Don’t just cash in on tigers

Whether there is evidence for economic incentives or not; whether the existing initiatives to involve people worked well, to what extent or not - there is no doubt for the case you make - of effective regulation of tourism and short-term profiteering and marketing by tourism companies. It's a bit like trusting health care to pharma companies - beats common sense and logic!

Nice arguments. I hope people are listening....

a well written piece
1.measures and decision makers should be strong enough when dealing with these financially powerful big resorts owners.
2.well said that plans and success stories cant be just copied from Africa , every place has its different ecology and Sociology.
3.lets see how much the new guidelines for tourism which have came out are implemented in the near future.

There is a lot wrong with this article. For one thing it goes beyond Krithi Karanth's paper.

1. There has never been a single instance of anyone in the wildlife tourism industry opposing sensible regulation. What is opposed is the wrong-headed proposal to ban tourism from our national parks. Dressing up this scheme in fancy words like "nature based strategies" doesn't make it any better.

2. Inside the parks there are already controls on vehicle numbers etc. There is no opposition to this. Problems of regulation and control exist outside the parks as is very rightly pointed out by you. There is excessive pressure around our 'touristy' parks. Why is government failing to regulate this? That is pre-eminently the government's job. Instead of asking questions of the government, you are turning on tourism as the soft target. The tourism industry isn't some monolithic body that thinks and acts as one. Like any other industry it is a group of disparate individuals and companies each with their own ideas. No industry anywhere in the world is self-regulated. Creating regulatory mechanisms is the job of government. It has failed. Why do you people never train your guns on them? There have been several suggestions about how controls can be imposed on land use and density of lodges/camps from within the industry by individuals and bodies like TOFT. Not one has been accepted.

3. The idea of a 30% cess (pls don't fudge the facts - the proposal is for a cess on turn-over and not a tax on profits!) is so perverse it doesn't even deserve a response beyond a reminder that we already pay hefty taxes. This is the sort of woolly nonsense that only people who have never run a business can support.

4. You have used the Eaglenest example totally out of context. That was the hunting ground of the Buguns. Ramana Athreya has achieved a remarkable turn-around by using tourism revenue to wean the Buguns off hunting. All the money goes to the community. The law allows this in the north-east. Similarly if even half the tourism money from the parks went into the local community it would be a very substantial amount. Again you should take this up with the government as to how it is using tourism revenue.

5. The upkeep of the parks themselves is done through public monies. Tourism revenue should only cover the extra financial burden that tourism imposes on the parks and the balance should be put into the community through a special vehicle that clearly identifies the sources of the funds.

6. I am all for tourism coming into the buffer zone - as long as you can provide me with a financially viable model as to how this is to be achieved. Farmlands and reserve forests will have to be protected and allowed to convert to grasslands/be restored as healthy habitats. Cattle will have to be stopped from going into the forests. Try doing that in today's India. Long-term credit at between 3% - 5% will be needed.

There is so much wrong with this article but one has to stop here - although the sneering references to "big city operators" was entertaining - as if you guys are from some tiny jungle village. And what do you have against oil massages? Does it damage the environment - or simply offend your puritan ethic?
Hashim Tyabji

An extremely poignant and brilliantly well-put article. The problem with the tourism industry--as rightly pointed out by others as well--is that while they are all for "sensible and regulated tourism", but their definition of "sensible & regulated tourism" is one that doesn't affect their business. Any guidelines that change the status-quo against their interests is immediately dubbed "wrong-headed".

And as far as the question put up by one gentleman above is concerned where he asks "Why is government failing to regulate this? That is pre-eminently the government's job. ". Well Sir, do we really need to answer that, I suppose you of all the people know better why the government is failing to regulate. Well perhaps I should spell it out for some of us laymen : The amount of clout your people have in the government (right from the Chief Minister of the state down to the MLA) as well as in the bureaucratic machinery is well known; I personally know of cases where officers who tried to regulate tourism in some of your "touristy" parks were thrown out within months because the tourism lobby couldn't allow some “fool-hardy officer” messing with their business. And since all the decisions of the forest bureaucracy follow a chain of command which consists of 'disparate individuals', where you can't override the decisions taken by the higher-ups ; so the tourism lobby just needs to get a couple of senior officers/politicians on their side and you can be sure that it would be business as usual (the only reason there is such hullabaloo over the issue this time around is because now the decision would be made by the supreme court and not the states.) But all this happens behind the curtains; so ignorant "nonsensical" people like us who have "no idea of how your business works" never get to know about this. And then ofcourse the tourism lobby can get away with that brilliant excuse that you present here as well -- "why is the government failing to regulate"? So when they said " You can't have your cake and eat it too", perhaps they didn't know about the wildlife-tourism industry. :)

"The idea of 30% cess is so perverse that it doesn't even deserve a response". Well, I guess since people like Nandini or me are so ill-informed, we would be greatly enlightened if we get a detailed response as to why this idea is so perverse. And why doesn't the tourism-lobby submit in court a affidavit of each lodge's/resort's annual income and what ratio of that money is spent on the "hefty taxes" the industry pays to the government.

Regarding why the money doesn't reach the communities, you repeat that same rhetoric of "government failure". So I guess I must not repeat my rhetoric on this as well. Anyway, I guess its suffice to say that your statements somewhat reaffirm what "we guys" have been suspecting all along, that for the tourism-industry community welfare is not their responsibility, rather it’s the government's prerogative and the government is the sole culprit for the lack of community upliftment. But it amazes me that even though you say all this, you need a poor Baiga to parade around in a Delhi press-conference so as to drive home your claim that "its these communities whose welfare is at stake if the tourist lobby loses out". By the way, since you say that "laws in north-east allow money to reach communities", would you mind telling us which are the laws in the mainland that stop private resorts from investing money and resources in local-community welfare? And if there are such laws (though I don't know of any such laws, but still "we guys" are usually ill-informed) and the tourism-lobby indeed "cares for the welfare of the locals", why haven't you people ever protested against it?

