The rights of wildlife should come first. If we want to enter the animals’ domain, we must earn the privilege by following the right practices and behaviour
The temporary halt to tourism in core zones of tiger reserves is a wake-up call to an industry that has grown rapidly and become disruptive in some places. Rather than view the Supreme Court’s interim order as a setback, tourism operators should see it as an opportunity to set things right. While there is no question that commercial tourism must be strictly regulated, a total ban on public access to wildlife reserves would be extremely harmful, as it will negatively impact conservation education, monitoring and other conservation activities by non-governmental organisations. Sensible tourism has an important role to play in conservation, and if government and tourism stakeholders work together, it is possible to craft solutions that benefit local communities, nature lovers, tourism operators and, most importantly, wildlife itself.
While all of us may feel that we have a right to enjoy nature and the great outdoors, it is imperative that we understand that natural habitats are fragile, and ought to be trod on softly, observed quietly and enjoyed responsibly. Many developing countries, particularly in Africa and South America, have succeeded in establishing tourism practices that are low on impact and high on educational value. Many of their features can be emulated with appropriate adaptations. In India, Kerala’s Parambikulam Tiger Reserve has developed an enlightened model of wildlife tourism that is praiseworthy.
Two problems; the way out
Two fundamental problems have led to the mayhem that prevails in some of our most popular reserves: first, a majority of tourism operators have little or no regard for nature, lack any sort of long-term vision and operate only for profit — tigers and their habitats be damned. The second problem is that most domestic tourists have very little interest in nature or the quiet wilderness experience, and come almost exclusively for the thrill of seeing charismatic mega fauna, mainly tigers. Consequently, wildlife tourism in many of our tiger reserves is more akin to a visit to an amusement park, with screaming tourists, harassment of animals and traffic jams being the norm. Most resorts provide no orientation to visitors, and most jeep drivers and guides — who receive little or no training — are usually only interested in the tips they can earn. The result is a mad scramble to spot the tiger so that each resort’s visitors can feel that they got their “money’s worth” out of the visit. This type of tourism does not build a constituency for conservation.
There are other negative aspects of mass tourism. Due to a lack of land use planning or regulation, tourist resorts of all kinds have proliferated around the edges of some of the most popular reserves, creating a plethora of problems — from curtailing the traditional movement of animals towards water sources or other forests nearby, to excessive groundwater extraction and firewood use. Add garbage, sewage and noise pollution, and you have a mess that is as far from eco-tourism as it can get. There are a few sensitive resort operators who try to do the right things, and attract guests who come for the entire nature experience and not just for tigers. But like an organic farmer surrounded by pesticide-happy neighbours, the efforts of these operators and the aspirations of their nature-loving guests come to naught.
While it may require the wisdom of Solomon to mitigate tourist pressure in and around reserves where tourism has already grown too large, all is not lost. So far, the chaos described earlier is largely restricted to a dozen places, whereas India has over 650 wildlife reserves, of which about 40 are tiger reserves. So, straightaway, we have a golden opportunity to ensure that the mistakes committed in a few places are not repeated elsewhere. As a first step towards ensuring sustainable and meaningful wildlife tourism, the National Tiger Conservation Authority has formulated Eco Tourism Guidelines. With appropriate consultation and implementation, these could finally help create a win-win formula for all stakeholders.
Meanwhile, tourism operators would do well to move away from an obsessive tiger-centric focus and promote themselves as offering a broader nature experience, with the tiger as a tantalising possibility. For instance, tiger reserves like Corbett and Ranthambhore also have an excellent diversity of birds and other species. But, at the moment, one cannot watch other wildlife in peace in these reserves, with thrill-seekers whizzing past in clouds of dust. While it may initially seem financially foolish to look beyond the tiger, this strategy will ultimately pay off by attracting the right kind of visitors — people who are more interested in experiencing nature rather than creature comforts. This would not only usher in more peaceful tourism in wildlife habitats, but also enable lodges to cut down on unnecessary luxuries and optimise their profits.
To survive and justify its existence, the wildlife tourism sector has no choice but to reinvent itself and get creative. The government must nurture the right atmosphere so that new ideas and initiatives have a chance to flower.
(Shekar Dattatri is a conservation film-maker and former member of the National Board for Wildlife. Email: shekar.dattatri@gmail.com)
Keywords: Tiger reserves, ban on tourism, core tiger zone, Supreme Court interim order, Project Tiger





As Shekar Dattatri has rightfully said about the negative effects of mass tourism, and the misinformed tourists who are only tiger-centric, there can be other proposals in place of tourism in core areas. One such idea that has fascinated me is virtual tourism. Africa and several parts of North America are already doing this. I often watch the live cameras installed in various reserves in South Africa through africam.com. With the cost of such technology dropping everyday, I'm sure its within India's reach as well. When tourism was not banned, this may have been discouraged given the fact that the revenues collected from tiger tourism could go down. But if tourism is banned, this can be put in place, and would prove useful to forest departments too. There will be hundreds of viewers around the world to keep a watch on our forests, night and day, and track poachers too!
