An expert group has sounded a timely warning on what ‘environmentally destructive tourism’
will mean to national parks and wildlife sanctuaries and the objectives they are supposed to
serve. Given the unique and rare wildlife the country has been endowed with, the rationale for using the resources for attracting tourists from abroad is unassailable. This necessarily postu-
lates that the flora and the fauna should be protected and conserved. As a matter of fact, much
of the government’s interest in wildlife preservation has to do with the tremendous prospect
of tourist traffic on that account. Yet the risk of the revenue-earning motivation overrunning
the conservation imperatives is very real, the lure of the coveted foreign exchange that goes
with this business only, is serving to enhance it several folds.
Even with the tourist inflow far below the potential, the pressure of visitors is said to have
been already felt on the tiger reserves. With the Government of India’s declared intent to
boost tourism quite justified for its own reasons, the need for eliminating the risk assumes a
greater sense of urgency. The study team has noted that most of the 41 national parks and
165 wildlife sanctuaries surveyed are open to the tourists. The less frequented among them
may not require special attention immediately in this respect as much as the ones that are
major tourist attraction do. These include the Sanjay Gandhi National Park in Maharashtra,
Nandankanan in Orissa and Bannerghatta in Karnataka.
Over a year ago, the Indian Board for Wildlife expressed concern over the looming danger,
and decided that the core areas of national parks and sanctuaries should be kept totally free
from biotic disturbances, and the visitor be permitted to view the wildlife only from the areas
marked out for the purpose. And now, the expert group has come up with the suggestion
that a case by case evaluation be done of the “capacity” as well as the “limitations” of all the
national parks and wildlife sanctuaries and based on such assessment an area-specific plan for
tourist promotion within the “safety” norms be charted. That this is the most scientific way of
going about the job, and that there is no time to lose can be readily conceded.