A spotted affair: Has Sri Lanka over-promoted the iconic Sri Lankan leopard?

The Sri Lankan leopard – ‘panther pardus kotiya’ – Pic by Srilal Miththapala 

Of all the charismatic animals seen in Sri Lanka, there is none that has created so much interest and popularity, than the Sri Lankan leopard. And today it has become arguably one of the most sought-after tourist attractions in the country. But is the leopard’s own popularity leading to its own destruction? 

1 August is Sri Lanka Leopard Day, a day proposed by the Wildlife and Nature Protection Society of Sri Lanka in 2020 to celebrate our very own leopard sub species.

So this maybe an overtime moment to reflect on the problems that the Sri Lanka leopard is facing today. 

Introduction 

The Sri Lankan leopard is a distinct subspecies – ‘panthera pardus kotiya’ (after Dr. Sriyanie Miththapala 1966). It is the only large carnivore found in Sri Lanka, and is therefore the apex predator in the wild, with no threats to it other than man. 

It has been listed as vulnerable on the IUCN Red List, with only an estimated population less than 800 mature individuals, which is probably declining. (Kittle, A.M. & Watson, A. 2020). The leopard is still found in all habitats throughout the island in both protected and unprotected areas, including the central highlands. However they are mostly nocturnal and wary of humans and are therefore quite difficult to spot.

However a growing population in a relatively small area of block 1 (141 sq. km) in the Yala National Park (NP) started the current leopard-centric tourism interest. With more visitors it was inevitable that these leopards got habituated to humans (in safari jeeps). Today, the spotting of a leopard in Yala NP block 1 is almost guaranteed, fuelling large visitor inflows to the park. 

With increased visitation and poor enforcement of park rules and regulations, over crowing and over-visitation at Yala NP has spiralled out of control. (Over visitation is where the number tourists occupying a particular destination or area exceeds its intended or optimal capacity. Over-crowding is when a large number of visitors coverage on one single attraction at a given time). 

In 2018 (the best ever year for tourism in Sri Lanka) almost half of all tourists arriving in the country visited a wildlife park. In that year 311,878 tourists visited Yala which accounts to about one-third of the above number visiting the national parks. (SLTDA, 2018).

Today the leopards in Yala NP are being hounded out, disrupting their natural movement and lifestyle, causing stress to the leopards, which in turn results in other serous conditions. “Overexposure to stress can cause physiological problems, such as weight loss, changes to the immune system and decreased reproductive capacity” (Chronic Stress on Wild Animals National Library of Medicine 2019). 

So what should be the response of the tourism industry (who is partly to blame for this impending debacle) to mitigate this problem?

Possible mitigation activities by the tourism industry 

• Proper communication by guides – Over-promising by tour guides regarding sightings of leopards is one of the causes for overcrowding at sightings. Often tourists get late entering the park, and the guides instruct the drivers to ‘somehow show a leopard as quickly as possible’. With the prospects of a handsome ‘tip’, the safari jeep drivers go ‘hell for leather’ to get a sighting at any costs. If tour guides are properly educated about the seriousness of the problem and act responsibly this can be prevented 
  
   
• Stop using images of leopards to promote tourism – Official social media and other internet sites promoting Sri Lanka tourism, inevitably uses striking, close up images of leopards. This goes to further reinforce the linkage of leopards as a primary product offering to tourists. Advertising should move to more generic and spectacular images of the biodiversity as a whole that Sri Lanka can offer.
  
   
• Restricting tourists who have no special interest in wildlife – Many tourist excursions are pre-designed regardless of the tourists’ individual interests. This results in a good number of ‘tick-the-box’ tourists visiting the park who have no serious interest in wildlife. Increasing park entry fees may be one option to ‘weed out’ the mass market tourist. Or there could be a surcharge for packaged tours of more than a specific number 
  
   
• Create more experiential wildlife viewing for the discerning tourist – Specially curated, educational small-group should be encouraged. If properly designed and managed, a higher premium price can be charged. 
  
   
• Disciplining safari jeep drivers – It is common knowledge that the unruly behaviour of jeep drivers is one of the main causes for these problems. Many efforts have been made to train and accredit safari drivers to no avail. If hoteliers and tour operators blacklist misbehaving drivers and do not give them business it would certainly have immediate results when the safari drivers’ income streams are cut off.
  
   
• Moving away from leopard centric wildlife tourism – Sri Lanka is blessed with an abundance of wildlife and natural attractions and is one of the world’s biodiversity hot spots. If communicated properly the wildlife product offering can be widely broad based giving the tourist a much richer experience.
  
   
• Surcharge for vehicles with poor load factor (one or two passengers) – Tourism operators should offer single or twin tourists the option to double up with others to increase the load factor per vehicle. Otherwise there should be a surcharge for the entry ticket.
  
   
• Pre-safari briefing to tourists – Hoteliers close to wildlife parks can organise a proper briefing to all their guests going on safari, explaining clearly the rules, regulations and the ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’. In general foreign tourists are used to abiding by the rules. If they are properly made aware of the park rules, they would themselves not allow safari drivers to misbehave and break the rules.
  
   
• Create a tourism conservation fund for wildlife – The hotels around wildlife parks could come together and form a special association to implement proper conservation activities in the area. Each hotel can perhaps contribute a small subscription (say $ 1 per house guest) for these conservation activities in a proper organised and planned way by themselves. 

Conclusion

It therefore quite evident that there are a number of possible solutions to this problem. It is true that there is no ‘one-quick-fix’, but all of the above will in some way help mitigate the prevailing undesirable situation. Of course at the end of the day most of the responsibility for this situation rests fairly and squarely on the Department of Wildlife Conservation, but it will be a ‘pipe dream’ to expect that they will be able to ‘put their house in order’. 

Therefore it is imperative that all tourism stakeholders put their ‘shoulders to the wheel’ to help mitigate the ongoing problems.

For after all, the wildlife viewing experience is one Sri Lanka tourism’s Golden Geese, and they should not allow the Golden Eggs be taken away from them!