Open letter to be circulated among conservationists in India, especially the members of theWildlife Trust of India, in the interested public, and in relevant institutions and authorities


JUST INTENTIONS GONE ASTRAY

Dear fellow friends of nature,

as both a person who engages in nature conservation and an insect expert, I feel very sad about the development in the Svacha/Kucera trial. Conservationists and scientists partly seem to have settled in opposite trenches - an untenable situation. If we persist in it, we cut our own flesh.

It was scientists, who propagated nature conservation until it became a widely accepted concept in most countries, and still many scientists are in the first row of conservation campaigns world-wide. Conservation plans for certain species or environments depend on knowledge about their requirements and interdependencies - again supplied by scientists, either amateurs or professionals. It is easily understood, that any restriction imposed on basic research will have negative effects on nature conservation. Effective protection is impossible without a foundation of knowledge.

I deeply regret the attitude demonstrated by a few signatories of the petition supporting the two Czech scientists. Those who participated to the discussion in an offensive manner are to be reminded, that the democratic constitution of India has proved more solid than in several European states. Indian authorities, as in any constitutional state, are bound to deal with any violation of the law in some way, and are not to be criticized for this from the beginning.

The court established that Mr. Svacha and Mr. Kucera acted unlawfully. Even if we put aside the question whether they violated the Wildlife Protection Act (WLPA) by collecting insects within a protected area (the accused deny that, and evidence submitted to the court is poor), and by collecting two specimens of a protected species (being unaware of its identity and legal status, with all probability), their violation of the Biological Diversity Act (BDA) is beyond doubt.

Any citizen of a democratic society knows that laws are man-made and thus can be faulty, and even a sound legislation may partly be in conflict with common interests. Law is not a fetish to obey, but object to discussion or sometimes even active opposition. The great founders of modern India, Mohandas K. Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, thereof gave lasting examples to the world.

The BDA is an example of imperfect law. Meant in the first place to prevent plundering of nature without benefit sharing - an absolutely justified intention - implicitly and by its implementation it imposes severe repercussions on biological research. As the BDA stands for the moment, its negative consequences may not be leveled out by the positive effects. A considerable number of Indian scientists have already put the finger on the problems better than I ever could do (→1, 2, 4, 5).

I point out one aspect only: From the viewpoint of conservation, it is important to realize, that the BDA does not protect plants or animals on their account. On the contrary, it establishes a paradox: Any Indian citizen (and any visitor of the country) is free to crush or spray as many insects he likes, as long as he regards them only as ugly creatures. If one considers them worth scientific study, but has no permit, it is an offense. Large pieces of natural vegetation may be destroyed for agriculture or construction without special permission. If a few herbs are picked as herbarium specimens, it may constitute a crime – especially if they are sent or taken abroad without a permit.

Given that the two Czech scientists are law-breakers, it is still to be asked: How bad is what they did, or what they are suspected for? I like to discuss upon some phrases made public by the Wildlife Trust of India (WTI) to investigate this question.

“Three years imprisonment for insect thief Kucera“ (WTI headline)
Theft implies property. The BDA is meant to prevent patenting derivates of Indian biota abroad. To commercialize national treasures shall be in control of a country, property is a correct expression on this background. Nature itself, and knowledge about it, is the property of mankind, but not to anybody or any country in particular. Researchers, unlike companies, always share what they produce (through publications etc.). Not sharing knowledge is considered unethical in science.

“This case has affirmed that the law treats poaching of insects as equal to poaching of other prominent animals. This is significant, as insects play an important role in the ecosystem. Their removal can have a severe impact on wild habitats." (Ashok Kumar, Vice-chairman, WTI)
These three sentences appear logical on the first look. The linking of the legal statement with the scientific ones, however, is misleading. Moreover, the third sentence is completely hypothetical. Large scale habitat destruction (e.g. in monocultures) may lead to impact of this sort, but it is never observed in diverse farmlands, let alone in wild habitats. No collecting, however intense it may be, is anywhere near as effective as natural predators, birds in particular. This by all probability is the reason why, to this day, collecting activities have never been established as a factor contributing to the decline of a threatened insect species (3).

“Post-arrest investigation had revealed that Kucera, a forester, was involved in the trade of insects.“ (WTI)
I never met Mr. Kucera, so I have no idea whether this suspicion holds true. What I do know, however, is that “insect trade” is not to be taken as a serious business. The complete annual turnover of this activity in Europe is on a very low scale and is not growing at all. In the German-speaking countries (total population about 120 million), there exists one shop only in which pinned insects can be purchased. No businessman would call this a market. Laws restricting the collection or trade of insects are of no influence in this context, because “insect trade” is still largely legal. Even in the opposite case, everybody knows: If big money can be made with anything, somebody will do it – as long as customers are found.

