There has been a spurt of media reports on tourism promotion in the country. Wildlife reserves and areas of outstanding natural beauty would be the obvious attractions. Though this enthusiasm is encouraging, certain issues have to be taken note of or else unregulated tourism will be another serious threat to the list of problems to our wildlife and their habitats.
In India, tourism to wildlife destinations in the garb of “eco-tourism” is already a popular concept. However, the term is by and large misused. In practice, it is used as just another “eco-sell” marketing tool. Wldlife tourism is carried out in an unsystematic and unscientific manner with no clearly laid out policies. For instance, carrying capacity is undefined for most of our protected areas, neither have there been scientific rules defined on visitor discipline. Enforcement of existing regulations has been very frail. Many of our natural wonders are seen as ideal locations to be unruly, play loud music, for gambling or as locations for recreational activities with little interest in experiencing natural environments.
Emphasis on conservation
Eco-tourism is defined as “Environmentally responsible travel to natural areas, in order to enjoy and appreciate nature, that promotes conservation, has a low visitor impact and provides for beneficially active socio-economic involvement of local peoples”. Mere use of the prefix “eco” does not lead to eco-tourism. Eco-tourism can be distinguished from other forms of tourism by its emphasis on conservation, education, traveller responsibility and active community participation.
In our country eco-tourism is largely unfamiliar and is restricted to washing linen in an environmentally friendly manner or building thatched huts as lodges. A luxurious wildlife resort in Rajasthan charging over US$ 1,000/guestnight does not even have a conservation policy, depicting poor corporate behaviour. Tourism also has undesirable side-effects. In many areas it has led to negative social and cultural impacts, conflicts between local communities and investors, and also increased living costs for locals.
There are very few examples where eco-tourism is carried out in its true meaning. In the Periyar Tiger Reserve, the forest department has set up tourism eco-development committees. One of the committees is run by local Mannan, Paliyan tribals and carry out wildlife, birdwatching walks, sharing the benefits among its members. This is real eco-tourism.
In Karnataka, places such as Bannerghatta Biological Park or Tavarekoppa Tiger Safaris attract far more visitors than Nagarahole National Park. For a sizable segment of visitors who want “quick” wildlife tourism, we should promote such safaris to educate people on wildlife and utilise the revenue generated to protect larger, more ecologically sensitive wildlife habitats where small-scale, low-impact tourism should take precedence.
Benefits for local communities
The State provides substantial publicity and subsidies to tourism entrepreneurs. However, there is always scope for betterment and we need novel ideas that can provide viable economic development alternatives for local communities with tourism promotion. In places like Nagarahole National Park, where forest dwelling communities have been resettled outside the park, support should be provided to develop their own low-key tourism activities such as guided walks in reserved forests outside the national park limits. People like hands-on activities. Birdwatchers and nature enthusiasts would be attracted to such innovative programs. Non-governmental organisations can help train tribals in communication and also support in running their programs.
In areas where agriculture is no longer profitable due to wildlife crop raiding, farmers adjacent to protected areas can form co-operatives and develop tourism activities in their land. Alternatively tourism companies can lease (not buy) farmland and carry out nature tourism in private lands. I am certain such tourism can bring in better revenue than agriculture and improve community attitudes towards wildlife.
Eco-tourism should promote conservation ethics and generate public awareness through accurate scientific information and not “story telling” which is the current trend. This needs trained, motivated education officers and attractively designed interpretation centres which is currently lacking both in the Government and private sector. Eco-tourism should motivate visitors to a more “active” contribution to wildlife conservation.
Nature tourism is growing at 10-12 per cent annually. With the neo-classical economic development bringing increased disposable income, advances in transportation, advanced information technology and corporatisation of this industry, low impact wildlife tourism has great potential; however it has to be well regulated. In its current form, it lacks focus, discipline and sensitivity to both wildlife conservation and local cultures. Wildlife landscapes should be more seen as outdoor educational classrooms rather than recreational locations. Well-implemented, scientific and environmentally sustainable wildlife tourism can bring in larger public support for conservation. Government and private entrepreneurs should solicit NGOs and academic institutions to provide technical and educational support. Monitoring sustainability, developing objective indicators, systematically tracking short-term and long-term tourism impacts through research that would help in developing appropriate policies and management guidelines, could all be the role of wildlife tourism researchers. Building awareness about the negative impacts of tourism among tourism entrepreneurs, guides, safari drivers has to be another key activity for NGOs. A nascent effort in this direction is taken up by Travel Operators for Tigers (TOFT), a non-profit joint venture of U.K.-based India-focused travel operators and Global Tiger Patrol through eco-labelling of wildlife resorts in six tiger reserves in north India.
Towarsds fair distribution
Is there a linkage between promoting tourism and wildlife conservation? Though the volume of park-based tourism has substantially increased, there is little direct linkage between the benefits reaped by tourism entrepreneurs and wildlife conservation. Tourism is an economic activity and it cannot be a one-sided transaction. There should be fair distribution of benefits for preservation of the attractions that are the source of tourist interest, which are wildlife in this case. Urgent steps have to be taken to encourage the tourism industry, including hotel and resort owners, restaurants, souvenir shops, travel agents and all others benefiting directly or indirectly from wildlife tourism, to contribute for conservation efforts through setting up a separate protected area conservation tax under the local forest department. This would also enhance the non-use value of protected areas.
Eco-tourism should provide genuine development opportunity for local communities and involve them in planning, development, operation and benefit sharing. Focus should be on optimising local economic benefits, developing leadership and skills of local communities for higher paid jobs rather than restricting them to jobs such as cooks, drivers, gardeners or cleaners. Though such jobs are certainly helpful, the ratio of revenue sharing is minimal. Eco-tourism should offer jobs that provide an alternative to agriculture, animal husbandry or other forms of land use that are causes of wildlife habitat degradation. However we need to be cautioned that over-dependence, unplanned tourism can be risky and can cause severe damage to ecological integrity.
source:http://www.hindu.com/mag/2007/12/30/stories/2007123050320700.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment