In 2008 and 2009, a small group from the rural West Bengal state of India migrated to the fringe of forest villages located on the borders of the Navegaon National Park, Maharashtra, India. The majority of the native forest village communities living in and around the Navegaon National Park are dependent on several forest (plant, reptiles and aquatic) species (Borkar & Paul, 2023) The forest provisioning ecosystem services (FPES) are vital for the well-being of societies, particularly in low-income forest adjacent communities (Eregae, 2022; Fikir et.al. 2016; Prager et al., 2005; FAO, 2005; Gatiso, 2019; Mahmoudi, 2023; Dash & Behera, 2016). Globally, more than 1.6 billion people (World Bank, 2002) are supported by forest ecosystems, with 70% of them living in rural areas with income levels below one dollar a day (Prager et al., 2005). The sustenance of the majority of rural households across developing nations relies on
agriculture and forestry activities (Teshome, 2015).
These migrants were affectionately referred to as a "Bengali camp" by the locals. As a migrant, they neither had ownership of land nor access to the forestry areas to draw resources to support their livelihood. The Bengali camp offered farm labour to the locals as well as assisted the local fishing population in catching fish at piece per meal rate, but they were not permitted to catch fish for themselves. Fish was their staple meal but inadequate money from existing livelihood options could not ensure fish food intake, and they could not afford to buy fish from the local market too. Given the vulnerability of these livelihoods to various shocks and seasonal variations, rural households employ a variety of diversified strategies to secure their income (Niehof, 2004). The Bengali Camp was found to be dependent on small native fish caught in minor water streams. This highlights the interconnectedness of poverty and dependence on forests (Nerfa et.al. 2020) direct or indirect resources, emphasizing the need to address poverty-related challenges (Díaz et al., 2006).
As previously mentioned, “Conservation volunteers say the tilapia population has multiplied in the lake in the last three years after some fishermen from a nearby Bengali camp quietly introduced seeds brought from West Bengal.” tilapia is considered as a low-cost protein source for low-income groups (Barroso, 2019). Invasive fish pose a major threat to aquatic ecosystems. Here, tilapia is considered as an exotic and invasive species. Exotic species entering non-native habitats are termed exotic. Often, they become invasive by outcompeting natives due to adaptability, affecting ecosystems (Wilson, 2006). They compete for resources, spread disease, and reduce or eliminate native species (Ahmad et al. 2020; Vitousek 1998; Esmaeili et al. 2014; Peterson et al., 2005), multiplying without predators, disrupting ecology and causing conflicts. Removing them is nearly impossible due to the lack of effective tools (Radkhah et al. 2021). Invasions are usually irreversible; impacts on biodiversity (Duraiappah et al., 2005) and ecosystems emerge years later (Barel et al. 1985). Although invasive species can bring short-term social and economic benefits (Gozlan et al. 2010), these advantages are often fleeting especially to those without alternative livelihoods (Sukhdev et al., 2015).
Human disturbances impact ecosystems (Wilson 2006), causing reptile and amphibian declines through habitat changes (Cushman 2006), observed in reduced species richness and abundance (Fornara and Tilman 2008; Stuart et al. 2004). The locals observed crop degradation in and around the Navegaon National Park, caused by the expanding population of rats and other rodents. Several reptiles serve as environmental health indicators (Mullin and Seigel 2009). In the presence of a Ratsnake species, the population of such species is extremely effectively regulated and maintained. The presence of a Ratsnake on an agricultural field is regarded particularly fortunate by members of the farming community. Factors driving their decline include contaminants, invasives (Shine 2005), road mortality due to limited mobility (deMaynadier and Hunter 2000), and narrow habitat needs (Cushman 2006; How and Dell 2000). During 2009–2010, the locals concluded that the number of rats was increasing and ruining the agriculture fields as a result of the area's declining Rat snake population caused by their predation on the "Koi" fish. Farmers noticed that the 'Koi' fish is stuck in the throat of the deceased Ratsnake feasting on 'Koi'. Similarly, the fishermen's community that relies on Navegaon Lake's native fish species for a living has seen a reduction in the population of indigenous fish owing to 'Koi' aka ‘Tilapia’ fish ingestion.
Whispers of concern started spreading regarding the declining numbers of various species within the vicinity. Among the residents, a faction disapproving of the Bengali Camp's presence began weaving tales, suggesting that the 'Koi' fish hailed from Bengal and was deliberately introduced to Navegaon Lake by the Bengali Camp community. These whispers evolved into fervent rumors, fanning the flames of discord between the local inhabitants and the residents of the Bengali Camp. The mounting tension eventually erupted into a volatile conflict, punctuated by violence. Regrettably, this clash hastened the departure of the Bengali Camp from the Navegaon National Park, amplifying the fractures that had already formed.
