- Janaki Lenin and Rom Whitaker
Published in http://www.seaturtle.org/mtn/archives/mtn121/
Evidently, some time in late 2006, the IUCN signed an agreement with the Dhamra Port Company Ltd (DPCL) toward “developing a sound environmental management plan for development and operation of the Dharma Port” (http://cms.iucn.org/about/union/secretariat/offices/asia/asia_where_work/india_programme_office/dhamra_port/index.cfm), but details of the agreement do not appear to have been made public. It seems IUCN sought specialist assistance from the MTSG, through its voluntary Co-Chairs, Roderic Mast (Conservation International) and Nicolas Pilcher (Marine Research Foundation). Mast and Pilcher, in turn seem to have concluded that Pilcher should represent the MTSG in this matter. Pilcher, seemingly with the support of Mast, undertook investigations and made various recommendations in the name of the MTSG and IUCN.
There are several contentious issues arising out of IUCN and MTSG’s involvement in this project. Of concern here, several IUCN and MTSG members, particularly those from India, are troubled by the lack of transparency in IUCN and MTSG involvement. The SSC has provided guidance on these matters through their ‘Terms of Reference for SG [Specialist Group] and TF [Task Force] Chairs 2005-2008’ and ‘Guidelines and Advice for SG and TF Chairs 2005-2008’. We endeavour to analyze if the process of involvement followed these terms and guidelines.
The SSC rightly prioritizes “Communication and networking” as “a crucial role of SG and TF Chairs, as the establishment of effective communication is essential to the functioning of any SG/TF.” Added specifically to this direction is the provision of “Up-to-date information on the most important threats to biodiversity and the actions being taken to mitigate these threats”.
In an important and controversial case such as the Dhamra Port facility, even basic information on the involvement of IUCN and the MTSG, such as the terms of agreement between DPCL and IUCN is not available. Meetings between MTSG leadership and Indian members were never convened, and Indian members have been sidelined.
A lively discussion of the Dhamra project dominated the Annual Meeting of the MTSG held at the 28th International Sea Turtle Symposium in January 2008, but no minutes of what transpired have been circulated, even to members*.
The SSC advises the SG Chairs to: “Make interventions on technical issues in the name of the Group, ensuring adequate consultation within the Group prior to making such interventions” and “Where such issues are potentially controversial, wide consultation and review within Groups, as well as consultation with the Species Programme staff and the Office of the Chair, is expected.” Recognizing the voluntary nature of the efforts made by SG members, the SSC sees one benefit of consultation being: “An ability to influence policy and decision making within the group, the SSC and ultimately the IUCN through the World Conservation Congress”.
The MTSG Co-Chairs insist that consultations about MTSG involvement with DPCL occurred, specifically involving Indian MTSG members B.C. Choudhury, Bivash Pandav and Kartik Shanker. But these people state that there has been no consultation. The MTSG leadership says that no minutes of these consultations were recorded, and to prove their claim of consultation, an email dated 29 August 2006, from Kartik, the then Regional Chair, was referred to. But this message merely provided background information on the Dhamra issue to the Co-Chairs. According to Pilcher, B.C. Choudhury and Bivash Pandav did not respond to emails, so it is unclear how that constitutes consultation. It does not appear that MTSG members outside India were consulted at all. The case for broader consultation and involvement with local MTSG members, which arguably did not happen in this case, is considered fundamental to the ability of the MTSG and any other SSC-Specialist Group to function effectively. After all, specialists who speak the local languages, live and work within the socio-political system, and have dedicated decades of their lives to conservation should have something useful to contribute. Besides, the absence of any local participation jeopardizes the long-term sustainability of the project.
Conflict of Interest:
The SSC advise that “Chairs should transparently reveal their own conflicts, but they need not exclude themselves from discussion or relinquish their leadership role.” With regard to ‘Managing Money’ the SSC is more specific, “Implementing conservation action should largely remain the domain of individual SG members or groupings of members. The SG Chair and other SG officers play an important role in supporting their members but not in the implementation of projects or programmes, per se.”
Using one’s knowledge and expertise to further the cause of conservation of biodiversity is not an unethical way of earning a living. In this case, there are press reports of consultant’s fees paid by DPCL. If a paid job was offered to the SG, by what process or selection criteria did an overseas Co-Chair and his organization get the job? Should it have been offered to in-country members? When these questions were raised with the broader MTSG membership, on an e-mail discussion list, no clear and transparent answers were forthcoming. Indeed, the MTSG Regional Chair for India (Kartik) resigned over what he considered a failure to observe due diligence on behalf of the MTSG Chairs.
The SSC Guidelines recognize that disputes between Specialist Group members will occur from time to time, and suggests SG chairs should remain impartial, transparent, be trusted, respected and thus able to exert authority.
In this case, the MTSG Co-Chairs have initiated a process, in the name of the MTSG, that has unquestionably caused a dispute between MTSG members and the Co-Chairs. The lack of transparency in the process and the leadership’s vested interest in the project has eroded confidence that members need to have in the Co-Chairs, making it improbable that they would be able to mediate disputes. It is difficult to see how this dispute can be resolved amicably within the MTSG, unless the SSC and/or the affected members of the MTSG and the Co-Chairs appoint an independent arbiter. There has been some casual discussion between the Co-Chairs and three of the Indian MTSG members about a possible meeting in Bhubaneshwar, India, around September 2008, but four other Indian MTSG members have not been included in the exchange of emails.
Specialist Group members provide the SSC and IUCN with unique human resources; people skilled in the technical challenges of conserving plants and animals, people familiar with the different national contexts in which conservation needs to be pursued, and people so committed to the IUCN and its conservation goals that they are prepared to volunteer their efforts. All they expect in return is to be treated with professional respect and be included in the processes of advancing conservation, particularly within their own countries.
For the Indian MTSG members, who have long been significant contributors to the MTSG, and who have been active in fostering sea turtle conservation within India for decades, their marginalization is inexplicable. One can only imagine the response that would occur in other countries, if Indian MTSG consultants were engaged to solve such a controversial development problem, without engaging local MTSG members from the country involved. Attempts by the Indian MTSG members to obtain clear and transparent explanations about the MTSG involvement in the Dhamra project have been met with elusive responses, couched in derogatory terms, which has further aggravated the situation and added to the frustration. Hence our attempt to explain the situation, as we see it.
* The minutes were finally received by the authors on 10 July 2008, after the submission of this piece.
This article was greatly improved by comments from Jack Frazier, Ashish Fernandes and others who prefer to remain unnamed.