Banning tourism will kill the tiger

The Supreme Court’s decision banning tourism in core areas of tiger habitats overlooks several critical considerations. It will harm, rather then help, the cause of tiger conservation. For a start, it gives way too much power to the forest department. The ban will mean only one agency will both implement the tiger protection agenda, and audit that process. The various forest and environment officials at the Centre and at the State level have a terrible record of tiger protection. They had held up the absurd number of 5,000 wild tigers in India till recently when it was already clear to every one (including the much maligned lodge owners) that there are only about 1,500 tigers left in India. Tellingly, the two parks from where the tiger completely disappeared due to poaching were Panna and Sariska and both were not in the top ten most visited by tourists. In contrast, parks with the highest tiger density, such as Ranthambhore and Corbett, are amongst the most visited In India. In both Panna and Sariska, the forest officers went to great lengths to deny that the parks were without a single big cat. The unscientific relocation in Sariska has been a double disaster. These are the very people who will run tiger parks across India, if the new order is implemented in its current form. Tourism isn’t the villain Tourism allows for ample outside scrutiny of the forest and thus aids tiger preservation. Tourism brings in its wake assessment by lodge owners, guides, photographers and other stake-holders whose survival depends on robust tiger numbers. Breeding of tigers has been observed with regularity by experts even when the tourism season is in full swing. What is more, no tiger deaths due to tourism have been reported. Forest officer vehicles have, however, caused at least three tiger deaths in national parks of Madhya Pradesh in the recent past. Poaching for skin and bones and poisoning by nearby villagers remain the two main causes of tiger deaths in India. Incidentally a majority of the poaching incidents, including the latest one in Corbett last fortnight, have happened during the monsoon, when Parks are closed to the tourists. The Minister of Environment and Forests has proposed dismantling of tourism infrastructure in and near parks within a five-year framework. Instead, this is the time for the tourism industry as well as the MoEF to draw up a regulatory framework. And hotels that violate norms need to go. Price it for rarity At the same time, India needs to understand that the tiger is the rarest of the rare, and access to it should be priced accordingly. The African model offers some lessons. A one-week visit to the Masai Mara, Kenya, during the great migrations costs $3,000 while a week in Ranthambhore or Corbett costs a measly $400 - and the Masai Mara is far cheaper than reserves in places such as Okavango in Botswana. Raising access fee to national park core area will not only regulate tourist numbers but also provide for far greater revenues for the upkeep of parks and sharing with the local population. This is the one measure that will achieve the desired ends and is also easy to implement on the ground. To deny future generations that heart-stopping moment - when one sights a tiger in the wild - is no solution. The State’s job is to facilitate this majestic experience through a regulatory approach. Each park in India has unique issues and will need different solutions. A thought-out policy framework - not an “off with the tourist's head” diktat - is the way forward.

indian forests in terminal crisis

Ever since the mid 1990’s when the Narsimha rao government amended the conservation act and threw India’s forests open for commercial purposes including mining, the forest cover has be rapidly dwindling. On the face of it a one time loss due to the tsunami and gains in some states seem to point to an environment balance. There is still a sizable loss of 728 sq kilometers of forests and degradation of another 630 square kilometers throughout India. Thus when one looks at the latest state of the forest report the devil is found in the details.

A lot of the blame lies with corporate India whether it is setting up a bauxite mine over a tiger forest in orrissa or a power plant in Madhya Pradesh. So much so that a supreme court appointed committee had recently ordered canceling of 49 projects on forest land that had seemingly got relevant clearance.
The most serious loss of forest cover is in states such as Andeman and Nicobar and Assam along with Manipur and Madhya Pradesh. These very states were previously thought to be green cover bastions and are the ones which have shown most forest loss. One can safely add Arunachal Pradesh to that list. That sate is India as it used to be, with 83 per cent forest cover. However the recently announced package by the Prime Minister that calls for 10,000 crore invested in roads and railways across the state is bound to degrade forest cover here.

The reason why forests matter even in this age of globalization is three folds. For on thing Indian forest is a source for more than 250 million tribal and non tribal persons across the country. Forest products by value constitute more then $45 billion annually to India’s economy including timber and non timber products and proactive large scale employment. Lastly India is home to one of the world most diverse fauna and flora which if not nurtured could be lost for ever.

The real story of the forest loss of India is in its imbalance. Over the last twenty years the continuing erosion of forests in Central and north India has meant that the north east of India that has only 7 per cent of India landmass has in more than 25 % of her forest cover. This imbalance has created vast swaths of India without significant forest cover. The related f\degradation of river and outer resources is most immediate here.

A new law to empower tribal to have right to forest produce and land has divided the conservation community. Some believe that this may be death knell of the forests as viable cover as well as the tiger. Past record however suggests that such a doomsday scenario is misplaced. If anything the Gandhian idea of self reliance is more relevant today then ever before in the context of tribal rights over the forests. The tribal, once having ownership, is likely to use the forest as resource not as something to plunder on the sly. The empowered tribal and sensible regulations can together save the last of India’s forest cover. India and the world will be worse off if the forest s is not saved through political will directed at arresting the current slide.