Challenges of managing water bodies as bird sanctuaries inTamil Nadu
Avantika Bhaskar and Jayshree Vencatesan
Avantika Bhaskar and Jayshree Vencatesan
The state of Tamil Nadu in South India
has had a long history of creating and
managing water bodies, especially in the
plains. (The general term ‘water body’
has been used in this note to avoid con-
fusion resulting from the use of terms
like ‘tanks’, ‘ponds’, ‘wetlands’, ‘lakes’,
etc. in administrative parlance.) This is
attributed largely to the spatial and tem-
poral variance of rainfall distribution in
the state, which is concentrated over the
months of October to December during
the northeast monsoon, and June to Sep-
tember during the southwest monsoon1.
Estimates suggest that there are about
39,200 irrigation water bodies in the
state which serve various purposes such
as irrigation, domestic and livestock use,
fishing, groundwater recharge and flood
control2–4. Started in the 1960s, foreshore
planting by the Tamil Nadu Forest De-
partment on some of the water bodies
was crucial in the creation of a number
of heronries in the state5. A ‘heronry’ is a
general term that refers to nesting colo-
nies of waterbirds like storks, egrets,
herons, cormorants, etc.6. Consequently,
some of the heronries were declared as
bird (wildlife) sanctuaries, with a work-
ing arrangement between the Tamil Nadu
Forest Department and Public Works
Department or Rural Development and
Panchayat Raj Department on aspects of
ownership, management and protection.
This eliminated traditional practices like
desilting of the tank, fishing, firewood
collection, grazing by the locals, etc.
which were earlier regulated by a combi-
nation of self-regulation and prudence as
well as customary rules. Interestingly, all
the 14 bird sanctuaries of the state are
water bodies, and with the exception of
one bird sanctuary in the western district
of Erode, the others are located on or
near the east coast and are a part of a
system of interconnected water bodies.
One of the most well-known bird sanc-
tuaries of the state is the Vedanthangal–
Karikili (thangal = shallow wetland),
which is situated at a distance of approxi-
mately 85 km south of Chennai. The
water body is part of the Lower Palar
Anaicut system and is a nesting ground
for nearly 17 species of waterbirds5.
Vedanthangal is often cited as an example
of community-led conservation, as is the
Koonthankulam–Kadankulam (kulam =
tank) bird sanctuary in Tirunelveli dis-
trict5,7. The bird droppings that enrich the
waters of Vedanthangal–Karikili and
Koonthankulam–Kadankulam are stated
to have served as organic enrichment for
the intensive paddy–horticulture cultiva-
tion in the landscape (Table 1). Systems
to manage the inflow and outflow of
water were evolved by the local zamin-
dar (landlord) in consultation with the
community, and the marginalized sec-
tions within the community were vested
with the responsibility of maintaining the
water body. The zamindar spearheaded
the protection of birds by punishing
hunters and poachers and incentivizing
the households which protected them.
Likewise, a landlord in Koonthankulam
played the role of a custodian of birds,
by incentivizing protection efforts. Over
time, this evolved into a local tradition
with the people desisting from engaging
in activities detrimental to birds. In both
cases, the villages came to be defined by
the birds. Farmers and local communities
around many of the sanctuaries used the
arrival of birds as one of the key indica-
tors to monitor local climate, and this in
many instances assumed the character of
‘divinity’. The association between local
communities, water bodies and birds was
system of interconnected water bodies.
One of the most well-known bird sanc-
tuaries of the state is the Vedanthangal–
Karikili (thangal = shallow wetland),
which is situated at a distance of approxi-
mately 85 km south of Chennai. The
water body is part of the Lower Palar
Anaicut system and is a nesting ground
for nearly 17 species of waterbirds5.
Vedanthangal is often cited as an example
of community-led conservation, as is the
Koonthankulam–Kadankulam (kulam =
tank) bird sanctuary in Tirunelveli dis-
trict5,7. The bird droppings that enrich the
waters of Vedanthangal–Karikili and
Koonthankulam–Kadankulam are stated
to have served as organic enrichment for
the intensive paddy–horticulture cultiva-
tion in the landscape (Table 1). Systems
to manage the inflow and outflow of
water were evolved by the local zamin-
dar (landlord) in consultation with the
community, and the marginalized sec-
tions within the community were vested
with the responsibility of maintaining the
water body. The zamindar spearheaded
the protection of birds by punishing
hunters and poachers and incentivizing
the households which protected them.
