The First Habitat and Species Laws

• Author: Bruce Rich
• Position: Attorney and author who has served as senior counsel for major environmental organizations
• Pages: 20-20

Page 20 ❧ THE ENVIRONMENTAL FORUM Copyright © 2010, Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, D.C. www.eli.org.

Reprinted by permission from The Environmental Forum®, May/June 2010

When having a

sustained supply of

elephants was a matter

of state security

The First Habitat

and Species Laws

We like to think that environmen-

tal protection is a recent inven-

tion, and that the United States has

been a pioneer, establishing national

forests and parks more than a hundred

years ago, then the Endangered Species

Act 37 years ago. But in India in the

4th and 3rd centuries B.C. there were

arguably more advanced provisions

for habitat and species protection than

anything in the U.S. until the 1970s.

e great Indian Emperor Ashoka

(his reign was from 268–239 B.C.)

commanded a huge empire that in-

cluded most of today’s India, Pakistan,

and Afghanistan. Following a particu-

larly bloody war, Ashoka converted to

Buddhism and promulgated a series of

edicts based on non-violence, religious

tolerance, and protection of animals

and habitat. ese laws were inscribed

in stone throughout his realm. Many

can still be seen.

Ashoka’s Fifth Pillar Edict is nothing

less than a species and forest protection

law. It lists all of the kinds of animals

declared as exempt from slaughter —

including turtles, bats, ants, ducks,

geese, swans, doves, porcupines, squir-

rels, deer, lizards, rhinoceroses, and pi-

geons. In fact, all four-footed animals

“which are not eaten and of no utility”

were to be protected. He promulgated

what we would call measures for habi-

tat protection, declaring that “forests

must not be set on f‌ire either wantonly

or for the destruction of life,” and that

the chaf‌f in f‌ields “must not be set on

f‌ire along with the living things in it.”

On numerous f‌ixed days other kinds of

animals may not be destroyed and el-

ephant forests and f‌ish ponds are not to

be harvested.

Many of Ashoka’s species and for-

est protection measures were actually

f‌irst enacted by Kautilya (c. 350–283

B.C.), the chief minister of Ashoka’s

grandfather, the Emperor Chan-

dragupta. Kautilya wrote a treatise on

statecraft and economics (the Arthasas-

tra, literally the “science of wealth”) in

which he advocates the establishment

of protected woodlands, “one for each

kind of forest produce.” ese include

hardwoods, reeds, f‌ibers, leaves used for

writing, f‌lowers used in dyes, and me-

dicinal plants.

Kautilya also advocated the creation

of protected reserves “where all animals

are welcomed as guests and given full

protection.” Of great importance too is

the setting aside of special reserve forests

for elephants, with the death penalty for

poaching. Having a sustained supply of

elephants was a matter of state security,

for military victory

“depends principally

on elephants.”

Kautilya enumer-

ated a list of species

“which should be pro-

tected from all dan-

gers of injury.” ese

include, besides cattle, various kinds of

birds and deer. Beyond the protection

of specif‌ic species, Kautilya prohib-

its cruelty to animals, forcing the of-

fender to pay f‌ines and money for the

treatment and recovery of the injured

beast. Even individual plants and trees

enjoyed protection, and if the scale of

f‌ines is indicative, in urban areas they

rank higher than animals. All of this is

to be overseen by special departments

of government, including a chief super-

intendent of forest produce, a chief el-

ephant forester, and a chief protector of

animals and controller of slaughter.

Kautilya’s approach might be com-

pared to that of the utilitarian conserva-

tionists of the Gif‌ford Pinchot school.

Pinchot, the founder of the U.S. Forest

Service and of America’s f‌irst gradu-

ate school of forest management at

Yale, was a close friend of eodore

Roosevelt. He is widely viewed as the

most eloquent spokesperson of his time

for multiple use management of natural

resources. Pinchot literally coined the

term conservation, def‌ining it as “the

use of the earth for the good of man.”

is def‌inition almost paraphrases the

title — and underlying principle — of

Kautilya’s great treatise, which views the

management of material wealth, de-

f‌ined as “the earth inhabited by men,”

as the underlying priority of society and

the state.

e essence of Pinchot’s approach

was rational use of resources for eco-

nomic and other ends, with careful at-

tention to their stewardship. His friend

John Muir later became his greatest

opponent, for Muir was one of the

f‌irst of what we would today call deep

ecologists, advocating the protection of

nature as a value in itself. Ashoka’s ap-

proach to conservation builds on that

of Kautilya, but also transcends it in a

higher ethos of respect and care for all

life, regardless of eco-

nomic utility, an ethos

with which John Muir

would have agreed.

Interestingly, in

practice, the species

and forest protection

measures advocated by

both Kautilya and Ashoka are mostly

identical — showing that at least in an-

cient India, utilitarian economic man-

agement and an ethical commitment to

protect animal life and habitat largely

coincided.

—

is column is adapted from Bruce

Rich’s new book from Beacon Press,

To Uphold the World: A Call for A New

Global Ethic from Ancient India, with a

foreword by Nobel economist Amartya

Sen and an afterword by Peace Prize

winner the Dalai Lama.

T D W

Bruce Rich is an attorney and au thor who

has ser ved as s enior couns el f or m ajor

environ mental organizatio ns. His email is

brucemrich@gmail.com.

By Bruce Rich