Some wildlife conservationists welcomed it as ‘the move’ to save tigers; a few called it ‘ridiculous’; the media termed it as a ‘ban’ on tiger tourism carried out in India’s 41 tiger reserves.
These fragmented reactions were in response to the recent Supreme Court orders that caught extensive attention the world over. Few closely looked at the court’s order before assumptions were made. The court is perhaps not on its way to restrict public access to appreciate tigers in the wild; it is possibly a temporary holdup to achieve a conservation goal.
I speculate that the court wants to ensure that some of the states such as Madhya Pradesh, Uttaranchal and Rajasthan, which hold poster boy reserves attracting tourists to spot the elusive cats, but under immense pressure from tourism, to delineate buffer zones. Till 2006 no legal category as tiger reserves existed in the country’s strong wildlife legislation. An amendment to the law brought in the concept of ‘core zones’ that were to be kept inviolate, and ‘buffer zones’ encompassing multiple use forest areas. But some states ignored this part of the law and ignored delineating buffer zones.
Hit back
Returning to the current situation; the tourism industry has hit back at the ban saying that it would take away the extra sets of eyes protecting tigers from poaching, would impact local economies and the vital investments it brought to tiger conservation. However these tall claims are only partially true. In most Indian tiger reserves tourism is carried out in small parts of the reserves while larger portions continue to be protected by the barefoot soldiers of the forest department despite the hardships they face. Tourism gains momentum only after industriousness of the forest staff brings back animals so that they are available for tourism. It is certainly not the other way round.
Yes, tourism industry does benefit communities but in a miniscule way. I studied the benefits of such an activity in the celebrated Periyar Tiger Reserve in southern India and the study results are very strikingly different than the advertised claims. Only 0.8 per cent of the beneficiaries of a large World Bank funded project benefited from the tourism industry as a primary source of occupation. However there is no argument that at least a few families have been profited.
But the indirect costs tourism has put by way of fragmenting corridors through establishment of luxury lodges with blaring wedding receptions, new year eve’s parties at the edges of tiger turfs, unethical safari practices and other environmental pressures,have had serious impacts on tiger conservation.
The challenge has also been the elitist model of tourism where local people stand and watch the large benefits filched away by operators while they bear the brunt of conservation through human-wildlife conflict and reduced access to resources. The crux is that the industry has only looked at short-sighted ‘profit only’ motives by green washing using the term ‘eco-tourism’. It has failed to demonstrate the spirit of eco-tourism in its real meaning. There could be a few exceptions that exist, but surely minority in numbers.
Some western based tour operators claiming rights over the country’s tiger pastures have little understanding of Indian protected areas which are specks of landscapes unlike in the African parks where land set aside for wildlife conservation is colossal, hence experimentations on tourism is not a luxury there.
One of the best tiger reserves in the country, Bandipur (890 sq km) home to about 80 tigers, one of the highest densities of tigers anywhere in the world, has a good model of protection, has no human habitation but is less than the size of Delhi Municipal Corporation area (1,397 sq km). We need tourism that is complimentary of all these aspects rather than one size fits all model.
I am confident the court would permit tourism, when the issue comes up in a few days, that is largely focused on education rather than a marathon, chaotic, mass tourism approach. Pragmatic conservationists are supportive of controlled tourism. We need tourism as an educational tool. The current sensationalisation and panic about the issue should die down while the court would meet again as the newly constituted committee considers various options to be submitted to the court in a few days.
My experience says that tourism will continue in tiger reserves; however the industry should have foreseen a situation like this and have taken up self-motivated corrective measures to avoid circumstances like these.
(The writer is a conservation biologist working in the Western Ghats)