A proposed Rs 99 crore ecotourism project in Satkosia Tiger Reserve has exposed a difficult question for protected-area governance: how can visitor infrastructure be expanded without allowing construction priorities to overtake habitat protection? The dispute is not only about six proposed facilities. It is also about who should design and execute development inside a sensitive landscape, which department should control the process, and how ecological risk will be assessed before work begins.
The project is being funded under the Special Assistance to States for Capital Investment scheme and is intended to improve ecotourism infrastructure at six locations in and around the reserve. Chhamundia and Kusang fall under the Mahanadi division, while Purunakote, Jagannathpur, Baliput and Tikarpada are within the Satkosia division. The proposed infrastructure includes arrival plazas at entry points, interpretation centres with photographs and videos, knowledge centres and cafeterias.
On paper, these facilities are designed to improve the visitor experience and strengthen the reserve’s tourism infrastructure. In practice, their location and delivery model have become the centre of opposition from wildlife conservationists. Their concerns point to a recurring problem in protected-area development: infrastructure that is described as low-impact or visitor-oriented can still create pressure when it is placed close to sensitive habitats or implemented without sufficient ecological control.
The institutional structure is particularly important. The Odisha Bridge and Construction Corporation has been designated to undertake construction work, while the field director of Satkosia Tiger Reserve, Sanjay Swain, said the forest department remains the implementing agency. Swain said OBCC had been designated by the government only for construction and maintained that the planned facilities would not affect wildlife or their habitats.
That explanation addresses the formal division of responsibilities, but it does not settle the larger governance question raised by conservationists. Wildlife activist Biswajit Mohanty said the tourism department should not intervene in a matter he considered to be within the forest department’s domain. He argued that the forest department should execute the work itself because it understands the ecological significance of the sites.
The disagreement therefore concerns more than whether a construction corporation is technically capable of building visitor facilities. It concerns whether construction inside a tiger reserve should be treated primarily as a public works assignment or as a conservation intervention requiring specialised ecological oversight at every stage. The source material does not establish that the use of OBCC is unlawful or that the project has already caused confirmed ecological damage. It does, however, show a clear disagreement over the appropriate institutional model.
The proposed location near gharial habitat makes that disagreement more consequential. Conservationists have raised concerns about one site being close to a habitat of the Schedule-I protected gharial. Naba Kishor Bisoyi, president of the Satkosia Abhayaranya and Praja Surakshya Samiti, had also alleged that construction activities by OBCC had been allowed inside the reserve and that authorities were planning to reconstruct the Gharial Research and Conservation Unit at Tikarpada.
Those allegations are contested in the broader official response, and the supplied report does not provide an independent assessment of the ecological impact of the proposed facilities. That limitation matters. The central question is not simply whether the project uses the language of ecotourism, but whether its design, siting and construction process demonstrate that the habitat requirements of species such as the gharial, mugger crocodile and Indian skimmer have been treated as binding constraints.
Prasanna Behera, another wildlife activist, said these species inhabit one of the six identified sites and argued that there is a clear difference between tourism and ecotourism. His objection highlights the risk of reducing ecotourism to a package of visitor amenities. Interpretation centres and knowledge centres may support public understanding, but their ecological value depends on where they are built, how access is managed and whether the resulting visitor movement increases disturbance.
The project’s six-site design also creates a coordination challenge. Facilities are proposed across locations associated with two divisions, which means implementation will have to align site selection, construction supervision and visitor management across more than one administrative area. The source does not provide the project’s detailed environmental assessment, construction schedule, built-up area, access plan or operating capacity. Without those details, the public cannot independently judge the scale of disturbance or the safeguards intended for each location.
This is where the funding route becomes relevant. The project is being advanced under SASCI, a capital-investment assistance scheme, and the availability of capital funding can create pressure to translate an approved allocation into visible physical assets. That does not mean the scheme itself is incompatible with conservation. It does mean that the administrative success of a project can be measured differently from its ecological success: one may focus on spending and construction, while the other depends on avoiding habitat disruption and maintaining species protection.
The dispute also demonstrates why protected-area infrastructure requires transparent documentation. The forest department’s position is that the facilities will not affect wildlife or habitats. Conservationists, however, have questioned the sites and the agencies involved. The evidence supplied does not include a published site-wise assessment, a mitigation plan, details of construction methods or an explanation of how the project will protect sensitive species during and after construction.
These omissions do not prove that the project is unsafe. They show why official assurances alone may not resolve the controversy. A credible ecotourism framework would need to make the basis for those assurances visible: the ecological rationale for each site, the limits on construction, the proposed visitor load, the safeguards for riverine habitats and the monitoring responsibilities after completion. The supplied report does not establish whether all of these elements have been publicly released.
For citizens and visitors, the issue is not confined to an internal dispute between departments and conservation groups. Public investment in protected areas shapes how people access forests, rivers and wildlife habitats. It also determines whether tourism revenue and visitor facilities are organised around conservation objectives or whether conservation becomes a justification for additional construction.
Satkosia’s project now sits at that institutional crossroads. The forest department says it remains in charge and that OBCC’s role is limited to construction. Conservationists argue that the tourism department should stay away and that specialised forest authorities should control implementation. The immediate facts are clear: six sites have been identified, facilities have been proposed and opposition has been formally voiced. What remains insufficiently established in the supplied material is how each site was assessed and what enforceable safeguards will govern construction.
The next significant test will be whether the authorities publish enough project and ecological information to demonstrate that the proposed infrastructure is compatible with habitat protection. Until then, the Satkosia debate will remain a warning that the label of ecotourism does not by itself resolve the planning, accountability and conservation questions created by construction inside a tiger reserve.