Likewise, a landlord in Koonthankulam
played the role of a custodian of birds,
by incentivizing protection efforts. Over
time, this evolved into a local tradition
with the people desisting from engaging
in activities detrimental to birds. In both
cases, the villages came to be defined by
the birds. Farmers and local communities
around many of the sanctuaries used the
arrival of birds as one of the key indica-
tors to monitor local climate, and this in
many instances assumed the character of
‘divinity’. The association between local
communities, water bodies and birds was
symbiotic with the use of agricultural
fields for foraging by birds and the use of
guano-rich silt from the water body as
fertilizer.
Interactions with the farmers of the
state’s delta region, however, suggest
that there is a need to re-examine the no-
tion of this symbiotic association. For in-
stance, farmers reported that the presence
of birds during the initial phases of
paddy cultivation, especially before the
crop is transplanted, leads to crop dam-
age. They address this issue by creating
noise using ingenious solutions such as
the use of cassette tapes. In various parts
of the world migrant waterfowl, includ-
ing ducks, geese, coots and cranes have
been reported to damage crops like rice,
corn, wheat and soybean by feeding,
trampling and grazing8,9. While Gole10
reports crop damage by Bar-headed
goose to the winter crops in India, man-
aging rice cultivation by flooding rice
fields after harvesting and use of effi-
cient agronomic practices and equipment
can benefit the birds and at the same time
prevent crop losses11. On the flip side,
the presence of birds in the agricultural
areas attracts poachers and hunters,
which results in conflicts with the Forest
Department.
While the agrarian tradition of
Koonthankulam has remained more or
less the same over the last many years, in
Vedanthangal–Karikili there has been a
marked change in land use in recent
years. Due to its proximity to the city of
Chennai and speculative land transac-
tions, agriculture has ceased to be of sig-
nificance around the water body. Large
tracts of temporary and permanent fallow
lands typify the landscape, and the resi-
dent communities wish to capitalize upon
the presence of the birds to create ‘green
fields for foraging by birds and the use of
guano-rich silt from the water body as
fertilizer.
Interactions with the farmers of the
state’s delta region, however, suggest
that there is a need to re-examine the no-
tion of this symbiotic association. For in-
stance, farmers reported that the presence
of birds during the initial phases of
paddy cultivation, especially before the
crop is transplanted, leads to crop dam-
age. They address this issue by creating
noise using ingenious solutions such as
the use of cassette tapes. In various parts
of the world migrant waterfowl, includ-
ing ducks, geese, coots and cranes have
been reported to damage crops like rice,
corn, wheat and soybean by feeding,
trampling and grazing8,9. While Gole10
reports crop damage by Bar-headed
goose to the winter crops in India, man-
aging rice cultivation by flooding rice
fields after harvesting and use of effi-
cient agronomic practices and equipment
can benefit the birds and at the same time
prevent crop losses11. On the flip side,
the presence of birds in the agricultural
areas attracts poachers and hunters,
which results in conflicts with the Forest
Department.
While the agrarian tradition of
Koonthankulam has remained more or
less the same over the last many years, in
Vedanthangal–Karikili there has been a
marked change in land use in recent
years. Due to its proximity to the city of
Chennai and speculative land transac-
tions, agriculture has ceased to be of sig-
nificance around the water body. Large
tracts of temporary and permanent fallow
lands typify the landscape, and the resi-
dent communities wish to capitalize upon
the presence of the birds to create ‘green
Table 1. Details regarding two important bird sanctuaries in Tamil Nadu
OPINION
Bird sanctuary
(BS)
Vedanthangal
Koonthankulam–Kadankulam
(BS)
Vedanthangal
Koonthankulam–Kadankulam
Location
(district)
Kancheepuram
Tirunelveli
(district)
Kancheepuram
Tirunelveli
Area16
(sq. km)
0.30
1.29
(sq. km)
0.30
1.29
No. of nesting
waterbird species5
17
15
waterbird species5
17
15
Major crops cultivated
around the BS17,18
Paddy, gingelly, groundnut, finger millet,
vegetables
Paddy, groundnut, cotton, banana, vegetables
around the BS17,18
Paddy, gingelly, groundnut, finger millet,
vegetables
Paddy, groundnut, cotton, banana, vegetables
CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 109, NO. 3, 10 AUGUST 2015
403
OPINION
townships’. As the irrigation service of
the water body becomes redundant, the
guano-enriched water is perceived to be
a problem.
