India plans new railway through protected areas, threatens already-imperiled wildlife

by | 11th April 2014

Chital deer roadkill on Bandipur highway. Photo by Raghuram.

Chital deer roadkill on Bandipur highway. Photo by R. Raghuram.


—Special report by Sanjay Gubbi and Shreya Dasgupta—

On a winter day in November 2013, a passenger train in the eastern state of West Bengal in India collided with a herd of 40 to 50 elephants, killing five adults and two calves. This was not an isolated event. Such grisly incidences have killed tigers, leopards and several other wildlife species in the past. In fact, train-kills like these have become a routine affair in India.

The country’s fiscal growth has necessitated the development and improvement of its surface transport infrastructure. New roads and railway lines have been implemented or planned in many wildlife-rich areas. In addition, several state governments have amplified their demands for new railway lines that would pass through key tiger and elephant habitats.

Bandipur, together with the adjoining Nagarahole Tiger Reserve, has one of the highest densities of large mammals in the world. These reserves connect with other protected areas including BRT, Mudumalai and Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserves, as well as Cauvery and MM Hills Wildlife Sanctuaries, forming one of the country’s largest contiguous wild tiger and elephant habitats (approximately 9,000 square kilometers, or 3,475 square miles). This may appear to be stamp-sized when compared to the colossal wildlife habitats in some parts of Africa and Southeast Asia. However, the area is highly productive, holding wildlife densities comparable to the African savannahs.

Approximate route of the proposed railway line passing through Bandipur and Wayanad preserves. Credit: Nature Conservation Foundation

Approximate route of the proposed railway line passing through Bandipur and Wayanad preserves. Credit: Nature Conservation Foundation/Panthera

To a large extent, the Karnataka Forest Department has curtailed threats such as poaching. But linear intrusions such as highways and power lines continue to disturb these globally important wildlife habitats. Additionally, new threats are emerging as economic changes bring about new needs for India’s human populations. Growing human population and increased affluence among a section of the society has increased the demand for human use of wild areas. This demand is mostly for accommodation of industries such as electricity generation, surface transport, agriculture, tourism and other needs that either fragment or lead to a total loss of wildlife habitats.

The new railway line demanded by the state of Kerala, if implemented, will bisect 32 kilometers (20 miles) through two protected areas (Bandipur and Wayanad). This could eventually spell doom for wildlife, especially wide-ranging species such as tigers and elephants.

Construction of this railway line would only add to Bandipur’s battles against rampant development. Two national highways passing through this tiger reserve have demonstrated the negative impacts that linear intrusions can have on wildlife. Studies have shown highway development through wildlife habitat can lead to high rates of wildlife mortality due to vehicular collisions, genetic isolation, impediment of animal movement and increased agitation due to vehicular noise.

Traffic-related wildlife mortality is especially high at night. Several nocturnal species such as the civet, mouse deer, black-naped hare and various reptiles are regular victims of speeding vehicles. In addition, key prey species for tigers such as axis deer are also regularly hit. Young individuals are particularly susceptible to vehicular collisions at night due to their slow responses to speeding vehicles and their tendency to become transfixed by headlights.

In addition, vehicular traffic during the night could facilitate increased use of the area for illegal activities such as timber smuggling and wildlife poaching. Previously caught poachers in Bandipur and BRT Tiger Reserves confessed to having hunted at night on the highways passing through these reserves. Highway edges are a nighttime draw for many prey species due to increased visibility of predators; unfortunately, by lingering near roadways, these species become more visible to human hunters.

Through persistent efforts, forest officials, the state board of wildlife and conservationists convinced key policy and decision makers of the conservation merits of night traffic closure. They did this by providing a solution that would ensure commuters at night would remain unaffected: an alternative road that bypassed Bandipur, and which was only 35 kilometers (20 miles) longer than the highways inside the protected area.

Soon after, in a landmark move, the state government of Karnataka spent $7.8 million (INR 4.7 billion) to improve this alternative road. It passes along the edge of Nagarahole and Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuaries, and is a much less damaging option when compared to traffic passing through the core of Bandipur and Mudumalai Tiger Reserves at night.

Tiger killed on Bandipur highway. Photo by Yathish Kumar.

