A proposed safari park in a subtropical forest in northeastern Bangladesh will be detrimental to native biodiversity
Recently, the government of Bangladesh released plans to develop a safari park in Lathitila Forest. 17 wildlife biologists and conservationist practitioners shared their thoughts. This is a shortened version of the commentary
Biodiversity in tropical and subtropical forests are at high risk of decline due to rapid anthropogenic development. Planned activities that potentially benefit communities near forests are often undertaken at the expense of forest biodiversity. Recently, the government of Bangladesh released plans to develop a safari park in Lathitila Forest (LF) in northeastern Bangladesh. This mixed evergreen, stream-fed, trans-border forest harbours 26 globally threatened species. The proposed plan aims to bring several exotic game animals such as the lion (Panthera leo), spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta) and cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) to be maintained in captivity.
Additionally, exotic bird aviaries, gardens, a dolphinarium, a marine aquarium exhibit and a carp pond have been proposed for construction. Here, we (i) summarise some of the key attributes of safari parks and the misconceptions associated with them; (ii) highlight some of the planned development activities of the proposed safari park; (ii) list the threatened species found in the area, and (iii) explain why establishing a park in the area would be detrimental to the region's biodiversity.
We urge the government to abandon the plans to develop a safari park and suggest that the area be brought under formal protection for the benefit of biodiversity conservation.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
Bangladesh has a population of about 160 million people, with less than 7% of the land remaining as forest. Recently, the Bangladesh Forest Department asked a consultancy service to conduct a feasibility study to develop a safari park in one of the last forested areas in the northeastern region of the country.
Bangladesh Engineering and Technological Services Ltd (BETS), a consulting firm, provided a biodiversity assessment report on LF and a detailed plan of the safari park. Upon publishing the report, a nationwide debate ensued, with much discussion about the potential detrimental effects on native biodiversity.
The northeastern forests of Bangladesh are the northernmost fringes of the anticlinal Baramura-Atharamura-Longtharai-Unakoti Hill ranges of Tripura. These forests have been protected since the colonial era and belong to the western tip of the IndoBurma Biodiversity Hotspot. The Patharia Hill Reserve Forest (PHRF, area 80 km2) is the northernmost patch that holds LF (22 km2) within its boundaries and consists of traversing streams with old teak plantations and bamboo-dominated stands.
We urge the government to abandon the plans to develop a safari park and suggest that the area be brought under formal protection for the benefit of biodiversity conservation.
What is a safari park?
According to Section 19 of the Bangladesh Wildlife (Conservation and Security) Act (2012), a safari park is defined as an area where native and exotic wild animals are protected in an approximation of a natural environment for breeding and roaming openly. There are two safari parks in Bangladesh, ie, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Safari Park in Cox's Bazar (BSMSPC, area 9 km2 ) and Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Safari Park in Gazipur (BSMSPG, area 15.42 km2). Both of these facilities are built on degraded dipterocarp dominated forests and are within 50 km of the nearest cities.
Safari parks create a potential risk of disease outbreaks in captive animals and native wildlife.
Between January and February 2022, BSMSPG experienced an Anthrax outbreak that killed 11 zebras, one tiger and one lion within two weeks. The risk of spillover of zoonotic pathogens circulating in captive wildlife to native wildlife is high, given the layout of safari parks.
The proposed park
The proposed safari park plans to transform the entire LF with the planned construction of major infrastructure, including rest houses, a highway, and multi-storied residential plots for park management staff. The park area encompasses a total area of approximately 22 km2. The report proposes the establishment of a core area (0.84 km2 ), tourism oriented ecovillages (2.81 km2), an exhibit-themed "safari kingdom" (0.15 km2 ), and a wilderness park (18 km2). The core area would contain several exotic species.
In addition, BETS proposed to construct an elephant orphanage, although the area of this facility was not specified in the report. The wilderness area was designated for the rest of LF with an emphasis on the conservation of biodiversity with provisions of trail walks for tourists. Conservation of nature combined with the delivery of economic benefits to nature-dependent communities can ensure sustainability. However, there are no "safari parks" or "safaris" that utilise this conservation model. Many "safari"-based conservation models usually do not involve importing exotic (or invasive) wildlife.
The proposed budget to construct the park is about $114 million, which will be spent in five years. Upon being built, the park plans for 4-6 visiting hours per day, and expects to earn $1.75 million annually from 1 million annual visitors with a per-person park entry fee of less than $1. Based on this estimated income, it would take more than a century to make the park economically profitable.
BETS designed the safari park based on four safari parks in Southeast Asia and one zoological garden in India. All the facilities mentioned in their comparative study (e.g., Hyderabad Zoological Park, Safari World Bangkok, and Jurong Bird Park) are located within tourist destinations, several kilometres away from international borders and protected areas. These model safari parks are, in fact, zoos and theme parks, and earn a yearly revenue of more than $1 billion per year.
Conservation Significance of LF and Greater PHR
Tiger Survey Landscape: Vagrant tigers periodically enter LF which falls under the Tiger Survey Priority Landscape, which is an area putatively of high value for tiger conservation. The LF and PHRF are part of the greater Manas-Namdapha tiger conservation, restoration, and survey landscape that extends from Arunachal, India in the north, including Mizoram, India, and continues south to Chattogram Hill Tracts, merging with the Arakan.
Trans-Boundary Elephant Corridor: The forest is the only remaining active transboundary corridor of Asian elephants in northeastern Bangladesh and southern Assam, India. Talukdar et al. assessed that only 6.88% of PHRF was completely uninhabitable by wildlife, but the rest (including most of LF) contained a moderate-to-excellent habitat for elephants. Elephants, although under serious anthropogenic pressure, can act as an umbrella species of the PHRF wildlife if protected properly.
Human Communities around Lathitila Forest: Establishing a large zoological park will not only threaten biodiversity but will also displace communities that live in the area. At least 2,000 people reside within the proposed park area and would be displaced or otherwise impacted by the construction activities.
We believe the development of the proposed safari park would be detrimental to the significant biodiversity that exists in the region if implemented as planned. This is because of the following observations we noted while assessing the proposed park: (i) the proposed site, i.e., Lathitila Forest, is a Tiger Survey Priority Landscape, an active trans-boundary elephant corridor, and belongs to the Indo-Burma Biodiversity Hotspot; (ii) the concept of the proposed Safari Park is very different from the concept of the safari, a common practice in the African countries; (iii) the existing safari parks of Bangladesh are prone to transmissible diseases; (iv) none of the zoological institutions or safari parks are members of EAZA or WAZA due to poor facilities, funding, and animal husbandry standards; (v) the proposed safari park by BETS is an extended concept of a zoo; (vi) the proposed safari park of BETS plans to bring exotic (with some invasive) wildlife into an area that consists of remote forest stands with trans-boundary connectivity; and (vi) the native Conservation 2022, 2 295 and threatened wildlife already residing within the forest could be better conserved using existing, proven conservation models.
Thus, we strongly urge the government to abandon the idea of developing a safari park to host semi-captive exotic animals primarily for entertainment at the expense of the diverse biota that still exists in LF.
Lathitila Forest must be brought under formal protection to safeguard the remaining biodiversity of the region. Declaring the area, including the whole Patharia Hill Reserve Forest, as an IUCN-designated Category II or Category IV protected area will be far more effective, economical, and sustainable to commence sustainable conservation practice in the region to ensure both wildlife conservation and the welfare of the forest-dependent community.
Disclaimer: You can find the full commentary on researchgate.net under "A Proposed Safari Park in a Subtropical Forest in Northeastern Bangladesh Will Be Detrimental to Native Biodiversity."