It's worth noting the intriguing timeline between 2013 and 2015, a period when I embarked on gathering data for my research project titled 'Protected Areas and Livelihood: An Institutional Analysis'. It was during this time that I had the privilege of encountering a respectful villager (whose identity shall remain undisclosed) from a village nestled right at the fringes of the Navegaon National Park. This village occupies a unique position, being bordered on three sides by the majestic hills that gracefully encircle it. The villager, a custodian of fertile agricultural land, finds their property strategically positioned between the gentle foothills and the serene expanse of the Navegaon Lake. What adds to the significance of this setting is during the monsoon season, the rainwater, unleashed in torrents, descends from the towering hills, and converges with the tranquil waters of the Navegaon Lake.
This villager embarked on a transformative journey back in 2008–2009, fueled by a vision, he chose to invest in fish farming, an endeavour that would forever alter the landscape of his surroundings. Fueled by his aspiration, he laid the foundation for two sprawling fish ponds, their dimensions stretching across 30 * 50 meters for the first and an even grander expanse of 50 * 100 meters for the second. Eager to begin, he embarked on a journey to the Kolkata city fish market where he procured seedlings of various aquatic species. He nurtured these seedlings in the smaller pond first, as they grew in size and strength, he shifted them to the larger pond where they could unfurl their potential to the fullest.
After a few days, not far from his pond, a Rat snake met its untimely demise. An inquisitive investigation revealed that the snake had partaken in a feast of Tilapia fish. Within weeks, he discovered that the larger fish that had thrived so vibrantly now lay lifeless, victims of the same enigmatic cause. Athauda (2010) and Radkhah & Eagderi (2021) mention that Tilapia breed during the rainy season, overlapping with indigenous species. They further mention that rapid breeding in scarce conditions leads to offspring breeding at 3–4 months, endangering the native population. The villager understood that a mix-up in the Koi fish seedlings from Kolkata, intermingled with other fish species. He further understood that separating "Tilapia" from the other fish species at the onset of the monsoon season would be impossible. Thus, he decided to let nature run its course, a decision fueled by a deep understanding of the delicate balance that sustains life in his aquatic domain.
Due to the intense monsoon that year, he said that rainfall flooded his ponds and mingled with Navegaon Lake. Several scholars report that Tilapia poses a severe threat (Athauda, 2010) by spreading through floods, canals, and water systems, infiltrating natural ecosystems and drinking reservoirs (Martin et al. 2010; Radkhah et al. 2018; Radkhah & Eagderi, 2021; Athauda, 2010; Eknath and Hulata, 2009). CABI (2021) highlights tilapia's introduction causing the decline and extinction of native species in Venezuela, Mexico, Nicaragua, and Australia (Radkhah & Eagderi, 2021).
The villager, with a deep understanding of the intricate web of nature, confirmed a troubling possibility: the introduction of the "Koi" fish into his ponds may have triggered a chain reaction of ecological consequences. This invasive fish species, voracious and adaptable, seemed to have embarked on a predatory spree, targeting not just the Rat snake population but also local fish species, along with a myriad of plant and animal species that were intricately connected in this delicate ecosystem. The Rat snakes, often considered guardians of agricultural fields, were now in decline, potentially disrupted by their consumption of the invasive "Koi" fish. This was a concerning revelation, as Rat snakes played a vital role in maintaining ecological balance in the area.
Moreover, the native fish populations faced a similar plight, their numbers dwindling due to the relentless appetite of the "Koi" fish. This not only impacted the fish themselves but rippled through the ecosystem, affecting species further up the food chain, including birds and mammals that depended on these fish for sustenance. In such a complex ecosystem, the interdependence of various species, both directly and indirectly, became glaringly evident. The repercussions of disrupting this delicate balance were far-reaching, affecting not only the inhabitants of the aquatic world but also those on land who relied on these resources for their livelihoods.
Yet, amidst these ecological shifts, the Bengali Camp residents found themselves in a precarious position. Despite a lack of concrete evidence, they were held responsible for these ecological changes. This accusation ignited simmering tensions among the local population, fueling social unrest and discord. The situation epitomized the complex relationship between humans and their environment. In the absence of empirical evidence, the social groups adopt the techniques of Neutralization to rationalize their act of unethical behaviour or negative impacts’ (Strutton et al. 1994). It provides explanations by the offenders to justify their criminal acts and neutralize the resulting guilt.