Water bodies that continue to be of
significance to agriculture with large
ayacuts (area under agriculture) such as
Vaduvoor and Karaivetti, are under regu-
lar maintenance by the Public Works
Department, while in contrast, water
bodies with lower service to farmers
such as Udayamarthandapuram or Vet-
tangudi are accorded low priority. Con-
sequently, they are characterized by
silting of feeder tanks and embankments,
derelict sluices and seepage. Agarwal
and Narain12 contend that the deteriora-
tion of tanks began soon after independ-
ence as they were brought under the
Public Works Department that was un-
aware of existing indigenous systems of
managing them, besides inadequate fund-
ing for maintenance. Discussions with
farmer groups and the Panchayats, espe-
cially in Kanchipuram and Ramana-
thapuram districts indicate that this was
one of the many corollaries of the social
reform movement in Tamil Nadu. Water
bodies are valued and protected by local
communities for their ecosystem ser-
vices, especially irrigation, and when the
management is local or perceived to be
inclusive in its approach13. A change in
the management, especially to a system
that is seen to exclude local communities
and their interests may undermine the
intangible ecosystem services provided
by the water body.
With specific reference to bird sanctu-
aries, contamination of water with large
quantities of bird excreta, sediments and
agricultural chemicals run-off results in
high biochemical oxygen demand,
thereby degrading water quality and re-
ducing aquatic diversity, including native
fish species14. The bird sanctuaries were
observed to be infested with invasive fish
species such as Tilapia (Oreochromis
mossambicus) and Giant African Catfish
(Clarias gariepinus), which are capable
of surviving in unfavourable environ-
mental conditions15. The Giant African
Catfish not only decimates other aquatic
the water body becomes redundant, the
guano-enriched water is perceived to be
a problem.
Water bodies that continue to be of
significance to agriculture with large
ayacuts (area under agriculture) such as
Vaduvoor and Karaivetti, are under regu-
lar maintenance by the Public Works
Department, while in contrast, water
bodies with lower service to farmers
such as Udayamarthandapuram or Vet-
tangudi are accorded low priority. Con-
sequently, they are characterized by
silting of feeder tanks and embankments,
derelict sluices and seepage. Agarwal
and Narain12 contend that the deteriora-
tion of tanks began soon after independ-
ence as they were brought under the
Public Works Department that was un-
aware of existing indigenous systems of
managing them, besides inadequate fund-
ing for maintenance. Discussions with
farmer groups and the Panchayats, espe-
cially in Kanchipuram and Ramana-
thapuram districts indicate that this was
one of the many corollaries of the social
reform movement in Tamil Nadu. Water
bodies are valued and protected by local
communities for their ecosystem ser-
vices, especially irrigation, and when the
management is local or perceived to be
inclusive in its approach13. A change in
the management, especially to a system
that is seen to exclude local communities
and their interests may undermine the
intangible ecosystem services provided
by the water body.
With specific reference to bird sanctu-
aries, contamination of water with large
quantities of bird excreta, sediments and
agricultural chemicals run-off results in
high biochemical oxygen demand,
thereby degrading water quality and re-
ducing aquatic diversity, including native
fish species14. The bird sanctuaries were
observed to be infested with invasive fish
species such as Tilapia (Oreochromis
mossambicus) and Giant African Catfish
(Clarias gariepinus), which are capable
of surviving in unfavourable environ-
mental conditions15. The Giant African
Catfish not only decimates other aquatic
fauna, it is also not the food for any of
the birds due to its large size (R. J. R.
Daniels, pers. commun.). Tilapia, which
was introduced in Tamil Nadu to ensure
the availability of low-cost animal pro-
tein, was found to be widely represented
in nearly all the bird sanctuaries. The
cessation of fishing leases and permis-
sions granted by the state departments
has further intensified this problem. In
bird sanctuaries that are part of the
Lower Cauvery basin such as Karaivetti
and Udayamarthandapuram, the major
problem is the loss of area of the water
body due to the extensive growth of
weeds like Eichhornia crassipes and
Ipomoea carnea. In Ramanathapuram
district, water bodies such as Kanjiranku-
lam and Chitirangudi are overrun by
Prosopis juliflora and the planted Acacia
nilotica, aggravating the existing water
stress.
