Over the last two months, a spate of unfortunate attacks by tigers have claimed human life outside protected areas, such as the Bandipur and Nagarahole Tiger Reserves in Karnataka.
People living in the areas are enraged and the tiger safari industry has been blamed for it. For over a month, safaris have been grounded in both the reserves. The wildlife tourism industry is aggrieved by the ban and has called for a scientific study on the impact of wildlife safaris. The State Board of Wildlife has promptly ordered a study to assess the impact of tiger tourism as well.
While the stakeholders want a swift resolution, the Government of Karnataka now has an opportunity to make a difference on the ground and ensure the impact assessment does not end up being a bureaucratic exercise.
Regulated by the Forest Department or Jungle Lodges and Resorts, safaris operate twice daily in specific zones of the reserve using modified four-wheelers or a minibus.
These safaris can be expensive and exclusive as bookings typically need to be made online. These three-to-four-hour long safari rides are intended for people to observe wildlife. Accompanying naturalists broaden the focus beyond large carnivores to include all flora and fauna. There are caps on the number of vehicles that can enter the safari zones, and the use of mobile phones is prohibited in the forest. Safari drivers are restricted from coordinating with others and congregating upon sighting a large carnivore.
While safaris are innocuous, the process has several flipsides. Each vehicle driving in the forest incrementally adds to the non-natural air and noise pollution.
The continuous stream of vehicles causes what is known as a ‘barrier
effect’, preventing animals from moving as they would normally. On
rare occasions, animals may be
disturbed by flocks of vehicles surrounding them, and they may alter their activity periods.
Maintaining view lines by pruning shrubs and saplings may alter forest composition in unknown ways. Vehicle movement also impacts smaller creatures, such as insects or snakes, which may be run over by vehicles.
Each passing vehicle compacts the soil, too, and in the dry season, leaves behind a cloud of dust, which settles on vegetation along the roads. The dust can affect the photosynthetic activity of leaves or make them unpalatable.
Roads fragment habitats and create what is called the ‘edge-effect’, where environmental conditions are drastically different from those in undisturbed habitats. Invasive plants spread in
such areas.
While the immediate impact on the environment is somewhat measurable, there are other issues with the tourism industry that are often not associated with wildlife safaris.
Scaling tourism infrastructure to meet the increased demand results in increased fossil-fuel consumption from driving to these locations, water demand, greywater discharge, and solid waste.
The tourism industry has taken steps, such as moving away from using plastic bottles and employing locals in their businesses, but many such actions remain a token gesture. The impact of the supply-chain side of wildlife tourism remains ignored or unknown.
Ironically, tourism draws in resources from afar into the forest while people living there are evicted or relocated elsewhere to reduce impact.
Against this backdrop, the order to study the impact of tourism is a good starting point to take a holistic approach to understand and course correct the wildlife tourism sector.
Irrespective of who ends up making the assessment, complex issues need to be addressed.
In 2021, following an order by the National Green Tribunal, the Karnataka government constituted a study to assess the carrying capacity of the eco-sensitive zones of Bandipur Tiger Reserve and Nugu Wildlife Sanctuary.
The authors adopted a ‘systems dynamics’ approach to determine the carrying capacity of the region. A ‘systems thinking’ framework is useful because it considers the interrelationships inherent to complex systems.
It uses models, stock and flow diagrams to determine how changes in one step affect the entire complex process. While all models can be wrong, some models are more useful than others.
Taking a systems approach will take the conversation beyond a ban and make space to formulate actionable policies. For instance, the number of safaris could be tied to measurable ecological health indicators or mandate a proportion of tourism revenue to be reinvested towards compensation for crop loss or loss of life for people who live amid tigers, apart from making the industry more inclusive than it already is.
It is tragic that the much-needed conversation about tiger tourism had to be triggered by the loss of life to tigers. The current ban on safaris must not be viewed as a cooling-off period to ease the genuine concerns of locals living amid tigers but must emerge as a turning point for conservation.
Treating tiger reserves as theme parks in an increasingly fragmented landscape will only attract conflict and resentment. The industry as well as the government should move away from boilerplate interpretations of ‘ecotourism’ or ‘sustainable tourism’ and put nature above all.
A perspective shift to ‘nature positive’ tourism is essential. Doing so will not only minimise environmental harm but also actively invest in nature restoration in tourist destinations.
This would necessitate all stakeholders of the industry to move away from viewing tourists as a source of income and towards conserving our diminishing wilderness areas.
However, the state has the wherewithal to correct this. Ultimately, tourism must stop taking from nature and start giving back. Only then can we move from a state of conflict to a state of coexistence.
(The writer is an ecologist and a faculty member at ATREE)
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.