Boiral (2016) suggested that the use of Neutralization has not been used much in the reporting of biodiversity issues. Nevertheless, the neutralization is shaped by four reasons: the reputational risks related to the increasing institutional pressures for protecting biodiversity, focus on justifications rather than actions in sustainability reporting, managerial capture of information, and lack of measurability of biodiversity performance. Within this context, the residents of the Bengali camp found themselves facing grave accusations. These allegations pertained to their perceived role in the destruction of the region's natural biodiversity, a charge that carried significant consequences for both the environment and the neighbouring farming and fishing communities.
The accusation of destroying natural biodiversity was not to be taken lightly. It implied that the introduction of the "Koi" fish by the Bengali camp residents had caused ecological harm of considerable magnitude. Such ecological disruption could potentially lead to a cascade of consequences, affecting not only the aquatic ecosystems but also the surrounding flora and fauna. The repercussions of this alleged ecological harm extended beyond the realm of the natural world. They spilled into the human domain, impacting the livelihoods of farming and fishing communities that depended on the balance of the ecosystem. The disruption caused financial harm, disrupting the delicate equilibrium that had sustained these communities for generations. Crop yields might have suffered due to the decline in Rat snakes, which were regarded as protectors of agricultural fields. Similarly, the dwindling native fish populations could have affected the income and sustenance of local fishing communities.
Furthermore, the Bengali camp residents themselves faced a harsh reality. Their season-long source of income was lost in the wake of these allegations and ensuing conflicts. This loss not only jeopardized their economic stability but also exacerbated the tensions within the community. In essence, this situation represented a complex interplay between environmental stewardship, livelihoods, and social dynamics. It emphasized the fragile balance that exists in human-environment interactions and underscored the profound impact that accusations of ecological harm can have on both the natural world and the communities that depend on it for their well-being.
It was a stark illustration of how an alteration in one aspect of the environment could set off a chain reaction, affecting not only the targeted species but also those indirectly reliant upon them. Furthermore, it demonstrated the complex dynamics at play in human-environment interactions. Accusations of ecological harm in this context carried significant weight. They were not merely environmental concerns; they were issues that directly impacted the livelihoods and well-being of local communities. In this, the environment was not an isolated entity but rather an integral part of the social fabric, where disruptions could lead to profound consequences.
In light of such complexities, the statement made by Owusu (2011) becomes all the more relevant: “Journalism has to be critical but it does not mean destructive”. Journalism, as a pillar of societal discourse, must navigate these intricate issues with care and responsibility. It has a crucial role in not only shedding light on such matters but also in shaping perceptions and influencing actions. The role of journalists extends beyond the mere reporting of events; it encompasses the ethical responsibility of collecting and sharing genuine information. This involves a commitment to accuracy, impartiality, and a tireless pursuit of the truth. Negligence or a lack of motivation in upholding these principles can lead to the distortion of facts and, subsequently, the misguidance of public opinion.
Moreover, incomplete media coverage, especially in contexts involving conflicts and complex issues like ecological disruptions, can result in dire consequences. The stakes are exceptionally high, as decisions and actions informed by incomplete or biased reporting can exacerbate tensions, deepen divides, and hinder the search for solutions.
In the realm of journalism, it is not uncommon for reporting processes to inadvertently sideline key stakeholders, favouring public relations tactics over the fundamental principles of transparency and accountability. This observation, as highlighted by Tregidga et.al. (2014), underscores a pressing issue within the field. It points to a critical juncture where the imperative of conveying accurate information often takes a backseat to the strategic interests of various parties involved in the reporting process. Moreover, the field of biodiversity issue accounting, as noted by Jones and Solomon (2013), remains a relatively uncharted territory in journalism.
This area of reporting holds immense significance, grounded in two interlinked reasons that demand rigorous exploration. Firstly, biodiversity issues, encompassing the preservation of ecosystems, wildlife conservation, and the delicate balance of nature, are of paramount global importance. These issues transcend geographical boundaries and impact the very fabric of life on Earth. They touch upon matters of climate change, the sustainability of resources, and the well-being of countless species, including humans. Consequently, reporting on biodiversity problems is an ethical and moral responsibility, an avenue through which the public can be educated and engaged in critical discussions about the planet's future.
