Tourism in reserves is not the threat it is made out to be for the world’s most admired animal. In fact, it could serve as a conservation strategy
The recent ban by the Supreme Court on tourism in core areas of tiger reserves in India raises some fundamental questions:
1. Is tourism, however intense, the real culprit behind the killings of tigers and their seemingly low breeding capacity?
2. If after four decades of implementing the Wildlife (Protection) Act, and efforts by Project Tiger and the National Tiger Conservation Authority, tigers are near extinction today, can banning reserve tourism reverse the situation?
3. Can people be denied the right to visit national parks to watch the most admired animal in the world?
Let’s look at the facts on the ground:
1. In most ‘tourism areas’ of reserves, tigers are breeding so well that their numbers are causing problems to reserve managers! The recent example is Tadoba Tiger Reserve and the more celebrated ones are Ranthambore and Bandhavgarh. In these reserves, dispersing tigers are not able to find space or ‘territories’ and are therefore running into conflict with villagers living on the edges of these parks. Nobody is claiming that tourism is increasing the fecundity of tigers, but there is some evidence to show that it is not destroying it.
2. Tourism has given communities living on the fringes of tiger reserves thousands of jobs, which no other industry or the government has.
3. Tiger tourism, as it is described, takes place in not more than 10 of the 41 reserves in the country, so to blame it for the dwindling tiger population is a bit extreme.
It is a fact that resorts outside some of the tiger reserves are causing major problems such as blocking wildlife corridors and causing pollution of all kinds. A case in point is the situation outside the Corbett Tiger Reserve, where about 150 resorts have mushroomed in the past 10 years. This is the ugly side of the so-called tiger tourism, and it definitely needs to be regulated. The scenario inside the reserves, though, is not as terrible as is made out to be.
In the past five to seven years, reserves have begun to regulate the numbers of vehicles and tourists entering the parks; for example, Corbett, Ranthambore and all reserves in Madhya Pradesh have strict limits on the number of vehicles and also have measures such as ‘routes’, and zones to reduce the pressure of vehicles on animal sightings.
I would like to discuss in some detail the Kabini area of Nagarhole Tiger Reserve as a case study on the positive aspects of tiger tourism. Less than 10 per cent of the reserve is used for tourism, and in these 40 sq km the Karnataka government has handed over the responsibility of conducting safari operations to Jungle Lodges and Resorts (JLR), a State-owned corporation.
This model has been working successfully for almost a year. The number of safari vehicles is limited according to a carrying capacity fixed by the Forest Department at a maximum of 12 every trip. Safaris are conducted twice a day for three hours each.
Tourists are accompanied by trained naturalists who not only give an interpretative experience of the jungle but also enforce the rules and regulations of the park. There is a ‘route system’ in place, by which every vehicle has to follow a previously allotted route, which further reduces the impact of vehicles on animals. There is a very strong emphasis on converting visitors into ambassadors of conservation, which is the ultimate aim of ecotourism. It is these ‘enlightened’ citizens who form a strong lobby for conservation and specifically for saving tigers in our country.
JLR is the oldest ecotourism company in India and has been in operation in Kabini for almost 30 years. The density of tigers in Nagarahole has only improved in these three decades, and it is now among the highest in the country — about one tiger for every 10 sq km!
Another aspect of the Kabini story that needs to be appreciated is the employment of locals in the six resorts in the area and the resultant economic benefits. More than 350 locals are employed in these resorts and they take home a total salary of Rs.40 lakh every month. Further, local purchases amount to about Rs.10 lakh every month. So about Rs.50 lakh is pumped into the local economy every month. What would happen to these locals if tourism is to be completely banned in Kabini?
There is no other employment in these areas. Unemployment may create indirect or even direct pressure on the tigers through habitat disturbing activities, including aiding poachers. It should be mentioned here that proposed tourism in the ‘buffer zones’ is not a feasible idea, as visitors cannot hope to see much wildlife in these areas. It will take a very long time for such areas to be inhabited by wildlife.
The other issue the Supreme Court ban throws up is that ‘critical tiger habitats’ or core areas need to be ‘inviolate’ of all human presence. Tourism that involves a temporary presence of visitors cannot be treated as ‘violating’ the core area. If it is, how are we to stop the thousands of pilgrims visitingtemples in reserves such as Ranthambore, Sariska, and B.R. Hills? And what about the highways that cut through reserves such as Bandipur and Nagarahole?
