WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT, DETRIBALISATION AND URBANISATION

An emerging trend in areas meant for wildlife conservation is the demand for urban amenities for ‘developing the life of people’. Any decision in this direction requires careful deliberations and planning about (a) where and how to preserve anthropological heritage and traits, (b) where to provide urban amenities inside the forests, and (c) where to take the people out of the forests closer to developed urban set up. While attitudinal evolution of human society is inevitable, conservation of biodiversity in any form is also a survival necessity. From early 1970s one of the ‘recommended approaches’ in wildlife conservation is to relocate human population from designated areas which offer better chances for survival of wildlife. Implementation of the idea of relocation or its results has not been encouraging. Where implemented, it has been only in part, and only the brighter side or only its opposite is presented to the world. Often there is unhappiness on either side----, the relocated family feels neglected, and the Protected Area Manager is unable to make use of the area deemed to have been vacated for him. Similipal in the district of Mayurbhanj in Odisha, India is an example of activities under Tiger Conservation, Crocodile Conservation, Elephant Conservation, Eco-development, Biosphere Reserve Management and the programme for development of primitive tribal families namely, Khadia and Mankedia. With experience and lessons drawn from Similipal forests, it is urged that (1) only the primitive Khadia tribals may be able to prolong a sustainable living without going away from the forests. (2) For all other ‘tribal people’ education should be so much interwoven into their desire for change and urbanization that they grow fast with it away from pressure of complying to measures for nature conservation. (3) Those willing for relocation should be done fast with distinct pre-relocation and post-relocation packages. Post-relocation requires long term care and development. (4) Back in forest the Policy should be clear to handle ‘motivators’ and other people encroaching into sanctions that may accrue only for ‘primitive tribals’.

ECOTOURISM WITHOUT CONFLICT IN WILDLIFE CONSERVATION

Ecotourism has already made its presence felt as a fast-spreading essential component, linked to areas that have otherwise made marks for wildlife conservation. But the implementation of ecotourism objectives has not been able to create a niche that is acceptable without dispute or conflict with the objectives of wildlife conservation. Here, the term ‘wildlife conservation’ is used for the group of activities meaning ‘wildlife, biodiversity or nature conservation’.

Ecotourism is necessary because first, it is one of the media to highlight the tangible and intangible benefits of wildlife conservation, and second, it is one of the acceptable sources of earning some revenue for the wildlife organization which is otherwise termed as an expenditure department that (only) spends funds for various activities.

Ecotourism objectives and approaches have to be sustainable and compatible with wildlife conservation, without causing any conflict with short term or long term objectives of wildlife conservation.

Confirming to the synonyms of the term ‘wildlife’, and the objectives for achieving compatible and sustainable ecotourism, the areas where wildlife-oriented ecotourism should be implemented stand in the following order of priority.

(1) Areas showing fruits of biodiversity under Participatory Forest Management

(2) Wildlife Corridors or Habitat-linkages

(3) Periphery of wildlife sanctuaries

(4) Wildlife Sanctuaries.

In practice, however, the order that is being followed starts and ends with sanctuaries. The areas where wildlife-based ecotourism have been aimed till now include only the Sanctuaries. That appears to be primarily because of convenience in compliance. A base of infrastructure and a set of staff are already available in sanctuaries. But willingness or ad hoc arrangements for sharing of resource of staff or infrastructure for ‘ecotourism’ is neither in the interest of wildlife conservation nor in the long term sustainability of ecotourism objectives. The required number of staffs for wildlife work have to be positioned first, and then a separate set of staff have to be deployed and suitably trained for specific ecotourism activities, that are compatible and do not encroach into the cultural values of local people. Children who normally kept away from visitors, or should have been in a school, seem to be shedding their inhibitions and running behind jeeps or gyrating around a camping site awaiting the camp to pack off. These are, sadly, indicators of eroding cultural values because of proliferating ecotourism close to villages inside sanctuaries.

Tourism in sanctuaries are governed by ‘tourism season’ and tourism route’. Therefore, with ‘round-the-year-tourism’ in mind, attention has to shift away from the sanctuary, to its periphery, to its linkage-corridors, or to the adjoining villages where people are excelling in participatory forest management. Adequate survey and assessment is necessary to identify locations, judge the potentialities, develop meticulous plans and implement the projects for screening serious ‘eco-tourists’ and reduce burden on sanctuaries. People willing to devote time and go for wildlife-oriented ecotourism can proceed from periphery to the sanctuary. Places used for camping should be away from places used by ‘wildlife’. The wilderness or ‘wild’ (natural) responses should not be robbed away from wildlife on the road to promoting tourism as ‘ecotourism’.

‘Ecotourism’ concept has to be kept at a place where its impacts are felt to the minimum inside Sanctuaries and National Parks, which are primarily designed for biodiversity conservation.