Supreme Court orders ban on tourism in core areas of tiger reserves

[Mrudul Godbole]

Expert wants PM to review tiger park ban
Nitin Sethi, TNN | Aug 20, 2012, 12.35AM IST

NEW DELHI: In what could force Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to intervene in the raging debate on tiger versus tourism, Valmik Thapar, one of the most prominent tigerwallahs, has demanded that the Union government's guidelines restricting tourism in breeding areas of big cats be discussed in the September 5th meet of the National Board of Wild Life (NBWL), which is chaired by the PM and of which Thapar is an expert member.

The board - the apex body to oversee wildlife-related issues — is headed by Singh and has several external experts, besides senior government officials.

Thapar's move comes when the ministry had filed its guidelines before the Supreme Court in an ongoing case recommending that tourism business be taken out of the core of tiger reserves, which the law now mandates to be kept inviolate — free of human presence. The Union environment ministry has recommended a five-year term to phase out business from the breeding areas of tigers and also suggested a 10% tax on revenue of tourist operations around the core areas. The ministry had noted that if tribals and villagers were to be relocated out of the core of tiger reserves to create 'inviolate spaces' for the big cat, tourism could not be allowed to rake in profits out of these forest lands.

The ministry's move has got the conservation community divided since several prominent wildlife activists and their relatives too run resorts and tourism operations in and around tiger reserves. Thapar's relatives also run a resort next to Ranthambore Tiger Reserve. Earlier, he was quoted speaking against an absolute ban on tiger tourism, but in his demand to list the issue on the NBWL agenda he has not made any comments on the guidelines.

In its last hearing, the SC had put an interim ban on running tourism operations inside the core areas of tiger reserves and asked state governments to respond to the Centre's guidelines. At least three states— Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Uttarakhand — that house some of the most popular tiger reserves are set to oppose the Centre's guidelines and hectic lobbying through political networks are on to get the UPA to either withdraw or change its stance in the court.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/h....cms?prtpage=1

[Prasanth Sreenivasan]

my view..

1) ban all wildlife tourism - this is in consideration of the behaviour of tourists, whether they are on wildlife tours or other tours. It would also help animals live in peace hopefully.

2) give employment to less privileged people who are working in the tourism industry in the FD as guards/similar posts, so that no one will go jobless due to ban on tourism. Resort owners will always have other options.

3) Introduce a taxing system, like green tax or wildlife tax. This will make people aware that there is something called wildlife and this will help Govt. raise funds for wildlife protection(although they may not use it)

4) For those who wants to go to Forests to see wildlife must seek special permission for the same from the concerned departments.

the above points may be impractical, but could be effective.

[Vijay Rajan]

Since this is a forum for healthy discussions, here are my two cents on Prasanth's views :

1) A complete ban on tourism does not necessarily enable animals to live in peace. Approx. 950,000 people visit the Kruger National Park (South Africa) every year and yet it remains one of the most developed and accessible ecotourism destinations in the world. The White Rhinos of KNG have bounced back from the near-extinction situation of 1980s. Although the tourists may not have contributed directly to the Park's conservation efforts, there are not many pristine, untouched wilderness areas in the world that are as well preserved and yet also as accessible as the Kruger National Park. I agree it is truly unfair to compare Kruger NP with any NPs of India. However, a ban is not the ONLY solution. A clear roadmap & effective implementation of conservation initiatives are the need of the hour. If these can happen in India or not is a an entirely different issue altogether.

2) Employment of local / tribal population : Your views are contradictory. You propose a ban on tourism and at the same time, call for providing employment to the local populace. If there is no tourism, no visitors, no resorts, no safaris, where would the employment be generated from ? Mining ?

3) Wildlife Protection Tax : India has one of the highest areas of taxation already. You propose a Wildlife tax and yet suggest depriving taxpayers from entering the very wilderness for which taxes might have been paid ?

4) Special permission : Truly valid point indeed. However, it might breed corruption & protected areas are the last places on earth to let corruption sow it's seeds.

I hope my views do not seem offensive to Prasanth and look forward to the Supreme Court's judgement today.

Vijay

my view..

1) ban all wildlife tourism - this is in consideration of the behaviour of tourists, whether they are on wildlife tours or other tours. It would also help animals live in peace hopefully.

2) give employment to less privileged people who are working in the tourism industry in the FD as guards/similar posts, so that no one will go jobless due to ban on tourism. Resort owners will always have other options.

3) Introduce a taxing system, like green tax or wildlife tax. This will make people aware that there is something called wildlife and this will help Govt. raise funds for wildlife protection(although they may not use it)

4) For those who wants to go to Forests to see wildlife must seek special permission for the same from the concerned departments.

the above points may be impractical, but could be effective.