Moreover, tourism is only to be phased out from the Critical Tiger Habitats and core of the TR's and NP's. Your industry has always claimed that wildlife thrives wherever tourism thrives, and if that is the case then banning of tourism from core would be the best thing that could have ever happened for our wildlife. I’ll explain --- The tourism industry would be forced to operate in the buffers, and once the tourists start roaming these buffers then the wildlife of this area would automatically bounce back and prosper because "wildlife thrives where-ever there is thriving tourism". The issue of paucity of wildlife in the buffers -- an issue that has been plaguing India's conservation scenario for the past 40-50 years -- would be resolved magically, isn't it. And since the buffers are much larger in area than the core, you would have a larger area to operate in, and with the wildlife revived thanks to the “presence of tourists”e, the business would sky rocket, and would earn you much more than the small core could ever provide.

However, your rather apprehensive tone suggests that you do not really believe what the representatives of your ilk said at that conference when they confidently claimed that tourism = healthy wildlife. And even if for a moment we believe that you being a "disparate" individual do not agree with the above equation, then what I fail to understand is that if the tourism-lobby is really concerned about conservation and community welfare, why wouldn't you invest your capital in reviving the buffers, why won't you use some of your income to provide the communities in the buffers with alternate livelihoods to wean away their dependence on the forests and hence improve the habitat, why wouldn’t you give them a greater stake in your business rather than providing them with menial jobs. Surely such simple steps would improve the habitat, and automatically allow the spillover wildlife from the core to repopulate these buffers; albeit it will be a slow process. And I guess you would have done all this, but for this "evil government" which always stops your industry from making any positive contributions.

The thing is I'm not against your stand per se, and you are right that this isn't about Ms. Karanth's paper or even this article. It’s about being honest. You run a business, you want profits, and you will protest against anything/any policy that inflicts a loss. And that's fair enough. What I despise is the fact that your industry won't accept this, your industry won't come out clean and say that look we just like any other industry strive for profit, no matter how it comes. Instead, you will create a facade of how "wildlife would be destroyed if tourism is phased out", “how gains made in conservation over the years would be undone", "how local communities would be destroyed" and so on and so forth.

So if "we guys" who are "nonsensical", "puritanical" and rather ill-informed can see through this facade, surely most of the people out there observing this whole debate are smarter than us.

Great article!
It touches upon one of very important problems that our tiger reserves face. 'Eco-tourism' in many places our county is just a word which is used only on brochures, books, and in the fancy tiger-talks by the wildlife resorts etc. We should understand that anything done in the name of tiger (or wildlife) tourism is not always right.
In many tiger reserves Forest Department cut trees so as too improve the chances of tiger spotting near water holes etc which are frequently visited by them. In drier seasons water will be made available only in those areas which lie on safari routes. On many occasions I was surprised to see heavy machinery employed deep inside pristine forest to dig artificial waterholes along safari routes. The purpose is only to facilitate sightings.
A national park or a sanctuary is not like a children's park that you can manage by putting a few swings and slides and flower beds. Whatever tinkering we do should be based on scientific knowledge and should be fueled by the desire to conserve the wildlife rather than project them as zoo animals.

Dear Mr. Tyabji,

Although your arguments are worth consideration in the larger spirit of democratic debate, the 'objective' truth of the matter is that eco-tourism, especially in tiger reserves has grown unregulated over the past decade and half. The scientific studies by Krithi Karanth et al. have clearly shown that tourism is growing apace, without clear benefits to parks and local communities, and is imposing significant costs on natural resources in and around the park - e.g swimming pools in the arid areas of Ranthambore. The tourism mainly caters to high-end tourists without local outreach and involvement, except as labour. As for your claims of tiger numbers having increased in parks with more tourism, I think you are confusing a simple correlation with causality. Kindly provide peer-reviewed data that establishes that tourism is the cause for increase in tiger numbers in parks. What is perhaps more likely is that some parks, due to various other reasons have high tiger numbers, and are consequently hotspots for tourism.
Regarding the economic non-viability of tourism outside in areas outside parks, it is perhaps a good time for eco-tourism companies to put in money and effort (in proportion to their tourism assets and revenues) to help restore areas outside core areas of tiger reserves. It will certainly serve a long-term benefit as seen in Nepal, with the restoration of degraded buffers with native species. A tourism cess, that goes back to the upkeep of the park concerned, and NOT into the general revenue kitty of the state exchequer, can certainly be a first step in this regard.

I agree with the authors on the main issue of irresponsible tourism. However, when comparing the tourist industry and their activities to Ramana Athreya's Eagle Nest venture one must realize that the former is self-profit driven to cash on as much as possible with relatively little 'empathy' for the forests or wildlife. I am generalizing and know that it is not true of every person in this business but by and large that is true. Ramana's venture is clearly the opposite (to save the forest by realizing that the local community has a huge role to play in it). He does not earn his living through tourism and has a career outside that industry. I think that makes a difference.

Most of the big guns in the tourism industry have many other forms of tourism they cater to and have little knowledge or care specifically for wildlife and forests. Do you think the Oberoi's will sink if their venture in Ranthambhore ends? They will have swimming pools and elephants in the desert and not give a damn if the government or we cry ourselves hoarse about how damaging their activities are to the region. The question is how do we make them empathize. If there are regulations, there are always ways to break them and which other county can be a better example than our own?