Now we sit in the car back to the airport and can not help but wonder if this short detour into the jungle was worth the whole effort.
In the run-up to the event, we spent a lot of time thinking about the usefulness of this side trip, especially from an ecological point of view or from the point of view of animal welfare. Accordingly, we have also been looking for a suitable provider for the tour and were (fortunately) not disappointed. Our guides were exemplary, any garbage (even leftovers) was taken, no animals fed and not otherwise attracted. Nevertheless, tourism naturally has a significant influence on the habitat of the monkeys, because a large part of the guides does not behave according to our research, unfortunately, and also the problem of waste in the main season should be significantly higher.
Now, of course, there is the inevitable question of whether, with this detour and the fortunately well-chosen choice of tour operator, we are exacerbating or improving the problem of ape tourism. Our response to this is not least due to the good and ecological overall concept of our provider / inn, because in addition to the animal-friendly tours, the inn supports the local school and is strongly committed to less plastic waste in Bukit Lawang (for example, no plastic straws).
But the final answer gives us the drive back to the airport. Because only now we are aware of the frequently mentioned problem with the palm oil industry in Sumatra. As soon as we leave Bukit Lawang, we drive for about 2 hours through endless plantations (a mind-blowing British company) and past countless old (and stinking) diesel trucks for the transport of the raw material. The plantations are interrupted again and again by villages in which the plantation workers live. Sadi (our tour guide) told us about the poor working conditions on the plantations, where he had worked before his current job and barely had enough money for life, let alone education, for his children. Again and again we see signs with warnings about landmines.
These images allow us to understand what would be the end of tourism for the (admittedly relatively few) people living on it, but also how it protects the primeval forest and the orangutans living there from their incorporation into the palm oil industry. The entrance to the national park itself provides an example of this. Here, rubber makers have so often moved the landmarks a few meters until the government has enlarged the landmark several times and installed a fixed information board to stop it. All this just for the possibility of maybe 1-2 additional trees to plant. One can at least hope that tourism (with all its problems) is by far the better alternative for all involved, another seems out of sight due to the poverty of Sumatra as the poorest island in Indonesia.
Conclusion: The tour was an absolute highlight and was therefore 100% worth it, but also our restless during the planning conscience has been soothed in any case. In addition, the people of Sumatra are infinitely hospitable and we can imagine taking a closer look at the island (and perhaps also the national park)