Bengal tiger killed on Bandipur highway. Photo by D. Yathish.

However, the battle is not yet over. We continue to fight against business interests who have challenged the night closure in the Supreme Court of India. But for now, the ban has ensured at least a little peace for tigers, their prey and other denizens of Bandipur, Mudumalai and Wayanad.

Yet, the progress made by reducing the impact of highways has so far not been echoed by railways. The neighboring state of Kerala has remained the loudest and most persistent supporter of the proposed line. They remain obstinate despite the Indian Railway’s report that the project is not economically feasible, demanding a huge investment on the order of $700 million (INR 42.67 billion). Additionally, they say that environmental impacts can be very large. Based on this report, the Kerala High Court rejected the rail expansion project when business interests expressed opposition.

Protagonists of the railway line argue that an elevated track would be environmentally feasible. However, the funds needed to build such a track and the disturbances it would create during the construction phase (which often happens at snail’s pace in India) may be substantial and prohibitive.

For countries like India where protected areas are small and human population is great, finding solutions in the best interests of wildlife is of huge importance – and very complicated. It’s not just about keeping rail tracks out of the animals’ way. As our protected areas are small, the problems facing them are several folds higher than those in North America, where engineering solutions could prove to be win-win solutions. Any additional development within India’s protected areas comes at a huge cost to wildlife.

The proposed railway line would also be completely counterproductive to attempts at conserving wildlife habitats in the area. For example, the federal Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) in India has designated theadjoining areas of Bandipur as an eco-sensitive zone (ESZ). Developmental activities such as mining and construction of polluting industries and hydropower projects are prohibited or regulated in ESZs that exist in the immediate vicinity of a protected area. Developing a railway line either within the tiger reserve or in the limits of the ESZ is also prohibited. However, many business groups have been relentlessly using political pressure in effort to circumvent these regulations and implement the railway project through Bandipur.

Bandipur National Park. Photo by Praveen Ramaswamy.

Bandipur National Park. Photo by Praveen Ramaswamy.

Since December 2011, the Nature Conservation Foundation and Panthera have supported the efforts of the government to ensure that ESZs are designated around the protected areas of Karnataka. They convinced elected representatives and local communities, as well as provided technical input for the delineation and declaration of ESZs. This has been seen as a unique effort as in most areas it is difficult to convince political leaders of the benefits of conservation. However, a senior legislator from the area helped us garner support among other legislators and people within the district.

Additionally, the National Wildlife Action Plan drafted under the chairmanship of the country’s Prime Minister, mandates the Ministry of Surface Transport and Ministry of Railways to by-pass all protected areas and corridors while constructing roads and railways. Yet, governments continue to demand that these linear infrastructures pass through fragile landscapes.

There are several alternatives available for transporting freight and passengers while avoiding areas like Bandipur and Waynad. While these alternatives may be slightly more expensive, their ecological benefits are many. The budget of the Indian railways for the year 2014-15 is a colossal $10.74 billion (INR 643 billion), and building alternative routes that bypass wildlife-rich areas will make but a small dent in the allocated resources.

India has earmarked about four percent of the country’s landscape for wildlife preservation and protection. If the swarms of vehicles and speeding trains are kept out of these regions, it would neither affect the country’s aspiring economic growth, nor would it hinder any of our transportation problems.

Losing iconic or keystone species such as tigers and elephants to train-kills would truly undermine the conservation efforts of the government and the many private organizations working hard to preserve India’s unique and irreplaceable biological legacy. When it comes to saving the endangered species of this country, developing safer alternative routes for transport should be a mantra. The tiger cannot change its ecological behavior or move to another habitat; hence, it is up to us to redraw our plans.


Sanjay Gubbi is a scientist at the Nature Conservation Foundation and Panthera, and Shreya Dasgupta is a science communicator at the Nature Conservation Foundation. Both are based in Bangalore, India.


Tiger in Bandipur National Park. Photo by A.S. Hari.

