ഇന്ത്യയിലെ വന്യജീവി സംരക്ഷണം: 'ടൈഗർ മാൻ' കെ. ഉല്ലാസ് കാരന്തുമായുള്ള പ്രത്യേക അഭിമുഖം

The conservation zoologist argues that India needs more protected habitat and less dependence on forest resources to conserve wildlife

The walls of K. Ullas Karanth's office in Bengaluru are lined with striking photographs of tigers, unsurprising for a man who has spent decades studying the striped phantom of the forest. One shows his younger self in camouflage gear, posing with a tranquillised tiger. It was taken in January 1990, when he had captured and collared the tigress labelled as T-02, nicknamed Sundari.

This picture, and the incident behind it, are both part of Tiger Memories: My Life in Wildlife Conservation, Karanth's latest book, co-authored with Bengaluru-based writer Joshua Mathew. It traces the tiger expert's lifelong passion for the natural world, his pioneering contributions to tiger research and conservation in India, and the successes, challenges, regrets, and disappointments he encountered along the way.

Karanth, a recipient of numerous honours, including the Padma Shri, is the founder of the Centre for Wildlife Studies, a conservation, research, and education organisation based in Bengaluru. In this interview, he explains why he emphasises less on co-existence and more on protecting habitats, enforcing laws, and reducing dependence on forest resources. Edited excerpts:

You push back on the emphasis on co-existence and community conservation, arguing instead that effective forest departments, land protection, strong laws and policies, and the voluntary relocation of people are more important. Could you elaborate?

In the Brazilian Amazon, where human population densities are low, that sort of co-existence between humans and wildlife is possible as long as bio-resource consumption rates don't exceed nature's capacity to replenish itself. But this doesn't work in India, where local populations run into lakhs in and around tiny nature reserves. We can't change the availability of resources or human population density, but we can reduce biomass dependencies using modern technologies in energy generation and agriculture.

The number of animals that a piece of land can support is driven largely by three things: the animal's body size, its energetic requirements or diet, and its habitat needs. And we can't radically alter these determinants if the goal is to preserve wild nature.

When modern humans evolved around 3,00,000 years ago, we had no domesticated animals or farmed crops. So, our total biomass was only 3% of all mammalian biomass. After we started domesticating animals, mastering agriculture, and later venturing into modern industrial development, this changed. Today, humans and domestic animals together account for 95% of total mammalian biomass. Which means that in a densely populated country such as India, where dependence on biological resources is so high, our protection measures have to be pretty drastic if we really want to hang on to our wildlife. Protected areas in India cover just 4% of the country's land, which is nothing.

But doesn't context matter? In the Northeast, for instance, where so much of the land is under customary community ownership, isn't community conservation the best way to protect wildlife?

Conservation definitely needs to vary depending on context. And we are fortunate that we have this tradition of tolerance in some parts of India. But this is a unique feature of Indian culture, unlike in most parts of the world, including even Buddhist countries of Southeast Asia. For instance, in Gujarat and Rajasthan, you will see herds of antelopes grazing in the fields. Of course, there are contrary examples -- across vast forested areas of India, including the Northeast, such tolerance for wildlife is not the norm, but traditional mass hunting is.

But even if you accept all these big-picture arguments, and even if 90% of people turn benign towards wildlife, a small fraction will still hunt or get involved in commercial wildlife trade and smuggling. In any society, you need some regulatory power over such crime; you need laws and somebody to enforce them. The question is: who should do that?

In the Northeast, the model that we have of the forest department and enforcement doesn't work. So, I agree we need multiple models. But ultimately somebody has to enforce the law wherever you go. And to say that you don't need enforcement at all, and people will not use wildlife and only tolerate it, is unrealistic.

Recently, a tigress from the Valmiki Tiger Reserve in Bihar was airlifted and released in West Bengal's Buxa Tiger Reserve, part of the National Tiger Conservation Authority's larger translocation programme. What are your thoughts on this, given that you have often said the country could support far more tigers than it does today?

The moving of highly territorial cats between reserves is mostly unwarranted. If you look at all the translocation records, only some 5% are successful; most have failed, but nobody talks about these.

Right now, India has roughly 4 lakh sq.km. of forests where tigers can potentially exist, but only one-fourth of this area has tigers in reasonable numbers. If we manage it properly, we can have 15,000-20,000 tigers within government forests. Of course, it is a slow process. Tigers were almost extinct, but by bringing around 1 lakh sq.km. or so in different areas under some protection after the 1960s, their numbers have increased. Instead of reintroducing tigers, if you recover more potential tiger habitat through protection and build up prey densities, tigers will spread out automatically.

The case for physical translocation is extremely rare. Only if you have recovered the prey base in an area with no connectivity does it make sense to introduce some tigers, preferably pregnant females. If you simply dump tigers without ensuring there is enough prey, it causes conflict and leads to local hostility towards tigers.

Do you think the rise of wildlife tourism could play a significant role in conservation, especially given that the tiger is the primary marketing magnet in this sector?

Wildlife tourism, in general, has not played a positive role in expanding our wildlife habitats. I think it has tremendous potential in India because it can boost the rural economy, which can help people who live around these protected areas. If a farmer next to a protected area can make more money from having wildlife on his land than from, say, growing ragi, she will automatically switch to more wildlife-friendly land uses.

We have seen this happen in Africa, where farmers get together, form a conservancy, and enter into an agreement with lodges that bring in tourists and a lot of money. But right now, in India, tourism companies aren't expanding the land base for wildlife; they are pressuring the same areas that are already protected.

We need to push protected areas to 10%-15% of our land, and that can only happen through economic incentives and development, not government diktats. If this money goes to people who own land next to the reserves, land use changes will expand wildlife habitats as well as reduce conflicts with humans.