Wrong solution

Big threat to tigers comes from the poachers.

An interim decision by the Supreme Court to ban all tourism in the core areas of tiger reserves in the country has stirred a hornets’ nest. The decision has come in response to a public interest litigation pleading for protection of tiger habitats from all types of human disturbances, including tourism. Indeed, the boom in tiger tourism has resulted in the setting up of hotels, resorts and shops in the heart of tiger territory. Kanha tiger reserve in Madhya Pradesh for instance saw a 60 per cent increase in the number of tourists between 2006-07 and 2010-11. During this period the number of hotels here grew from 30 to 62. Booming tourism means that these tiger reserves see hundreds of people in buses and jeeps pouring in. They drive near tigers not only disturbing these animals but also this degrades and disturbs a fragile ecosystem. There have been some accidents too where the wild cats have been hit by speeding vehicles. Thus the apex court’s decision is not without reason.

However, whether this is the best way to protect the tiger is a moot point. After all, the big threat to tigers comes not from tourists but from poachers. Aimed at protecting the endangered tiger population, the court decision could have the opposite effect. Tourists have often played the role of informal monitors in tiger reserves. In their absence, conservationists fear that poachers will ply their trade unhindered. They have also pointed out that the tourism ban will result in loss of livelihoods for local tribals. This could result in them falling prey to the lure of profits from poaching. Rather than a total ban on all tourism, the government must regulate tiger tourism more effectively. Restrictions on the number of tourists are necessary as are limits on the kind of activities that are allowed inside the reserves. Instead of allowing only big tour operators to run the safaris, the government must facilitate local tribal involvement so that they develop a vested interest in keeping the tigers alive.

State governments have been lethargic on acting on conservation issues. This prompted the court’s extreme action. The interim ban should stir them into announcing and implementing plans to protect the big cat. Meanwhile, the court must rethink its decision. It must call for better-regulated tourism in tiger areas. The future of the tiger depends on it.