The Supreme Court will give a final ruling on August 22. Meanwhile its order for a temporary ban is an opportunity for all stakeholders to clean up their act. There are ways by which the court can help. For instance, it should pass strong strictures against illegal construction of resorts. It should see that existing guidelines like compulsory employment of locals are implemented. Instead of an extreme judgement that will ban tourism in tiger reserves completely, let us hope for a more balanced approach from the court in its final order. There are plenty of international examples to show that regulated tourism can serve as a valuable conservation tool. Why not in India?
(Champati Sarath is a freelance ecotourism consultant who is associated with Jungle Lodges and Resorts. He is a founder-member of the Ecotourism Society of India.)
Keywords: tiger reserve, tourism ban, conservation policy, Supreme Court, ecotourism
Sir, a very good article. Hope supreme court comes with some cognitive
decision and we can still breath in the airs of tigers.
Tigers, by design, are meant to live alone without much interference,
being not a social creature. This justifies Supreme court orders. We, as
humans should not disturb their (tigers) ecology and let them live
freely in their own right way.
personally, I haven't visited any tiger reserves but i can't understand how the ban on
tourists will keep the tigers extant. In fact, the revenues generated by tourism should
be used for the betterment and protection of these tiger reserves. The supreme court
should direct the concerned departments to enforce strong rules against tourists and
other local residents who are causing harm to tiger's survival.
Banning tourism in the core areas of tiger reserves may not be the best of ideas. Strict regulation of this activity is what is called for along with educating the visitors about rules of behaviour while in the forest.
Too much of anything can be bad and so can be the case with tourism. But a blanket ban is likely to produce adverse results. With fewer eyes and boots on the ground, the core areas in most of our tiger reserves which are pathetically policed, will beckon poachers.
The government should listen to people like Sarath, they know what they are talking about.
The ban of tourism in core area will have a negative affect on place like kaziranga national park in assam ,because a very big section of local people are engaged with tourism industry.I would also like to mention that kaziranga is the only place in the world where one horned rhinos are found.I am not against the conservation of tiger,but protecting the the big cats will only be served ,if we survive.
Congratulation Champati Sharath for highlighting few facts about tourism. Everything in this world has its merit and demerit. Tourism on nature has 80 percent merit and 20 percent demerits and I think an effort should be put by everyone to reduce the percentage of demerit from 20 pct to 5 pct rather than showing a knee jerk reaction.
After a long time I came across a logically constructed article but did the article weigh down on all the aspects of why did this ban happen in the first place ? Yes now its a catch 22 situation if tourism is banned in tiger reserves since it might, I repeat might force the local population into poaching and loosing all it has in the end...
Yes Kabini is a very good example how conservation and tourism can be balanced. But on the contrary, tourism has been on the rise with WILD LIFE PHOTOGRAPHY being a passion amongst many tourists. They venture into the core reserve areas for days/months in order to get a glimpse of these endangered species. This in turn boots tourism (revenue) for the resort and suffice livelihood for the locals, but at the same time increases the need of having to cater tourists demands using the surrounding environment. This affects the bio diversity and creates an imbalance in the ecosystem.
Their motto will be "Wild Life Photography" and not conserving the nature nor contributing to tiger conservation.
The Supreme Court has taken a very meticulous and balanced approach in this regard and we must welcome it. Wildlife tourism in core forest areas can be really counter-productive as,
1)It can be ecologically damaging-air pollution, plastics, etc.
2)Tigers need isolated places (territorial) but tourists are curbing or infringing on their living space thereby making them feel insecure and so they wander to nearby villages in search of space.
3)When the case in point is about the occupation and economic activity of villagers living in forest areas it is certain that villagers living in forests, live in peripheral areas. So in no way is their occupation at any peril and they can continue with their daily activities along with conservation of ecology.
4)Many illegal resorts and other commercial centers coming up due to boom in tourist visiting wildlife areas and as a result the natural serenity/beauty and purity of forests is endangered.
Well written Sarath. Banning is not a solution to a problem.
And if it is, then lets advocate banning cricket 'cause there is a lot
of gambling going on, lets advocate banning internet 'cause there is a
lot of pornography happening, lets advocate banning production of
defence equipment and guns 'cause there is a lot of terrorism happening
around the world, lets ban automobile industry 'cause there are a lot of
accidents happening, please somebody go and stop Olympics, there could
be a lot of doping.
