Topic 1: Man-Animal Conflict a State-Specific Disaster

Why in News?

• Amid repeated deaths from animal attacks and rising anger over them, man-animal conflict was declared as a state-specific disaster by state of Kerala. It is the first state in country to do so.

What does it change?

• At present, managing man-animal conflict is the responsibility of the forest department, which acts as per the Wild Life Protection Act. Once the issue is declared a state-specific disaster, the onus to deal with it shifts to the state disaster management authority, which, powered by the Disaster Management Act, can take quicker and more decisive action.
• At the state level, the State Disaster Management Authority (SDMA) is chaired ex officio by the Chief Minister. At the district level, the District Disaster Management Authority (DDMA) is headed by the district collector, who also serves as the executive magistrate.
• Once an issue is declared a state-specific disaster or a national disaster, the disaster management authority can take quick decisions and actions overriding all other norms. Also, district collectors can directly intervene in their capacity as the chairman of the district disaster body.

Why this change has been brought?

• In the past few weeks, whenever a life has been lost to man-animal conflict, there has been a mounting chorus to tranquilize/capture/kill the responsible animals.
• Currently, the decision on a wild animal wreaking havoc in human settlement is solely in the hands of the chief wildlife warden, there is only one such post in the state. Additionally, in the past, there have been instances where the decision to tranquilize a killer animal, such as a wild elephant, has been questioned in court.
• Once the issue is under the disaster management authority, actions can be taken, overriding other norms, including those under the Wildlife Protection Act.

• In accordance with section 71 of the Disaster Management Act, no court (except the Supreme Court or a High Court) shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of anything done by relevant authorities in pursuance of any power conferred by this Act. Section 72 of the Act stipulates that the provisions of this Act will have an overriding effect on any other law during the specific period that a disaster has been declared.

Topic 2: Panda Diplomacy

Why in news?

In November 2023, after Chinese President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Joe Biden met for the first time in a year, Mr. Xi hinted that his country could start sending pandas to the U.S. again.

What is panda diplomacy?

Giant pandas are native to central China, particularly the Yangtze River basin. The Chinese government gifts or loans these endemic pandas to other countries as a symbol of friendship or soft diplomacy, hence leading to the phrase “panda diplomacy”.

How did panda diplomacy become popular?

Although panda diplomacy essentially picked up in the mid-to-late 20th century, some experts believe that a version of it existed as early as during the Tang Dynasty that ruled between 7th and 10th century. Records from the dynasty suggest that it presented two bears to the Japanese court.

• There are multiple records of China gifting or donating pandas to countries like the U.S., the U.K., France, and Japan, but 1972 is often believed to be the start of modern panda diplomacy when, under Mao Zedong’s rule, Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai gifted to giant pandas to America following S. President Richard Nixon’s state visit.
• China stopped gifting pandas in early 1980s, and instead started loaning them at a fee of around $1 million per year. Conditions to lend pandas may also include other requirements, like building facilities for their care and agreements to return offspring to China.

Why is it considered more than just soft diplomacy?

The University of Oxford’s study from 2013 highlighted the broader implications of panda diplomacy, particularly in terms of environmental and economic impacts.

• One notable example cited in the study was the exchange involving Edinburgh Zoo in Scotland, which received a pair of pandas in December 2011. This exchange was part of a larger diplomatic effort, which included negotiations encompassing various sectors such as petrochemicals, renewable energy technology, salmon meat, and Land Rovers, with a total value of £2.6 billion.
• Moreover, the study pointed out correlations between panda diplomacy and other international agreements, particularly in the realm of natural resources. Deals involving pandas in Canada, France, and Australia were observed to coincide with these countries’ uranium agreements and contracts with China.

Such observations raised questions about the intertwined nature of diplomatic gestures involving pandas and the economic and geopolitical interests they might represent.