Bengal tiger in Bandipur National Park. Photo by A.S. Hari.


previous post: Reporter’s Journal: Fighting poachers and Mother Nature
next post: Reporter’s Journal: From Panama

Tasmanian devil populations severely diminished by bizarre cancer

by | 8th January 2008

The Tasmanian devil, that iconic marsupial predator of the Australian state of Tasmania, may soon meet its end. A surprising one. Once common throughout the continent, it is believed that devils became relegated to Tasmania sometime after the introduction of the dingo to Australia by Austronesian traders 2,000-3,500 years ago. Now foxes have been intentionally and foolishly brought into Tasmania which is dealing a huge blow to the devil population. However, something else may extinguish the Tasmanian devil before the foxes ever get to it…

An extremely rare (some call it completely new) form of cancer is spreading alarmingly quickly across Tasmania, inflicting Tasmanian devils with rapidly proliferating facial tumors. The end result is death by starvation. The really bizarre part of this is that this is an infectious cancer, probably passed on as Tasmanian devils scavenge the bodies of others. This was determined when it was discovered that the disorganization of the cancerous cells’ chromosomes in multiple individuals all had pretty much identical character, and that a unique marker present in one of the devil’s normal cells was absent in its cancerous cells. This is definitely NOT normal for cancer. And extremely scary. It’s not one of those cancers that arises spontaneously in one individual and stays in that individual; it’s not even something passed genetically from generation to generation. It’s passed ambiently, spreads quickly, and kills in a matter of months. In ten years, it’s killed anywhere between 20% and 50% of all Tasmanian devils living on the island, with about 60% of the island affected. High density populations have a reported 100% mortality rate within 12-18 months. This has elevated its conservation status from “lower risk/least concern” in 1996 to in 2006 being at risk of extinction in the “medium term”.

There are a number of projects being conducted by the University of Tasmania in effort to discover more about the disease/stop it. It’s all pretty expensive, so donations are welcomed. Go to to find out more.

(photo by Menna Jones)

previous post: More media coverage of Woodlark Island situation
next post: Conservation Forestry Rule Engine Financed by the Carbon Markets and A Commodity Buffer Zone

Does cryptozoology deserve its bad reputation? Probably.

by | 5th January 2008

Platypus OkapiCoelacanthHomo floresiensis Chupacabra

To almost everyone, cryptozoology does not belong in the scientific world. It relies extensively on anecdotal evidence, is known to fall headlong into hoaxes, and includes Loch Ness Monster fanatics and those people who were convinced that that poor, dead, hairless coyote was a Mexican Goat Sucker. There are thousands of online communities devoted to Bigfoot, some of which organize large expeditions into the woods which, as far as I’ve read, haven’t resulted in anything but the opportunity for these people to get together and impress each other with their expensive night-vision goggles and infrared cameras. And it’s not as if there aren’t new species to be discovered; there are tons of them – mostly insects, plants, and microscopic organisims – but cryptozoology focuses on only the pop-macrofaunal end of the spectrum, leaving the ants and mosses to others, well, more qualified.

That said, the persistence of cryptozoology (and the deep pockets of its wealthier members) has paid off more than once. The okapi, a short-necked, forest-dwelling relative of the giraffe, was regarded by Europeans as an African myth until the British governor of Uganda caught a glimpse of it in 1901.
When the platypus was discovered by Europeans in 1798, the specimens sent back to England were quickly declared fabrications; it took years of ardent persuasion for those in Australia (and fans in Europe) to convice the rest of the world that this strange little egg-laying mammal was indeed real.
The coelacanth, a massive relative of lungfish and tetrapods, was believed to have been extinct since the end of the Cretaceous until one was caught off the coast of South Africa in 1938. Since then it’s come to light that many native communities that line the eastern coast of Africa have for generations used the coelacanth for everything from a source of food to kind of sandpaper.
And then there’s Homo floresiensis, a dwarf form of Homo erectus, the discovery of whose bones on the Indonesian island of Flores in 2003 may have been foreshadowed by references to miniature people in the legends of the island’s natives.

Okapis, platypuses, coelacanths, and floresiensi all had their proponents well before their existence was proven to the world. Of course, so does the Abominable Snowman. Perhaps the lesson here is that real scientists should think about looking for the grain of truth in anecdotal evidence before disounting it altogether, and cryptozoologists should maybe, just maybe, rid themselves of crackpots stop blowing up that grain past any conceivable context.

previous post: Tourism puts the Galapagos at risk
next post: More media coverage of Woodlark Island situation