In Masanagudi adjoining the Mudumalai and Bandipur reserves the resorts tend to dump sacks of salt on the earth close to their establishments to draw the wild animals to them...
The animals which seek to get some salt in their diet come calling frequently... and offer a spectacle to the tourists in these resorts...
Furthermore as these resorts are in the forest adjoining the reserves, getting to these resorts is by 4x4 vehicles through forest tracks and these vehicles surely do plenty of damage to these unpaved forest tracks...
I agree very much with the article. I believe much has to be done in the forest corridors between reserves and also restrict certain practices in the forests around the reserves, rather than ever so stringent action within the reserves which is simply bound to increase the level of damage just outside the reserves.
Will the Supreme Court ban into the core really help the Tigers conservation?
It is extremely doubtful, as it would allow more number of people having lesser knowledge of wildlife. Corruption may increase with respect to tiger poaching and the common man / naturalists will never know whats happening inside these core areas of wildlife reserves. Naturalist indirectly act as an independent governing body as they keep going into the parks frequently and they are very keen on keeping the count of wildlife population (increase/decrease) of that particular reserve.
Today wildlife tourism has educated a lot of people and made them realize the importance of life in the wild. The stringency on certain rules and converting the reserve into a biodiversity knowledge centre rather than a recreational centre would help tiger conservation more importantly wildlife conservation rather than the BAN into the core areas.
Yes, Corbett is pretty bad. During a trip in 2009, about five Maruti Gypsies laden with tourists from the multitude of resorts had gathered at one of the entry gates. When they opened at 6am, there was a mad rush with each driver jockeying for position and often leaving the trail. It was like rush hour with dust! No wonder we saw nothing.
A recent visit to the BR (Biligiri Rangana) hills reserve was far better managed. A naturalist was in our jeep and the driver was sensitive to the environment and fauna. While we didn't see any tigers we saw a multitude of animals and birds.
first of all there should be no 'non-sense attitude' towards
enviroment conservation and the SC has given verdict keeping Kabini
in view.
Tourism is not about watching wildlife but also about integrating
oneself into nature and right to tourism does not provide them right
to pollute enviroment(land,air,water). No doubt poaching is not
result of tourism but it has to some extent deterred the perpetrators. But for dwindling number of tigers poaching is not the
only result loss habitat and search for food have made them move of
their habitat.
On the other hand our reserves or national parks average around
10 sq.km. We cannot adopt policies or methods adopted for tourisn
like building resorts in or near parks/reserves, or entertainment
clubs as in Africa where reserve are about 100,000-200,000 sq.km.
Wildlife reserves should definitely benefit local people for that you
don't need access to core area and ground reality about tourism
benefiting people is quit different.
The author has commented about tigers like he is a scientist working
on Tigers. He is giving out his wishful thinking as facts and ground
realities. Please,
sir, let us give some room to Tigers so they can recover. There are other ways to educate people to make them "ambassadors of conservation". If the resorts keep exploiting the resources the way they are doing now there won't be anything to conserve. Eco-tourism can wait.
Restrictions have not been placed on tourist entries into Tiger Resrves as such but into the "Core Areas" as per the recent Supreme Court Order. If tigers are spilling out of Tadoba or Ranthambhor, it is mainly due to the relatively small size of the reserves and the encirclement by human habitation, agricultural fields etc. No nature lover who has seen the tourist vehicle pressure in the Dhikala area of Corbett or the meadows in Kanha Reserve would have failed to have been quite appalled by it. The way out is (a) to have strict entry regulations for "core areas", say, not more than 10 cars per day (with much high entry fees and not more than 2 hours each, (b) develop tourist zones with necessary habitat and wildlife management, (c) urgently develop "corridors" between Tiger Reserves and other nearby wilderness areas to enable wildlife to pass from one reserve to another.
The author of the article worried out on his earnings and not worried on the environment that create better living conditions to millions. Tourism is used as a backdrop by anti-social groups like smugglers -- looting forest wealth, wildlife wealth, etc. --. Most unfortunately, politicians and bureaucrats are using tourism & eco-tourism as boon to mint money for their friends and family members. This way they are destroying water bodies, pristine forests, most importantly the biological diversity, etc.
Good article. Instead of banning tourism the court needs to haul up the incompetent forestry department for not enforcing the law. Most of them are in the money making business not the conservation business. I would add one more point. The people who take time to visit are usually nature and animal lovers. They provide good oversite onto the officials who are taking care of the place. It is harder to hide things.
Please Email the Editor