Most Affordable IAS Coaching in India  

17 Apr 2023 : The Hindu Editorial Analysis

Editorial 1: Democratising of tiger conservation

The context:

  • Many scientists were happy that Project Tiger at fifty years was able to hold on to tiger populations in most of the geographical regions where they existed at its inception. However, in the 2023 preliminary report, for the first time, we find that this hold is slipping away

 

Estimation of tigers

  • Project Tiger is a tiger conservation programme launched in 1973 by the Government of India during Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's tenure. The objective of the project was to ensure the survival and maintenance of the tiger population in specially constituted Tiger reserves throughout India.
  • The tiger number released in April 2023 is the minimum estimate while the  final numbers will come in the next few months. Authorities have indicated a 6% annual growth rate, so the expected number would be approximately 25-30% above the previous 2018-2019 estimate of 2,967 tigers.
  • Fifty years ago, India’s alarming revelation that tiger numbers had dropped below 3,000 shocked the world. India reacted by banning hunting and drafting one of the world’s strongest legal frameworks to protect its natural heritage. Fifty years later, more or less the same number is now met with celebration.

 

“Conservation amnesia”

  • This syndrome of shifting baselines is known as “conservation amnesia”. The reasons for it include—
  1. By mentioning only the figure of 1,400+ estimated in 2006, wildlife managers are able to celebrate the doubling of the tiger population.  However, if one looks at the long 50 years of tiger conservation under Project Tiger, we see that numbers do not reflect a great success despite political support, funds, and a strong legal framework.
  2. Then again, just numbers do not paint the full picture. Many scientists, while not impressed by the figures, were happy that Project Tiger was able to hold on to tiger populations in most of the geographical regions where they existed at its inception.
  • However, in the 2023 preliminary report, for the first time, we find that this hold is slipping away as we are now losing tigers from Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, the Eastern ghats and from the Northeastern forests.
  • With it, we lose genetic diversity unique to these geographical regions, dashing hopes of maintaining long-term population viability and natural recovery.
  1. A tool that is increasingly being used to thwart this reduction is to reintroduce tigers from central Indian forests, where the populations are thriving, as was done for the Panna and Sariska Tiger Reserves.
  • However, if this is done too often, re-introduction will homogenise tiger genetic structure across the country, reducing genetic diversity.

 

The lacunae

  1. In the absence of proper scientific oversight, the focus stayed on boosting tiger numbers rather than their habitat and concomitant species. The most common interventions were to manipulate ecosystems so that they could support high densities of the tiger’s principal prey species.
  2. In most cases, this involved improving habitat for the cheetal, a mixed feeder that thrives in the ‘ecotone’ (a transition area between two biological communities) between forests and grasslands. This has resulted in the “cheetalification” of tiger reserves.
  3. In other parks, the excessive provisioning of water during the dry season led to reduced natural, climate driven variations in populations of wildlife. This is likely to have unknown and unintended consequences for these habitats in the long-term.

 

On decentralising conservation

  1. Conservation in India depends entirely on a network of Protected Areas (PAs) but this is an exclusive conservation model and suffers from a “sarkaar” complex.
  2. The WLPA is a restrictive law. It describes in great detail what you can’t do. However, the law and associated policies have done very little to enable conservation. There is no policy framework and incentive for ordinary citizens to aid in conservation — be it for tigers or for any other species. As a result, conservation has not reached beyond these PAs.
  3. In India, all natural habitats are managed by one agency and therefore the approach to conservation is singular, and exclusive.

 

Need of the hour- collective conservation

  1. We need to have frameworks that allow local communities, citizens, scientists, non-governmental organisations, and businesses to participate meaningfully in conservation.
  2. Large tracts of “Reserved Forests” under the jurisdiction of the “territorial” wing of State Forest Departments can be co-managed with an inclusive approach which also provides economic benefits for local communities.
  3. In many landscapes, degraded agricultural lands adjoining these forest areas can be restored to enhance connectivity between PAs, and further afield forest patches can act as “stepping stone” reserves for tigers and other large mammal movements in our increasingly human-modified environment.
     

Conclusion

  • Only by extending the reach of conservation beyond our present PA system and empowering local communities and ordinary citizens to meaningfully participate in conservation can we hope to achieve an actual doubling of tigers and other embattled wildlife.

Editorial 2: The problems with India’s clinical trials registry

Introduction:

  • The speedy approval of Covid-19 vaccines during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic spotlighted the importance of clinical trials. Terms like “vaccine efficacy” and “clinical trial”, previously restricted to medical research circles, became a part of everyday language.

 

The issue and CTRI

  • Despite their success, the haste with which some Covid-19 vaccine-related phases were cleared in India raised several questions regarding the transparency of the clinical trials and the safety and efficacy of the vaccines themselves.
  • One way to ensure a clinical trial is transparent is to make sure all information about it is freely accessible in the public domain. And that is what the Clinical Trials Registry-India (CTRI), where every trial is required to be registered before commencing does — or tries to.

 

Defining CTRI

  • Hosted with ICMR, CTRI is a free, online public-record system to register clinical trials being conducted in India. It was launched in July 2007 for use on a voluntary basis but later in 2009, the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) mandated all trials to be registered there.
  • Any trial that uses human participants and is testing drugs, surgical procedures, preventive measures, lifestyle modifications to devices, educational and behavioural treatment, and rehabilitation strategies must be enrolled in the registry.

 

The registration process

  • To register, the trial sponsor needs to make a public declaration, identify investigators, define participant selection criteria, seek the Drug Controller’s approval, and arrange to receive the approval of the ethics committees at the various trial sites.

 

Significance

  • The CTRI is one of 17 public trial registries under the International Clinical Trials Registry Portal, along with being recognised as a primary registry by the World Health Organisation. In total, it recognises 18 registries with the registry of the U.S (CT.gov) which is recognised only as a data provider.

 

Problems with CTRI

  1. Missing data – CTRI records of enrollment are inconsistent, with only 281 of 606 (46%) trials being updated after final enrollment.
  2. Internal consistencies – Trials have also been known to have internal inconsistencies, such as filling the wrong type of trial.
  3. Confusion over definitions – The article stated that a number of entries are inaccurate due to confusion over definitions. For example, some ‘interventional trials’ have been listed as ‘observational trials’ due to a “lack of understanding of the terms”.
  4. Incomplete/non-standard information – Non-standardised information about cities may also cause confusion and repetition in the registry.
  5. Misleading information – Wrong data about whether a trial is registered prospectively or retrospectively can be classified as misleading information.
  6. CTRI’s faulty search function has previously yielded incorrect results leading to misleading information.

 

Solutions

  1. Clear and accurate recording of data
  2. Complying with WHO regulations for primary registration : Adhering to the WHO requirements can make a big difference. India ranks 11 out of 18 registries that provide information.
  3. Registering trials accurately - All clinical trials in India must be registered on CTRI in India, even if the trial is also registered elsewhere (e.g. CT.gov)
  4. Improving its inner workings for CTRI to be a more functional primary registry.
  5. Bringing together all the documentation on every trial on one platform in the interest of transparency.
  6. CDSCO allows public access to regulatory documents as it is well-known that there have been several inconsistencies between trial data in a registry and the publication.
  7. CDSCO could ensure trialists provide the necessary information for record-keeping by not clearing new applications until correct data is provided and even correcting older records.

 

Conclusion

  • While India’s CTRI is recognised worldwide, it has a long way to go before being truly world-class but, there are a number of gaps to be filled with help from government agencies and cooperation from the trial sponsors. These  practices that have kept CTRI from becoming “world class”.