Agree with Mr. Dattari's views. On the other hand, we all know why the
authorities have not reacted in a strict manner all these days (I hope
everybody knows the answer - the big bad word starting with "C"). Can
anyone tell me in which area of governance the authorities - except
maybe for a few honest individuals - are functioning in a strict and
honest way? So, why do we expect that our forest dept. staff will be
an exception and start working with the motto "satyameva jayate"? I
think, the fight, rather the tug of war, will go on - some times the
conservationists will gain some ground and sometimes the largely
lethargic and corrupt government machinery. Of course, when I say
conservationists, I do not mean the ones, who are more concerned about
the photos they have shot or the "adventurists", whose sighting of a
surrounded tiger will be recounted with great bravado in the comforts
of a city pub. It's those people who really fight for the environment
with or against the authority.
Gosh if the words Tiger were replaced by the word Leopard you could have replaced India with Lanka and the situation is 100% the same. I see that the author sat on the National Board for Wild Life how come he did not convince them on this direction? Unlike with your Supreme Court in Sri Lanka wisdom is in short supply (a case is in court on a road through a National Park) and policy makers in Parliament can not see beyond their noses......... it is clear to those in the conservation fraternity that settling persons in border areas and National Parks to provide land and livelihoods does not address the problem of jobless ness and worse it impacts ecosystems and eventually weather patterns, watersheds etc. In a blind economic drive over visitation takes place and the visitor experience is dwindling. Animals are getting accustomed to vehicles and some argue it is helping, not realizing that animals are meant to fear man habituation to man will lead to other consequences.
Ranil
A total ban is an extreme step, and not desirable. I agree with Mr.
Dattatri on the steps proposed in the article. I feel we need to create
more awareness about what ecotourism is all about. It's just not a
competition for sighting tigers. There's much more to conservation than
those long queues of vehicles filled with so-called nature lovers
waiting to 'shoot' tigers with their lenses. Perhaps, we need to
'educate' people on how to enjoy being with nature than do insensitive
things to disturb their habitat.
It's time for people to learn how they should behave/act when it comes to the public places. Instead of banning completely, heavy fine should be employed which can only make people learn. It's not only about the reserves, in general it should employed everywhere which is important for most of the public. Moreover, as far as guidelines/rules for each reserves are concerned, a general rule with some areas identified that can be changed as per local conditions should be deployed. Lastly, I second the fact that Indian Forest Officers should be given more training and they should be able to take their own decisions and stop the reserves being underutilized.
certainly we need to get more mature towards wildlife, before uplifting of ban. This is the right step taken by the honorable court. what needed, is an alternative by goverment for the people, losing their job by this ban.
This is a good article and the further comments are also essential for the reader to assimilate. I have tried to promote tiger conservation through my trilogy on India and every opportunity that presents itself, but this year whilst in India I was very depressed by the inertia, ineptitude and greedy attitude of the Forest Dept of the state of Karnataka...there seemed other agendas and the foreign tourist was having a very third rate time. People in India must respect the fact that foreigners pay a lot of money to visit India and then to be exploited and discriminated against is very poor. I witnessed several westerners say they would never return to India. I did see tiger at Bandipur but in an awful badly maintained cantor with a disinterested driver on bad roads with a HQ that had not progressed since I was there as a tiny child in 1952...it just ridiculed India. I try to promote India...the land of my birth. My late Parents were friends of the late great Jim Corbett.
the supreme court ban is a right move as the so called eco-tourism india is but a model to make quick buck and at the cost of the wild-life,people are not there to learn but mainly for the thrill and hence in most case do not meet the objective but the consequences is there for all of to see.There is an urgent need to ensure that tour operators are genuiune experts and adhere to strict norms if allowed to operate and we should have co9mpetent oficers as invigilators who will follow the rules to the later caused the mess that we are in is because we do lack competent people .
Cannot agree more with the author. Unless we learn the ways of civilized world eco-tourism will have a negative impact on the enivironment. I visited Andamans few months back to realize how a serene place is trashed arround with plastic and food we carry inspite of having trash cans in place. The whole enroute is full of plastic water bottles, left over of packaged food items. Wondering who really are "Animals" ?
I don't share the author's optimism. It's not just about tigers. Whenever we go
anywhere to visit anything, the focus is on getting there quickly, posing proudly in
front of the trophy, be it the Taj, or a tiger. The same is true for temple visits to a
certain extent.
And nature or the surroundings be damned! The complex around the Taj is only
clean because all visitors are carefully controlled and not allowed to take stuff that
they might dump inside.
We in India aren't ready for eco-tourism on a large scale yet. I would rather that
the Supreme Court keep the ban in place for a decade or so at the very least.
What Sekhar Dattatri says is non-debatable. Any conservation enthusiast cannot agree more. Unfortunately, such sane voices are lost in the din. These days every guy who has money and a digi cam is a conservationist! There are many such in my office, who mouth environment and conservation but do not even read the news and follow the issues closely. No wonder, the real heroes like Mr Dattatri and Valmik Thapar are not able to do much.
Subsequent to writing this article, at least two senior conservationists have pointed
out that it omits some important points. It has to be recognized that the
government is squarely to blame for the present mess in many reserves, as it
makes the rules and is supposed to enforce them and punish offenders. If this
were done without fear or favour, the problems would not have grown so
intractable. In places where resorts have choked wildlife corridors, what were the
concerned authorities doing all these years? It was also pointed out to me that real
solutions to the wildlife tourism impasse can only come through site-specific
solutions implemented in consultation with local stakeholders, rather than a top-
down prescriptive approach of thrusting 'one size fits all' guidelines on everyone
without any discussions or consultations. Finally, Forest Officials themselves need
proper training and education to manage tourism properly.
Please Email the Editor