Resort owners in and around protected areas are concerned about how the policy will be implemented

Even though private players, mainly accommodation owners, feel it is imperative and need of the hour to have elaborate guidelines for eco-tourism, they have their apprehensions pertaining to certain guidelines. Take the instance of naturalist Jehan Bhujwala, who runs Shergarh Tented Camp at Kanha Tiger Reserve. Bhujwala says they are already following the existing guidelines and is also doing his bit by doing all that they can for the village tribals, who are essentially the natives of the jungles. ?We have been crying for updated guidelines on architecture, employment to local communities, the ever-increasing problem of noise pollution and lighting. But levying a cess on tourist facilities is not such a good idea as we are already paying sales tax and a hefty entrance fees for the national park,? he explains.

Similarly, Jitesh Thakur who runs two resorts in Jim Corbett National Park, also feels that noise pollution and use of non-biodegradable substances need to be tackled, and the new guidelines will go a long way in promoting best practices. ?Jungles are the source of our revenue and we need to protect them,? he is clear.

Also, as far as the guidelines go, the private sector says it?s the implementation that is their major concern. ?The devil is in the details. How do you know that if the money is collected in the form of a cess, the proceeds are being used for the right cause? In India it?s always difficult to implement the law. Nevertheless we definitely need standards for eco-tourism, though people are voluntarily doing a lot already in this direction,? says Ritu Primlani, director, HVS Sustainability Services. HVS, a hotel consultancy, owns a brand of eco-friendly hotels called Ecotel that helps hotels reduce energy consumption and develop green hotels. In India at present there are around 12 Ecotel-certified hotels.

The Ecotourism Society of India (ESOI), a non-profit organisation formed by a group of professionals from the tourism industry to promote environment friendly and sustainable tourism practices, has also given an elaborate response to the government on the draft guidelines. ?The guidelines do not have anything on the land-use policy, which is critical. Also levy of cess needs better computation, as national parks such as Panna and Kanha are seasonal and do not earn revenue the year round. Such things need to be taken care of,? says Arvind K Balan, manager, ESOI. The response points out the faults and loopholes in the guidelines.

Most resort owners feel that having guidelines is a step in the right direction, but it should be a ‘workable’ policy and not just points on paper that overlook the practical nitty-gritty of eco-tourism in the country.

What the EcoTourism Society of India (ESOI) says about the draft guidelines

Land use policy: Quite obviously a sensible policy has to be prepared by the respective district administrations for a land-use policy around protected areas. This will have to be site specific, but we can draw up guidelines. The forest department will be a critical partner in this exercise as we all recognise that this land has a huge impact on the protected area (something most managers have avoided dealing with for years) but they should not be the sole arbitrator. The host community, the wildlife lodge owners? associations, the tour operators, panchayats, etc, all have stakes and a balanced approach might prevent much of the pressures that are being felt today due to the absence of multi-stakeholder involvement .

Cess: Lodge and camp owners should pay some sort of fee, and this should be based on installed capacity (number of beds) rather than any tax on turnover. Quite clearly, there is an impact of the presence of lodges on the water table, for instance, which may negatively impact local communities and suitable strategies to offset this and other impacts need to be established, for which the fee can be used .

Mushrooming resorts and hotels around protected areas: One important issue that the guidelines mention but offer no guidance is on is the existing level of tourist accommodation that has come up around protected areas over the past 25 years. If the forest department has determined that the carrying capacity of a park is, say, 400 people, then it is patently absurd that there are 4,000 beds outside.