Evidently, the issue of managing the
bird sanctuaries is rather complex not
only due to changing scenarios within
the landscape, but also because of the in-
volvement of multiple line departments
in protecting and managing the water
bodies. Also, the much celebrated sym-
biotic relationship between local com-
munities and birds in Tamil Nadu needs
to be revalidated and contextualized for
the current time-period. Based on the
validation, management systems and
processes need to be evolved as the state
embarks on a mission of ensuring the
wise use of wetlands, which is the key
tenet of the Ramsar Convention on Wet-
lands, 1971.
the birds due to its large size (R. J. R.
Daniels, pers. commun.). Tilapia, which
was introduced in Tamil Nadu to ensure
the availability of low-cost animal pro-
tein, was found to be widely represented
in nearly all the bird sanctuaries. The
cessation of fishing leases and permis-
sions granted by the state departments
has further intensified this problem. In
bird sanctuaries that are part of the
Lower Cauvery basin such as Karaivetti
and Udayamarthandapuram, the major
problem is the loss of area of the water
body due to the extensive growth of
weeds like Eichhornia crassipes and
Ipomoea carnea. In Ramanathapuram
district, water bodies such as Kanjiranku-
lam and Chitirangudi are overrun by
Prosopis juliflora and the planted Acacia
nilotica, aggravating the existing water
stress.
Evidently, the issue of managing the
bird sanctuaries is rather complex not
only due to changing scenarios within
the landscape, but also because of the in-
volvement of multiple line departments
in protecting and managing the water
bodies. Also, the much celebrated sym-
biotic relationship between local com-
munities and birds in Tamil Nadu needs
to be revalidated and contextualized for
the current time-period. Based on the
validation, management systems and
processes need to be evolved as the state
embarks on a mission of ensuring the
wise use of wetlands, which is the key
tenet of the Ramsar Convention on Wet-
lands, 1971.
6. Urfi, A. J., The Painted Stork: Ecology
and Conservation, Springer Science &
Business Media, New York, 2011, p. 163.
7. Krishnan, M., The Vedanthangal Sanctu-
ary for Water – Birds, The Madras State
Forest Department, Madras, 1960, p. 25.
8. Hunt, R. A. and Bell, J. G., In Bird Con-
trol Seminars Proceedings, 1973, Paper
104, pp. 85–101; http://digitalcommons.
unl.edu/icwdmbirdcontrol/104
9. Cleary, E. C., In Prevention and Control
of Wildlife Damage (eds Hyngstrom, S.
E., Timm, R. M. and Larson, G. E.), Uni-
versity of Nebraska Cooperative Exten-
sion Service, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA,
1994, pp. El39–El55; http://icwdm.org/
handbook/birds/Waterfowl.asp
10. Gole, P., Aquila, 1982, 89, 141–149.
11. Stafford, J. D., Kaminski, R. M. and
Reinecke, K. J., Waterbirds, 2010,
33(sp1), 133–150.
12. Agarwal, A. and Narain, S. (eds), Dying
Wisdom: Rise, Fall, and Potential of
India’s Traditional Water Harvesting
Systems, Center for Science and Envi-
ronment, New Delhi, 1997.
13. Mitsch, W. J. and Gosselink, J. G., Ecol.
Econ., 2000, 35(1), 25–33.
14. Tilman, D., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA,
1999, 96(11), 5995–6000.
15. Ganie, M. A., Bhat, M. D., Khan, M. I.,
Parveen, M., Balkhi, M. H. and Malla,
M. A., J. Ecol. Nat. Environ., 2013,
5(10), 310–317.
16. http://www.forests.tn.nic.in/WildBiodiver-
sity/birdsanctuaries.html
17. Care Earth Trust, Wetland Action Plan –
Vedanthangal Bird Sanctuary, Tamil
Nadu Forest Department, 2014, p. 113.
18. Care Earth Trust, Wetland Action Plan –
Koonthankulam Bird Sanctuary, Tamil
Nadu Forest Department, 2014, p. 186.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. We thank the
anonymous reviewers for their comments.
This note is based on an assignment awarded
to Care Earth Trust by the Tamil Nadu Biodi-
versity Conservation and Greening Project of
the Tamil Nadu Forest Department to evolve
Wetland Action Plans for 11 bird sanctuaries
of the state.
