The Union Environment Industry is studying a proposal to convert large tracts of degraded forests to private concessions meant for high-density tiger tourism. Is this good news for private investors? Yes, if there is money to be made. If there isn't, then private money is not going to flow into forests no matter how large the concession might be. The plan is to draw private investment into areas as large as 20 to 50 sq km under a public-private-partnership model. The investor will get to build some sort of a resort on the periphery but would be allowed to organise treks and camp fires within the developed area. The proposal was made by the Madhya Pradesh government and one hopes this is not going to go down the same road as the Vyapam scam. In his letter to the Centre, Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan wrote that the time had come to free wildlife from the absolute hold of the state, which is constrained by financial limitations.
The problem with private finance is that it flows provided there is some hope of profits in the long term. Governments are hampered by a lack of funds and the only way out is by drawing private finance into an area looked after exclusively by the state. Although a few private forests exist, they are mostly large tracts of land inherited by families which have remained undeveloped. One cannot imaging a private owner investing funds in a forest without any returns. Besides, looking after a forest is not like tending to a garden. It is much larger and would require a huge infusion of money.
However, the key to drawing funds would depend on a host of factors. First, there will have to be a promise of money to be earned from the project. Secondly, the process for acquiring a concession will have to be sufficiently streamlined and the rules pertaining to development will have to be clearly defined so that investors can ascertain if it's opportune to get in.
The proposal speaks of tiger-tourism opportunities alone and perhaps a larger list of how the land can be developed would give investors more options. In UK for instance, investments in commercial forests made about three decades ago have yielded returns higher than the stock market. According to the UK Annual Forestry Index commercial forests have averaged a staggering return of 21 per cent a year since 2010 which was better than the stock market. But that is because in Britain demand for wood outstrips supply and the gap is filled by imports. Also earnings from investments in forest is practically tax free.
So merely saying please come and invest in forests will not be enough to instill confidence in investors. The fact that the forests on offer are degraded is more likely to scare them off. Besides, game shooting is banned in India and cannot be used to generate funds. While the proposal to draw private investment in forest management is laudable, without safeguards, promise of returns and involvement of forest dwellers, the effort might come to naught.
