Blog #2: Eco-tourism and Conservation Efforts in India and Africa

Blog #2: Eco-tourism and Conservation Efforts in India and Africa

There is often debate over whether conservation efforts can help or hurt indigenous societies, such as those in India and Africa. Although, in theory, these conservation efforts seem like a good idea (e.g. saving endangered species such as wild elephants or tigers, bringing in money for the community due to tourism, etc.), these practices are actually harming the people who have lived on this land for centuries. After reading Emil Uddhammar’s article “Development, Conservation and Tourism: Conflict of Symbiosis?” (Uddhammar, 2006) and viewing the video “Milking the Rhino” (ITVS, 2014), I believe that the amount of ownership of the land which is set aside to be conserved has a direct relationship to the amount of benefit derived by the local population. Even if eco-tourism benefits wildlife in the conserved lands, if the local people are not benefiting from the conservation effort, the long-term implementation of wildlife conservation will not be possible.

Uddhammar investigated four different conservation efforts, either national parks or reserves, two in Africa and two in Asia (specifically India). The four locations were not only different in location but also in the amount of ownership the local population had of the conserved land and the types of benefits they received from owning the land. He tried to answer the question “Is it possible to simultaneously promote human development and conservation?” (Uddhammar, 2006) and, I think the answer is no, not unless the local population benefits from the conservation effort also.

The four conservation locations were Kruger National Park in South Africa, Maasai Mara National Reserve in Kenya, the Kanha National Park in India, and the Corbett National Park in India (Uddhammar, 2006). The Kruger National Park represents the best case scenario of local ownership. It is located in northern South Africa adjacent to Zimbabwe and Mozambique and, when originally established in 1969, the local Makuleke tribe was forced to move from their ancestral lands but were then re-located to other lands within the borders of the park. The Makuleke tribe was allowed to set up eco-tourism camps that were managed by both a Joint Management Board consisting of park authorities and local tribal representatives. It was not clear if the livelihood of the Makuleke tribe involved hunting or farming or if any of their cultural rituals were disrupted by relocating but their involvement in eco-tourism seemed to be of a benefit unlike the other examples in the article.

The second of the four conservation locations described by Uddhammar was the Maasai Mara National Reserve in Kenya, which is not a national park but a national reserve, owned by two different local districts within the Maasai tribe, the Narok and Transmara, which operate under different guidelines within the reserve. The Maasai themselves have a unique culture that is at odds with the economically driven 21^st century. They are traditionally cattle farmers that roam long distances with their cattle. As seen in the film, “Milking the Rhino,” the Maasai acknowledge that they are part of the tourist attraction that people come to see. Although they could benefit economically from eco-tourism, the presence of tourists from “Western” nations also becomes part of a problem when the tourists start to judge some of the cultural traditions of the Maasai (ITVS, 2014). What has happened is that the Maasai have leased land for tourist camps and a physical separation has taken place between the local Maasai and tourists, sometimes referred to as “enclave-tourism” (Uddhammar, 2006).

The third of the four conservation locations described by Uddhammar was the Kanha Tiger Reserve which is a national park in the Madhya Pradesh state in India. In contrast to the two conservation locations in Africa, the Kanha National Park is not owned or leased by any of the local populations. Its tribal population, the Baiga, were removed and resettled to farming land outside the park and the park is now under the direction of an NGO with international ties. The entrance fee to the park goes directly to park management but any other monies spent by eco-tourists could, in theory, benefit the local economy. Uddhammar describes Kanha as having very few international visitors (only 10%) so it was not clear how the local population has benefitted from the park so far (Uddhammar, 2006).

The worst case scenario was the fourth of the four conservation locations described by Uddhammar which was the Corbett National Park in Uttaranchal, India in the Himalayan foothills. It was created in 1936 as a tiger preserve but includes many other forms of wildlife. The local population is very aware of eco-tourism as a form of income and, in fact, thinks that not enough money is being made on the park due to lack of marketing. They do not care about the tourists but complain that the animals from the park get loose and destroy their farmland. The Indian government has come up with a solution of “buffer zones” around the parks where wildlife and humans can mix (Uddhammar, 2006). In this case, the local population sees the national park as a money-making operation and is physically as well as emotionally removed from the conservation aspect of the park. If the economy or climate changed, and the park did not offer any economic value, one wonders if it and the animals would survive.

In conclusion, the parks where the local population was physically and emotionally involved in the conservation effort in the park, offered the most benefit to the people. The Kruger National Park in South Africa which included local populations who lived in the park was the best case scenario of local populations benefitting from eco-tourism. The other example in Africa, the Maasai Mara National Reserve, where local populations suffered loss of their culturally important grazing lands, demonstrated how local populations did not benefit. In India, the local populations were physically removed from the conservation locations and, although you could argue that they benefitted economically from eco-tourism monies, they suffered losses of crops destroyed by park animals and have become dependent on a single industry that they have no control over. In my opinion, eco-tourism does more harm than good to these local populations.

References:

Uddhammar, Emil. "Development, Conservation and Tourism: Conflict of Symbiosis?" Review of International Political Economy 13, no. 4 (2006).

"Milking the Rhino." ITVS. 2014. http://www.itvs.org/films/milking-the-rhino