Avantika Bhaskar and Jayshree Vencate-
san* are in Care Earth Trust, #5, Shri
Nivas, 21st Street, Thillaiganga Nagar,
Chennai 600 061, India.
*e-mail: jvencatesan@gmail.com
and Conservation, Springer Science &
Business Media, New York, 2011, p. 163.
7. Krishnan, M., The Vedanthangal Sanctu-
ary for Water – Birds, The Madras State
Forest Department, Madras, 1960, p. 25.
8. Hunt, R. A. and Bell, J. G., In Bird Con-
trol Seminars Proceedings, 1973, Paper
104, pp. 85–101; http://digitalcommons.
unl.edu/icwdmbirdcontrol/104
9. Cleary, E. C., In Prevention and Control
of Wildlife Damage (eds Hyngstrom, S.
E., Timm, R. M. and Larson, G. E.), Uni-
versity of Nebraska Cooperative Exten-
sion Service, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA,
1994, pp. El39–El55; http://icwdm.org/
handbook/birds/Waterfowl.asp
10. Gole, P., Aquila, 1982, 89, 141–149.
11. Stafford, J. D., Kaminski, R. M. and
Reinecke, K. J., Waterbirds, 2010,
33(sp1), 133–150.
12. Agarwal, A. and Narain, S. (eds), Dying
Wisdom: Rise, Fall, and Potential of
India’s Traditional Water Harvesting
Systems, Center for Science and Envi-
ronment, New Delhi, 1997.
13. Mitsch, W. J. and Gosselink, J. G., Ecol.
Econ., 2000, 35(1), 25–33.
14. Tilman, D., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA,
1999, 96(11), 5995–6000.
15. Ganie, M. A., Bhat, M. D., Khan, M. I.,
Parveen, M., Balkhi, M. H. and Malla,
M. A., J. Ecol. Nat. Environ., 2013,
5(10), 310–317.
16. http://www.forests.tn.nic.in/WildBiodiver-
sity/birdsanctuaries.html
17. Care Earth Trust, Wetland Action Plan –
Vedanthangal Bird Sanctuary, Tamil
Nadu Forest Department, 2014, p. 113.
18. Care Earth Trust, Wetland Action Plan –
Koonthankulam Bird Sanctuary, Tamil
Nadu Forest Department, 2014, p. 186.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. We thank the
anonymous reviewers for their comments.
This note is based on an assignment awarded
to Care Earth Trust by the Tamil Nadu Biodi-
versity Conservation and Greening Project of
the Tamil Nadu Forest Department to evolve
Wetland Action Plans for 11 bird sanctuaries
of the state.
Avantika Bhaskar and Jayshree Vencate-
san* are in Care Earth Trust, #5, Shri
Nivas, 21st Street, Thillaiganga Nagar,
Chennai 600 061, India.
*e-mail: jvencatesan@gmail.com
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Balachandran, S., Asokan, R. and Sri-
dharan, S., J. Earth Syst. Sci., 2006,
115(3), 349–362.
Palanisami, K. and Easter, K. W., Tank
Irrigation in the 21st Century – What
Next? Discovery Publishing House, New
Delhi, 2000, p. 189.
Palanisami, K. and Meinzen-Dick, R.,
Irrig. Drain. Syst., 2001, 15(2), 173–195.
Sakthivadivel, R., Gomathinayagam, P.
and Shah, T., Econ. Polit. Wkly., 2004,
XXXIX(31), 3521–3526.
Subramanya, S., Indian Birds, 2005,
1(6), 126–140.
dharan, S., J. Earth Syst. Sci., 2006,
115(3), 349–362.
Palanisami, K. and Easter, K. W., Tank
Irrigation in the 21st Century – What
Next? Discovery Publishing House, New
Delhi, 2000, p. 189.
Palanisami, K. and Meinzen-Dick, R.,
Irrig. Drain. Syst., 2001, 15(2), 173–195.
Sakthivadivel, R., Gomathinayagam, P.
and Shah, T., Econ. Polit. Wkly., 2004,
XXXIX(31), 3521–3526.
Subramanya, S., Indian Birds, 2005,
1(6), 126–140.
404
CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 109, NO. 3, 10 AUGUST 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment