Removing tigers from eco-sensitive zones only nullifies the ESZ policy. It endangers the big cats and tanks local economies. What we need is true enforcement of the rules
Karnataka was the first state government in India to come up with a carrying capacity for safaris in its parks, and became the leading destination for Asiatic wildlife in the world; (right) The way forward: Real-time mobile phone alerts of tiger movement could allow villagers to take precautionary measures, and also help tourism operators make the belt a thriving safari destination. Pics/Getty Images
Two months ago, a tigress killed three people, wounding one, in Nugu, Karnataka, leading to a safari ban, miles away in Kabini and Bandipur and a rightful clean up of the system. During the clean-up, few tigers were removed from the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ), the very areas intended by law for the tigers to extend their territory. I quote the former Chief Wildlife Warden (CWW) of Karnataka, AK Varma, “The surge in human–wildlife conflict has forced authorities to capture (often termed “rescue”) at least 22 tigers, including cubs, in the Mysuru–Kodagu–Chamarajanagar landscape. Many cubs have since died.”
The unfortunate removal of these tigers from the ESZ has raised a few questions of the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA), our leading tiger conservation body; what is the precedent you have established by allowing the tigers to be relocated? One can understand a man-eater being shot or captured, but did all the other tigers have to be traumatised and removed from their home territories? Cubs killed? Can India afford to lose so many tigers? If our tigers are not permitted to establish territory in the eco-sensitive zones, why have this zone at all?
The rights and wrongs of these actions will be clearer with time, and all we know now is that a precedent has been established by associating tourism with predators killing humans. This will have its impact.
Saad bin Jung
From 1950 to 1971, 90 per cent of India’s wildlife was shot to pieces. Mrs Gandhi implemented the much-needed Wildlife Protection Act 1972 (WLP72). From 1972, the Government of India (GOI) worked jointly with the states to ensure proper understanding and implementation of the WLP72. It guided each state until it was ready to take over. The implementation of the act was hugely successful and wildlife numbers increased both in the protected areas and in the buffers. Keeping this in mind, in 2011, the ESZ policy was notified, to provide animals with larger areas to move around and to sensitise humans to their increased presence. However, when this policy was enacted, the central government did not monitor developments in the field as closely as it had done earlier. The support remained on paper. This, in hindsight, proved to be an error as the policy was full of conflict, both inherent and resulting from the WLP’s harsh controls. If any policy necessitated meticulous oversight by the centre, it was the operationalisation of the ESZ policy, in every state. Nonetheless, with the WLP Act and the ESZ policy in place, tiger numbers in the ESZ grew unhindered. The conflict increased manifold.
For the ESZ policy to have had a real impact, it needed a team of conservation officers both from GOI and from the state, dedicated to each Eco-Sensitive Zone. Such a team would have curtailed fresh commercial activity in the zone and enforced the policy both in law and spirit. They would have insisted that all new commercial establishments take prior approval from the National Board for Wildlife (NBW) as per policy and the centre would have retained control of the sensitive buffer regions of our forests. Regrettably, the implemented restrictions have received inadequate enforcement in most parts of India. Numerous commercial establishments have been constructed without prior approval from the NBW, putting immense pressure on the unfortunate Chief Wildlife Wardens, making it extremely difficult for them to maintain any semblance of control over the park’s carefully curated carrying capacity. As a result, instead of tourism being at the forefront of conservation, it is banned and shelved as an adversary. The flourishing tiger population has given the states a great chance to use the ESZ areas as fresh safari routes, reducing pressure on the parks. This has not happened in many places. Instead of a win-win with happy faces, we are now seeing a bleak lose-lose for all.
When I retired from cricket and my wife and I dived headlong into conservation, our thinking was simple: we knew we could not provide every person in the buffer zone with a job. However, we guessed that increasing the value of the village lands through an increased footfall of high-net-worth individuals would enable the villagers to sell their holdings and gradually relocate closer to towns. Through controlled tourism and our staff, we earned the trust of the villagers, leading to constructive conservation. Today, every villager in both Bandipur and Kabini is invested in conserving her/his wilderness. Poaching and smuggling are non-existent. The value of land is higher than it is nearer to the town. In the decade since, we have witnessed significant shifts in both local economies and tiger populations, leading to a promising future not only for the wildlife but also for the communities that inhabit these delicate ecosystems. It’s crucial we continue to build on these successes with innovative strategies. Villages must believe they have the ability to afford sustainable livelihoods through tourism, while fostering a sense of stewardship for the environment.
Karnataka was the first state government in India to come up with a carrying capacity for safaris in its parks. The then CWW, AK Varma, a gentleman dedicated to the conservation of his jungles, told me way back in 1997 that the number of safari vehicles in the parks would have to be restricted as he was working on a carrying capacity for each park. Officers like him have known all along that uncontrolled tourism could do harm, and were making much-needed policy changes well beforehand, even before the Eco-Sensitive Zone was thought of. Hence resorts constructed after proper approval, and those that were in agreement with the state for safaris, were given their share of vehicles in both Bandipur and Nagarhole. Each resort was built after such approval. Safaris were carried out in a well organised manner as each vehicle was ordered to carry a forest department guide. There was no disturbance to wildlife. Not a single untoward incident was reported in the region. Karnataka became the leading destination for Asiatic wildlife in the world. The greatest triumph was people choosing to visit us rather than going to Africa. Subsequent to 2012, the proliferation of unimpeded commercial establishments, devoid of requisite NBW approvals, within eco-sensitive zones subjected the entire ecosystem to considerable strain.
Tourism cuts both ways. Done in a controlled manner, it is the single greatest tool for conservation but when uncontrolled, it causes harm. It destroys the sanctity of the carrying capacity and wreaks havoc in the jungle. Be it safaris or pilgrimages, we need to ensure minimal impact on wildlife and, at the same time, make sure villagers have conflicts resolved from within the village structure. The decision to ban safaris not only cost the industry a huge amount of money, but it also substantially eroded the credibility of the eco-tourism operator, as a provider of security and hope to the villagers.
Leveraging technology and mobile applications to monitor tiger movements can help mitigate human-wildlife conflict. Real-time alerts could inform villagers of tiger activity in their vicinity, allowing them to take precautionary measures. This tiger movement could then be relayed to tourism operators thereby converting the Eco-Sensitive Zone into a thriving safari destination.
As we move forward, we must ensure that the tiger too has a voice in every village in the ESZ; we must prioritise collaboration among the government, eco-tourism operators, and the local communities to ensure that conservation efforts remain centred on the needs of both the wilderness and the aspirations of the people who share their land with these magnificent animals. Only through such collaborative efforts can we truly ensure the longevity of tiger populations in buffer areas. As most solutions to conflicts are resolved from within the villages, we must ensure that even the man-animal conflict is resolved through this structure. We have learnt from reliable sources that the government is giving a substantial sum every year towards a ‘Tiger Fund’ for each tiger sent to a rehabilitation camp. Instead, if this money is given to a fund that comprises a team of youngsters in the village, led by a resident passion-driven conservationist and the Range Forest Officer, to incentivise each tiger living in and around that village, it would ensure not only the tiger’s survival but also a reduction in conflict on many fronts.
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
