Pindi
Contact:

Re: Nature Conservation in India News & Discussion

Post by rsingh »

Off the current topic, when will we try to tame the rivers that cause havoc in rainy season. It causes loss of property and loss of lives. Point to be noticed that even when water recesseds such buildings are dangerous to health. The
Moulds and the humidity caused unannounced deaths. For example Delhi. Why are we not creating big artificial lakes that take extra water during rainy season and serve as great reserve of water. Why are we not rivers are not cleaned during dry seasons that so that water do not cross banks. Art of living was much criticized for he distrurbing local fauna.
Wtf. You will get same fauna at some 10 km down Delhi. Dragging is to be done in summer months . Same way PWD department babu is to be punished for negligence. Immediate action. Just suspend them and let them wait for long judiciary process. It is just shame. Come Diwali and life will ba usual.Shame.
Cyrano
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5461
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Nature Conservation in India News & Discussion

Post by Cyrano »

More power to this naari. We need more such people

https://m.timesofindia.com/india-has-ri ... jv4IGroRCW
venkat_kv
BRFite
Posts: 459
Joined: 05 Dec 2020 21:01

Re: Nature Conservation in India News & Discussion

Post by venkat_kv »

Cyrano wrote:More power to this naari. We need more such people

https://m.timesofindia.com/india-has-ri ... jv4IGroRCW
Actually the TOI is late to the party. there are quite a few farmers already doing this in Karnataka, Maharashtra, Telangana, AP and Tamil Nadu regions.

This is also called "zero budget natural farming" and is littered with videos in you tube about how they are doing it. Some of the people might know, but a person called "Subash Palekar" has been spearheading this movement after he saw many farmer deaths due to rampant fertilizer and pesticide use.

The big requirement is you will need desi variety cows or buffaloes (not the hybrid ones) for cow dung (gobar) and cow urine (gowmutra) for preparing natural fertilizers and pesticides. you need chillies, garlic, neem for various other liquids needed for spraying it for treating plants. A lot of current gen software guys are doing this in their ancestral farms or are giving up the software jobs and are turning farmers using technology and are into the natural farming. The idea that everything can be taken care of by items you find everyday so farmer shouldn't spend a lot hence the term "zero budget".

In Telangana, a person called Vijay Ram has done a great deal of work on this. the salient features for the natural farming is this

1. Need a desi cow or buffalo to do about 30 acres of land.
2. you will not get good yield atleast for first 2 years. but since there is absolute no expenditure of fertilizer or pesticides so the farmers should break even for those years
3. But from year 3 and 4, you should see the yield same as previously as with fertilizer or pesticide. the fifth year onwards yields a bumper harvest. currently one of the claim is that an acre yields about 40-50 bags in the fifth year.
4. for paddy you dont need as much water as you are using today, you need only enough water to keep the soil moist and don't need water that stays in the paddy fields currently.
5. The farmers health doesn't get affected with chemical pesticides and fertilizer.

now the disadvantages from what I gather.
1. You need a desi breed of cow or buffalo - could be anything gir, tharparker, sahiwal, ongole and other varieties. Having cattle and trying to get grass or food for them is not always possible these days with urbanization in cities and tier2 cities.
2. the paddy also tends to have weeds come in as there is no standing water so you need to take care of it.
3. Since the govt is now giving farmers some amount of susidy to be used for fertilizers and pesticides, not sure how many people are going to go fo it.

Sorry for the longish post, this is something that has been very close to my heart so there is some info I have thought of sharing.
Post Reply