We had just shown an image of a locally occurring primate, shared its English name and, as planned, asked students what the local name was? The reaction was a confused silence, as most of the students didn’t understand the term “local name”.
We then discovered that students in Don Bosco School at Saiha hailed from the Mara, Mizo and Lai tribes (each of which could have a separate word for the primate). Two teachers were present, one was from Assam the other from Kerala. There were a few students from other States too. So there was not one but many different names used for that one primate. In a society as diverse as ours, we need to be more local and that is what Conservation Education (CE) is all about.
The CE programme at Saiha in Mizoram involved a range of activities that include film-screenings, church-newsletters, youth club gatherings and, of course, tea-stall discussions. These were organised on a regular basis over a period of three years with different segments of society and efforts were made to generate synergies with local practices. Experiences, like the one above, ranging from abysmally stupid mistakes to moments of pleasant atonement have left behind confusion and questions.
I ponder at times on the need to bring CE to the mainstream of society; the idea being to get wildlife issues into day-to-day talks. However, the problem is that wildlife-centric groups themselves are not willing to allocate additional time for deliberations on CE. Yet, during workshops and seminars, one will hear that CE is vital to conserve the wildlife values that still exist in our land. Is it worth our time to plan if (and how) we can utilise and build on the spaces available within existing practices and structures for CE?
Recently, I was quite surprised when I was handed a brochure with printed material on only one side. Doesn’t it make more sense to act than talk? Ironically, we are unwilling to put in extra time and effort to save resources (paper in this case) but will talk of issues like relocation at such events.
I recalled a meeting where the hosts made it clear that, at the venue, they utilised electricity only to the extent that they could generate. This meant a projector was not possible but we managed with laptops. Yes, it may not always be possible but can’t we make a beginning, however small? Can’t we ask ourselves difficult (but pertinent) questions when we organise events?
Someone once asked if games like “Web of Life” really helped increase the players’ knowledge or sensitivity levels. The issue resurfaced while talking to a friend some time ago. He remarked that tools (exercises, activities and games) to create awareness on livelihood issues were passé and that there was an urgent need to sit together and talk with people. As Frits Hesselink said in his “Communicating Nature Conservation: 10 Frequently Made Mistakes”: “We often forget that the most powerful tool is face-to-face communication.” I also recalled some of the events where we had played such games and wondered (not very happily) on the impact (if any) they have had. Do we feel the need to question our actions?
Another aspect of CE that continues to surprise is the lack of importance to communication. CE requires a level of dexterity in wildlife and communication. While considerable efforts are put in to collate information that can be disseminated, there appears to be a dearth of understanding (and a corresponding investment of effort) on how best this information can be shared. Whether we need further information collation in this age of “information-overkill” too is debatable. Do pace, language, simplicity, depth, familiarity with topic, brevity, local customs (and other aspects) figure in our deliberations to augment knowledge and interest levels on wildlife?
WWF defines environment education as “a life-long process that encourages exploring, raise questions, investigate issues and seek solutions to environmental and social problems.” One-time talks, preaching on wildlife and laying out rules, may not work.
We need to be open and interactive. CE is an opportunity to create platforms to deliberate on wildlife conservation issues with different segments of the society (forest department, NGOs and researchers working on issues other than wildlife and many others) as opposed to imparting messages and also as a corollary to the wildlife-research and conservation action. A presentation at a recent gathering referred to conservation as “10 per cent science and 90 per cent negotiation”.
Is it this exploration, deliberation and negotiation that we mean when we talk of CE?
