You say you are
willing to work with wildlifers to protect ‘Incredible
India’?
Most certainly! Not just me, but over 100,000 tourism professionals
who are proud of their country and are willing to back their
promises with time and money. The question I ask is whether
the conservation movement has the foresight and the space
to accommodate this goodwill. Thus far we have seen fewer
signs of this than we would have liked.
You believe that tourism can truly help save wildlife
in India?
Of course I do. More than most other sectors of the Indian
economy, the tourism sector has self-interest at stake here.
Like the Taj Mahal, the tiger and elephant are incredible
brand ambassadors and drivers for tourism. They earn us respect
in the global community and pride within our own nation. Look
at it like this, if tourism does not match with wildlife,
what does? Nuclear power? Industry? Mines? We have stronger
bonds than most realise.
Would your ministry consider paying to protect habitats
that help promote tourism?
Yes. By way of entry fees, which we believe should be higher
than they are in most wildlife destinations. We might also
consider backing a sort of ‘wildlife protection surcharge’
to be paid by lodges, hotels and tour operators, on a site-by-site
basis, where we could be sure that the money was being invested
in direct protection, or benefits that helped win support
from local communities.
What else do you feel tourism can do?
It can lay the foundations of public support for tough conservation
decisions that might otherwise be politically uncomfortable.
And let me first make one thing clear before you ask me the
question. In my view wildlife protection must take precedence
over all else, including tourism, in our sanctuaries and national
parks. This said, the National Wildlife Action Plan itself
lays out a blueprint to turn tourism into a conservation tool.
I could offer several improvements in the action plan, but
for the moment am content to work on those ideas that reflect
both ground realities and common sensitivities. One way forward
is to leave hospitality to tourism professionals and field
protection to the wildlife people.
Even this demands a degree of synergy that has not
been evident thus far.
I agree that the scope for enhanced synergy exists, but the
situation is fast improving. In the past the problem was a
near total disconnect between wildlife and tourism professionals.
Some years ago, states like Kerala realised that individual
destinations cannot work if the landscapes in which they exist
are ecologically and environmentally unstable. This was when
a larger initiative was set in place that presented rivers,
beaches, mountains and forests as one contiguous stretch of
‘God’s own country’. The ‘Zero Waste’
campaign begun by environmentalists fitted in perfectly and
synergy evolved where none existed. I’m not saying this
will always be the case, but it does provide scope for common
cause.
Indeed, but wildlife imperatives are so very different.
Tourism success itself could pose a worry for little-known
destinations, which could be overwhelmed by over-sell.
That is always a worry, even for heritage sites like Khajuraho,
the Taj Mahal, or Konark. No one understands better than the
tourism professional that overwhelmed destinations die young.
But the answer is not to lock visitors out, but to enforce
discipline using a combination of wildlife laws and tourism
guidelines. Equally critical is the need to instill ownership
pride in our own people. Guests respect what their hosts respect.
If we spit and litter, this encourages tourists to do the
same. If we speak in hushed whispers, all but the most recalcitrant
guest will do the same.
Catering to elite tourists often ends up with facilities
like golf courses, swimming pools and concrete monstrosities,
often right inside forests like the Sálim Ali National
Park in Srinagar.
The Ministry of Tourism certainly would not endorse any such
thing today in ecologically-sensitive areas. Intelligent tourism
options suggest that ‘experiences, excitement and education’
be marketed, not ‘facilities’. Of course, we must
create a degree of safety and comfort for travellers. But
in wildlife areas, these would probably take the shape of
tented camps, guided trails (where possible), gentle canoe
rides, birding camps and other varied experiences that would
enable visitors to commune with nature. Some of the most up-market
tourist facilities in the world do not even offer electricity
to their clients.
How can the Ministry of Tourism control things when
they get out of hand, for instance, the mushrooming of hotels
in Ranthambhore and the virtual traffic jams in deep jungles
to see the ‘tiger-shows’ in the Kanha and Bandhavgarh
Tiger Reserves in Madhya Pradesh?
We cannot ‘control’ things in the traditional
sense, particularly since tourism is a state, not a concurrent
subject. Our role is restricted to offering guidelines. As
in the case of family planning, with tourism too education
is probably the most effective tool available to us. As for
the ‘tiger shows’, I am aware of the criticism,
but this is really a wildlife management affair and up to
the park management. No tourism official would, or could,
insist on tiger-shows. In fact, most tourism professionals
also agreed with the position taken some years ago to stop
the ‘lion-shows’ in Gir, which involved tame goats
led in front of wild lions.
What about controlling the sheer number of hotels
and lodges that crop up like mushrooms the moment a destination
becomes popular?
Such trends degrade the tourism potential of destinations.
Though it may sound elitist, wildlife destinations need low-impact,
high-value tourism. But this must benefit local communities,
or else the antagonism alone will drive away the visitors.
This is often the result of panchayats and other local authorities
doling out unlimited construction permits, often against tourism
guidelines and the law. It is up to individuals and groups
working in the geographical area to keep a tight vigil. Towards
this end, tourism professionals and this ministry would be
their allies.
Lets talk about our capacity to service visitors.
Would the Ministry consider financing wildlife NGOs to set
up training centres for wildlife guides?
It’s possible. In Periyar, Kerala we worked with the
Forest Department to train poachers, who now take groups trekking
in the forest. I see no reason why this cannot be extended
to train young villagers and locals. But you must remember
that our function at the Centre is primarily to facilitate,
guide and advise. The states would always do the actual implementation
of such ideas.
Where will the large, long-term investments in people
and destinations come from?
From the tourism industry and their financial backers. Also
those who have a ‘vested interest’. This would
include both villagers who will earn entrepreneurial incomes
and genuine wildlife supporters who recognise the wisdom of
creating a personality and image around a wilderness as a
sort of armour to protect it from future harm. On our part,
we would be more than willing to promote the destination in
India and overseas, which in itself is a major part of any
investment. The greatest investment, of course, comes from
the wildlife authorities and the NGOs working to protect the
area, without which neither wildlife, nor tourism would be
possible. Ultimately our largest investment and our surest
success would be determined by our ability to produce a virtual
army of knowledgeable, smiling people to greet and care for
visitors and provide them with unforgettable experiences.
What about conflicts? Some people suggest that tourism
has no place in forests where wildlife laws now prevent local
people from taking resources and produce that they once used
to.
If you refer to communities that used to hunt and gather,
I have to say they are rare, and I do not even advocate tourism
in such places, which would include parts of the Andaman Islands
and perhaps the more remote areas in the northeast and Bastar.
But even critics must recognise that tourism is one of the
world’s largest employers, not for menial jobs, but
for the self-employed. It’s not a perfect world, but
if we move forward openly and with genuine caring, I see tourism
as a tool to resolve conflicts, not create them. Marginal
farmers who struggle against wildlife every day of their lives,
could find that sustenance from wildlife protection brings
them more security, more peace and more self respect than
they currently enjoy. |
