Planning to educate, Educating to plan


Pleased to share our paper presented at ESD for transforming education for children and youth organized by CEE at Amdavad during September, 2016.
Title:

Planning to educate, Educating to plan: Conservation Education in an ecologically critical landscape.

Authors:

Nimesh Ved, Jayanta Pathak, Firoz Ahmed and Bibhuti Lahkar.

Corresponding author:

Need:
The authors, especially Nimesh Ved and Firoz Ahmed, had during the recent years, had a series of conversations on Conservation Education (CE). These conversations besides raising questions on CE also highlighted stark weaknesses in CE; including in actions undertaken by the authors. A significant portion of these actions focused on generating stand-alone material and made attempts to reach out to maximum numbers. In addition, the belief that CE is an easy activity which can be taken up by anyone with good intentions appeared to be pervasive! With some trepidation, we would like to argue that it is time for the environmental education community to take stock of itself. Problems lie not only with what has been taught, we believe, but also with the way environmental education curricula have been developed and evaluated (Blumstein & Saylan, 2007).



CE is an opportunity to create platforms to deliberate on wildlife conservation issues with different segments of the society (Ved, 2013). To be effective and relevant CE needs to move beyond organising random events and espouse depths which complexities of the day warrant. Such CE needs to be based on structured and robust planning. To make education worthwhile and effective, a strategy to address the existing threats/issues and relevant target groups is needed. Such a strategy needs to be focused, structured, thematic and participatory (Trivedi et al, 2006).



Project and the landscape.



A conservation project, focusing on tigers, initiated during 2015, presented a unique opportunity for the authors. An opportunity to join hands for CE in an ecologically critical landscape. In other words to put their proverbial money, where their mouths were. The authors responded with alacrity which ensured that the significance of CE was at par with other project components; these included monitoring, protection and livelihood. CE involves exploration, deliberation, negotiation and there is a dire need to bestow on it the time and efforts it merits (Ved, 2012).


The project would be implemented in the Manas landscape. The 500 sq. kms Manas National Park, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, is the core area of the 2,840 sq. kms Manas Tiger Reserve. The Tiger Reserve lies in the Baksa, Chirang, Udalguri and Kokrajhar districts of Assam (26°37'- 26°50'N, 90°45'- 91°15'E), India (Goswami & Ganesh, 2014). Aaranyak, headquartered at Guwahati would implement the project with partners. Titled ‘Securing Source Population of Tiger, Prey and Habitats in Indo-Bhutan Manas Landscape’ the project aimed to achieve 50% increase in tiger population in the project area in the next 10 years by reducing human disturbances in the habitat and thus increasing the tiger and prey population.


Seeds of the workshop


The authors agreed that the first step, one bearing highest priority, was to invest time and efforts to develop a robust and long-term plan for CE in the landscape. A plan that not only looked beyond the project-term but was sensitive to the complexities the landscape offered and also brought multiple stakeholders on board. The question then was whether the planning exercise should be undertaken by the team itself or by a larger group which included people experienced in CE. Team included, besides the authors, enthusiastic and young members associated with the CE component of the project. After deliberations it was decided to invite a set of people well-versed with CE, experts, and seek quality and critical inputs. This would enable the plan to move beyond the limited knowledge of the team and also enhance the team’s awareness on multiple aspects of CE.

This laid the seeds for the workshop; an event that would not only provide a platform to come up with a plan for CE in the landscape but also to engage on CE. A space to deliberate on CE, agree and disagree, and to explore CE.
Initial discussions

As the authors initiated discussions on the workshop some of the questions touched upon the basic elements of the CE plan. Answers to these helped derive a primary level of common understanding. These included; should the CE plan-

a.      focus on tigers given that the project (of which CE was one of the constituents) focused towards conserving tigers across the landscape?

b.      focus on developing materials that could be used during the project?

c.       explore overlaps with livelihood component of the project?

d.      assimilate learning from emerging disciplines like experiential education and transformational education?

The plan would look beyond tigers and would be open to learn from other emerging and developed disciplines and pedagogies. Materials would be discussed to the extent that the plan warranted. Emphasis would be on using existing CE materials including those developed by others (should they meet the requirements); rather than starting de-novo.


Approach and design.

Discussions then moved to the approach to the workshop. The ‘how’ questions and answers included-

a.      bias against power-point presentations; preference for free-flowing and animated conversations including participants trying out activities proposed,

b.      flexibility in format; absence of a rigid structure to allow space for creativity and to delve deeper into CE,

c.       duration of 5 to 6 days, including trips in the landscape, and located preferably away from the internet to allow participants to settle, absorb and contribute meaningfully.

A lengthy debate ensued on the degree to which the workshop should be planned and structured beforehand; especially given that people to be invited were better placed to deliberate on CE than the team. After the series of emails it was agreed to keep the workshop as loosely structured as possible. This would also allow the participants - especially the experts - to contribute in shaping the event and enrich it further. To make education worthwhile, interesting, and effective, it needs to be open yet focused; structured yet flexible; thematic yet spontaneous; and directional yet participatory (Trivedi et al, 2006). The authors not only agreed with this approach to CE but made attempts to ensure that the workshop went along on these lines as well.

This, however, led to series of questions from the experts who sought a copy of the agenda. To their surprise they were told it did not exist and that it would be developed during the event!

 Then came the workshop design, the loose structure, the ‘what’ questions and answers included-

a.      organize participants’ exposure to the landscape; both to people and wildlife,

b.      organize plenary sessions by experts, based on needs of the team and plan,

c.       arrange panel discussion within the workshop: invite people well-versed with issues that impact CE in the landscape,

d.      discuss issues of concern (for the authors): process documentation, monitoring and evaluation, capacity building; and create space for participants to lead some of these.
People and preparations

A long list of people who could be invited as experts was put in place. This, slowly, after series of agreements and disagreements, morphed into a short list. While getting on board people with diverse skill sets and experiences was the key; factors discussed included-

a.      projects undertaken during recent years,

b.      overlap of skill-sets with those sought by the team,

c.       familiarity with the landscape,

d.      positive outlook.



Suggestions were put forth on the need to have select documents ready at our end; documents that could help guide participants for the workshop. These touched upon-

a.      CE activities undertaken at Aaranyak and learning there from,

b.      CE in Assam, by other organizations and individuals, with a focus on the landscape,

c.       CE as a part of the school curriculum in Assam,

d.      details of the project and landscape.
The event


The workshop, organized during June 2016 at Bansbari, turned out to be 6 days of fun filled learning.



The venue, bereft of walls on three sides, set the desired tone, of being at ease and lack of formality. The first half of the workshop set the base with-

a.      trips inside the Manas National Park, sightings of the rhinos and bengal floricans were the highlights,

b.      interactions organized with individuals and groups at multiple locations in the landscape,

c.       panel discussion with representatives of the state education department and people renowned for their knowledge of local cultural values of the landscape,

This laid the platform to launch the second half. Here the-

a.      loose structure allowed space to question assumptions and deliberate on basics of CE; the deliberations remained focused and upheld a high quality,

b.      stress on group activities ensured high degree of participation,

c.       plenary sessions by experts focused on issues like interpretation centres, experiential education, material development, communication in context of CE and CE with school children,

d.      detailed discussions made it possible to explore topics like key threats to the habitat and activities that could be undertaken to mitigate those,

e.      planning ventured beyond school going children and explored CE for crucial but difficult to engage with stake-holders like grazers and self-help groups.

Due attention was paid to invest time amidst nature; in bird and frog walks near the venue. On one occasion the participants – amidst the sessions - took off to the river to enjoy the rains.




Way ahead


The workshop was a small but ambitious first step. One that has put in place a robust base to move ahead on CE, in the landscape and beyond. The team now needs to take up actions on the path laid out by the workshop. These include-

a.      putting in place detailed activities for each of the stake-holders,

b.      dwelling on the critical feedback received from the participants,

c.       drafting a document that would highlight the process,

d.      forging linkages and collaborations based on opportunities identified,

e.      facilitating creation of platforms and utilizing existing platforms to enable the team to explore CE meaningfully.
References:


Blumstein D.T. and Saylan C. 2007. The failure of environmental education (and how we can fix it). PLoS Biol 5(5): e120. doi:10.1371/journal.

Goswami R. and Ganesh T. 2014. Carnivore and herbivore densities in the immediate aftermath of ethno-political conflict: The case of Manas National Park, India. Tropical Conservation Science Vol.7 (3):475-487.

Trivedi P., Bhatnagar Y.V., and Mishra C. 2006. Living with snow leopards: a conservation education strategy for the Himalayan high altitudes. CERC Technical Report No. 12. Nature Conservation Foundation and International Snow Leopard Trust.
Ved N. 2012. Conservation Education (CE): Questions enroute an invigorating journey. Abstract submitted and presented at 2nd Asia Regional Conference of the Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) — Bangalore, August 7-10, 2012.

Ved N. 2013. A Wild Opportunity. Sunday Magazine, The Hindu, 18th August.

Acknowledgements:

The authors are indebted to workshop participants for taking their time out and contributing to make the workshop meaningful and fun; especially the experts Lima Rosalind, Prashant Mahajan, Tanver Hossain, Pramod P and Rengaswamy Marimuthu. The authors are grateful to the project partners Panthera, Awely, Wildlife Conservation Trust, Forest Department of the Bodoland Territorial Council and the Integrated Tiger and Habitat Conservation Program, IUCN for supporting the project. They also wish to warmly acknowledge the support and co-operation of entire team at Aaranyak for making the workshop possible. Swati Chaliha is thanked for critical comments on the draft.

Comments

Post a Comment