“These so-called eminent scientists cannot claim to be ignorant of the fact that every country has its own wildlife laws, when similar laws exist in their own country.” (Saurabh Sharma, WTI advocate)
Right! For me as well it is hard to understand this degree of neglect. Yes, we have similar laws in my country, but they are, as a rule, not applied to invertebrates. In Germany, permits are required for protected areas, or for the seizure of protected species only. Even in these cases, the authorities often drop the bureaucratic procedure of issuing a permit, when they are convinced of the scientific intentions. I was given a formal permission only once in twenty years although I have always applied, and it was of no real importance - issuing took more than half a year, my job being almost finished then.

“Considering the enormity of the seizure, the identification by the Zoological Survey of India will take time.“ (Utpal Kumar Nag, Assistant Divisional Forest Officer, Wildlife Division 1)
This statement is significant: Most people rarely take notice of insects, because they are small and often hidden animals. If faced with their actual number, even people with general experience of nature are amazed.

Just now, I am occupied with the identification of a collection of 3,600 beetles from tree canopies to provide comparable datasets within a long term study. The total number of insects in these samples, collected in just two days off thirty trees, is more than fifty thousand.

From the WTI court reports, I see that Mr. Svacha and Mr. Kucera collected about 500 insects, also in a few days. Not surprisingly, this is regarded as evidence for excessive collecting. In fact it is proof of the opposite, and rules out commercial motives.

I like to add an explanation why insects are collected. It is not because we scientists wish to kill, or to possess them. It is because the majority of insects cannot distinguished between in the field even by the most experienced expert, but require accurate microscopic study. This is especially true for countries like India, harboring a rich fauna (50,000 insect species or more), which in the same time is poorly studied (3). Safe identification in numerous cases is impossible even for the major national institutions. Free international collaboration and exchange hence is needed under any circumstances (→2, 5).

“Had they come with good intentions, they could have contacted us and we would have helped them however possible.” (Utpal Kumar Nag, Forest Officer)
Mr. Nag may be a honest man, but then, by saying so he demonstrates not being informed about the practice of permit emission in India. To deliver a permission according to the regulations of the BDA is outside of his and the whole Forest Departments´ competence. Indian scientists strongly complain about the hurdles set in front of biological research, sometimes almost impeding their work and reaching dimensions considered as critical for whole branches of science (→1, 2, 4, 5). For strangers, it seems nearly impossible to receive a permit. A small inquiry in our community revealed but one case, in which a permit was granted as an exception to amateur scientists. Later, they were arrested for ten days nevertheless, and were told the permit was issued by the wrong authority.

„Strong lobbying by international scientists in favour of the accused.“ (WTI)
I am satisfied that our lobbying is judged strong, and I hope it becomes even stronger. Science is condensed reason, and our effort is in favour of reason rather than in favour of particular persons. Not having met them, but I know that as being scientists, Mr. Kucera´s and Mr. Svacha´s moral conscience relative to nature is more developed than usual.

I am convinced that the WTI will seek for home expertise before it engages in a similar case in future, thereby ensuring not to lose the right way. The WTI may, in company with the Indian scientific community and all men of good will in different institutions, use its influence to promote the necessary amendments to the WLPA and the BDA already formulated (→2). Biological research in India as well as Indian nature will flourish due to such a switch from simple protection towards conservation.

Berlin/Germany, September 30, 2008

Boris Büche


Scientific papers referred to:

1) Bawa, K.S. (2006): Hurdles for conservation science in India.
http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/oct252006/1005.pdf

2) Madhusudan, M.D. et al. (2006): Science in the wilderness: the predicament of scientific research in India´s wildlife reserves.
http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/oct252006/1015.pdf

3) Narendran, T.C. & Cherian, P.T. (2002): On some misconceptions on conservation of insects.
http://www.zoosprint.org/ZooPrintJournal/2002/January/687-688.pdf

4) Prathapan, K.D. et al. (2006): Biological Diversity Act, 2002: Shadow of permit-raj over research in India.
http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/oct252006/1006.pdf

5) Prathapan, K.D. et al. (2008): Death sentence on taxonomy in India.
http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/jan252008/170.pdf


print on A4
auf A4 ausdrucken


back to start
zur Startseite