National park debate…

There are 1400 tigers presently in India. The country has 28 tiger reserves and 8 more are being added within the next 10 years. India’s population already at 1.1 billion, is going to probably surpass China’s 1.3 billion in the near future. We cannot forget that India's population rose by 21.34 % between 1991-2001. With 1400 tigers left in the country and with population pressures mounting one has to ask… is there a future for tigers in India?

Or....."What price should India pay to save its rapidly diminishing forests, and for whom, a trophy animal like the tiger, or its original inhabitants?" This is proving to be a difficult question to answer. Nagarhole National Park located in the southern state of Karnataka is facing a big conundrum over their tiger population. You can read the article here, but the main point is that the park has both a small tiger population and original tribal people living there. There are 1000 families living in close proximity to the tigers and other wildlife, this is problematic because it poses numerous threats to them. Some of the preservationists and government officials are worried about having the human population there because of the destruction of the tiger habitat, forest fires, logging, wood collection, and modern development etc.

The government is now relocating people outside of the park because they want the tiger population to be free from anthropogenic pressures. Ecologists are in support of this action claiming that nature comes back dramatically once you remove the pressure and stress, it is naturally resilient. Moreover, tigers are a species that reproduce in great numbers but cannot do so under great pressure. What is contentious here is that the government included in the land rights law a measure that allowed for the expulsion of settlements from areas deemed critical wildlife habitats, but with explicit consent of villagers. It is always challenging to receive consent from the villagers because some are in favour but the vast majority are in opposition to the proposal. About 1/3 of the 1,000 families who live inside the park have moved out.

What should we think about? According the article, compensation for these people is insufficient. Monetary benefits do not always solve the problem, these people have a close and intimate connection with the land and live off of it. Essentially, such an approach removes them from their natural capital. India`s economy is now booming with 9 percent economic growth, does it even enough have room for these tigers? This is a problem faced in places like Botswana as well. In Botswana, parks and game reserves are developed with an ostensible justification to protect species and wildlife.

As I learned from a talk last week delivered by a Botswanan scholar, diamonds are usually located in these parks and are difficult to get to with a human population living around them, the solution: move the people out. The hidden message here is that governments use this justification to evade the political controversy that accompanies natural resource extraction in parks. In other words, saying they are going to protect species when really they are developing parks and zoning areas for the purposes of getting to the natural resources.

Key message: Lots to think about here but in relation to India, is the government going to continue creating tiger reserves? The human population is expanding rapidly and this will indirectly affect the tiger population. It seems like a win-win situation for the government. They can create and preserve parks through relocating the Tribal population (who receive little benefits from the state) and protect tigers while concomitantly exploring natural resources. Because the people have been relocated, they cannot contest and oppose these actions because they are no longer living there. Always think critically about national park development not only in developing countries, but in developed countries like Canada.