Secondly, the call for enhanced transparency and oversight in the realm of biodiversity issues is both timely and imperative. As our planet faces unprecedented environmental challenges, there is a growing need for comprehensive, accurate, and unbiased reporting to guide informed decision-making. The stakes are high, involving the preservation of natural habitats, the protection of endangered species, and the mitigation of ecological crises. In this context, journalism serves as a crucial bridge between the scientific community, policymakers, conservationists, and the general public. It has the power to foster understanding, inspire action, and hold accountable those who impact the environment.
As such, delving into the relatively unexplored field of biodiversity issue accounting takes on a profound significance. It entails investigating not only the challenges and complexities of environmental reporting but also the ethical imperatives that underpin it. It necessitates a rigorous examination of the methods, practices, and responsibilities of journalists who shoulder the vital task of conveying the state of our planet's biodiversity to the world. By prioritizing transparency, integrity, and a commitment to conveying the truth, journalism can play a pivotal role in shaping a more sustainable and environmentally conscious future for our planet.
Insufficient interaction between scientists and journalists is failing the journalists to interpret the scientific findings in simple non-scientific language (Rija, 2013). In numerous developing countries, journalism faces a unique set of challenges, particularly when it comes to reporting on biodiversity issues. One of the most prominent challenges is the lack of comprehensive knowledge among journalists regarding these complex ecological matters and the necessary methodological rigour. This deficiency in expertise contributes significantly to the problem of misreporting, creating a ripple effect that can have severe consequences for both the public and policymakers.
Biodiversity issues are inherently intricate, spanning a wide range of subjects, from conservation biology and ecology to climate change and ecosystem dynamics. Journalists operating in these regions often grapple with limited access to quality information, experts, and resources. They may lack the requisite background in ecological science and methodology to understand the nuances of these complex issues fully. As a result, they might struggle to discern the significance of scientific findings, the implications of policy decisions, and the broader ecological context within which events are unfolding. This knowledge gap can lead to misreporting in several ways. Journalists may inadvertently misinterpret scientific studies or present them in a sensationalized manner, oversimplifying complex ecological phenomena. They might fail to critically assess the credibility of sources, leading to the dissemination of inaccurate or biased information. Furthermore, without a solid foundation in ecological principles, journalists may struggle to ask probing questions, missing crucial aspects of the story and failing to hold those in positions of power accountable.
The repercussions of such misreporting are far-reaching. The public, relying on the media as a primary source of information, can be misled, misinformed, or left with a superficial understanding of biodiversity issues. Misreporting can create confusion, breed skepticism about scientific findings, and hinder efforts to address pressing ecological challenges. It can also undermine public support for conservation initiatives and influence policy decisions that are not grounded in sound ecological science. Policymakers, in particular, are susceptible to the consequences of misreporting. They rely on accurate and unbiased information to formulate effective environmental policies and regulations. Misreporting can distort their perceptions, leading to misguided decisions that may have adverse effects on ecosystems, species conservation, and long-term sustainability.
Addressing this issue requires a concerted effort to provide journalists with access to comprehensive and reliable information, training in ecological principles, and collaboration with experts in the field. The sourcing of news from remote rural areas presents a formidable challenge within the field of journalism, particularly in developing countries. This challenge stems from a combination of factors, including high operational costs and the constraints of limited media budgets. Additionally, the geographical distribution of journalists, who are predominantly based in urban centres, further exacerbates the issue, resulting in the lower prioritization of news from rural or forestry areas.
By bridging the knowledge gap and enhancing the capacity of journalists to report accurately on biodiversity issues, we can empower them to fulfil their vital role in raising awareness, promoting informed discussions, and advocating for the protection of our planet's rich and diverse ecosystems. It is high time for media including newspapers to recruit journalists specialized in environment and conservation fields who can interpret the scientific information generated from research and other sources and report scientific-related news in a language which can easily be understood by the public and policymakers. The media owners and other stakeholders should also plan training of journalists in environment and conservation fields and instil conservation interests in them by supporting them to visit rural areas and the conservation areas, where despite numerous issues available for reporting, they are often underrepresented. This will bear a huge impact in creating environmental and conservation awareness among the public and thus inspiring public participation in the protection and conservation of biodiversity.
Media, including newspapers, should hire environment and conservation specialists to explain research findings considering the role of each and every stakeholder. Journalists should not be dependent only on one source of information rather they should adopt a multi-stakeholder approach employing multiple qualitative methods during the investigation. A lack of information or a weak analytical grasp of the connections between social, political, and ecological systems can be shown in inaccurate reporting or insufficient analysis of biodiversity and conservation challenges. It is possible to deceive the general public and formal institutions by inaccurate reporting or poor analysis. Thus, while reporting on biodiversity loss, local media covering the topic must take social realities into consideration.