working paper series 2009-10

1

Section I

WorkingPaper Series2009–2010

P A P E R S

Equations

2

Working Paper Series 2009–2010

Working Paper Series 2009–2010 Section I

1 The Tourism Development Conundrum 3Impacts and Conflicts with Peoples’ Rights and Challengesto Conservation of Protected Areas in Indian States,July 2009

2. Women Speak! 21Women's Engagement with Community Based andNature Based Tourism, July 2009

3. Natural Disasters: Learning from the Tsunami, 29September 2009

4. Canopy Tourism: Concept and Practices in the 37Indian Context, October 2009

5. REDD in India 41An Independent Monitoring Report, December 2009

6. Ecological Commons, People and Tourism, 55March 2010

7. Child Pornography and Tourism, March 2010 59

3

Impacts and Conflicts with Peoples’ Rights and Challenges toConservation of Protected Areas in Indian States

The TourismDevelopment Conundrum

1. IntroductionEcotourism is being pushed aggressively in and around terrestrial and marine protected areas - wildlifesanctuaries and national parks, and unprotected areas that are of significant ecological value. Manyof these areas are inhabited by indigenous peoples. While these areas have been conserved byindigenous and local communities, they have been, very often forcibly, displaced from these areas forthe purpose of conservation. In many Indian states the governments are still attempting to lure themout of the forest areas by promising monetary or land compensations. While the motive behind displacingthe indigenous and local communities is stated by the governments as primarily for conservation,areas that were set aside by law for conservation have witnessed an increase in tourism activities.

Protected Areas in India have had a history of visitation even prior to their being declared as wildlifesanctuaries and national parks under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 as in the case of CorbettNational Park and Kanha National Park. The volume however was small compared to the scale inwhich it happens today. However, the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 has allowed tourist activityinside the Protected Areas. Therefore, when newer areas get declared as protected under the WildLife (Protection) Act, 1972, there is no problem for tourist related activities to happen in those arease.g. in Barnawapara Wildlife Sanctuary in Chhattisgarh. There is also a tendency within the stateforest, tourism departments and some tourism industry players to label as ecotourism any tourismactivities that happen in these protected and unprotected areas. The Madhya Pradesh EcotourismDevelopment Board identifies Kanha and Bandhavgarh national parks as ecotourism destinations butnot many resort owners based there claim that they are into ecotourism. The label ecotourism seemsloosely applied to market tourism to a growing but niche segment who wants more ecotourism. Sometourism players have used the term to indicate their a few eco-friendly practices that they have adopted.In India, ecotourism in practice generally is not much different from the way in which mainstream ormass tourism operates as it lacks the essential principles of environmental sustainability and equity inbenefit sharing with indigenous & local communities. Therefore, in this paper, we shall use the termtourism rather than the generally misused “ecotourism”.

We have selected four states to understand the challenges that tourism development poses in thecontext of environmental impacts of tourism and involvement of institutions of local self government intourism. These are the northern state of Uttarakhand, the central Indian Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarhand the Union Territory Andaman Islands. Ecotourism is actively being pursued in the ProtectedAreas of these states; even in Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh which have the special status ofhaving Schedule V Areas1.

Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand became the 27th state of the Republic of India on 9th November 2000. The state wascarved out of Uttar Pradesh. One of the reasons for the formation of the state was for greater autonomyto the people of Uttarakhand. It has a total land area of 51,125 sq km,2 of which 93% is mountainous

July 2009

4


and 64% is covered by forest.3 Protected Areas in Uttarakhand include the Jim Corbett National Park(the oldest national park of India) at Ramnagar in Nainital District, Valley of Flowers National Park andNanda Devi National Park in Chamoli District, Rajaji National Park in Haridwar District, and GovindPashu Vihar National Park and Gangotri National Park in Uttarkashi District.4 The state has been adestination for mountaineering, hiking and rock climbing in India, a recent development in adventuretourism, in the region has been white water rafting and other adventures sports. Ecotourism, agri-tourism and rural tourism have also found new grounds in many villages of the state.5

The people of Uttarakhand are heterodox Hindus and Buddhists, while Sikh migrants from WestPunjab have settled in the lowlands since 1947. The main indigenous tribes are Jaunsari, Bhotia,Buksha, Tharu and Raji. As a collection of smaller tribes, Jaunsari society is caste stratified with theindigenous Koltas as the main service caste and Khasa Brahmins and Rajputs as the main cultivators.Bhotias are subdivided into three main categories: The Jadhs of Uttarkashi, the Marchas (once mainlytraders) and Tolchas (farmers) of Chamoli, and the Shaukas of Pithoragarh (near Dharchula). TheBukshas are inhabitants of the Terai. They have merged all their castes and even today, observe onlysepts (family names) among their people. The Tharus are a tribal Tibetan-related people that originallyinhabited the eastern zone of the Terai, along the border with Nepal. They are subdivided into manysub-tribes, although a majority of them live in Nainital (now Udham Singh Nagar). As agriculuralists,Tharus tend to have large families that live communally, and it is traditional for brothers to live underone roof. The Rajis, also known as Vanrawats (forest lords) are few in number and live in the forest.They inhabit the woods around Ascot in southern Pithoragarh (now Champawat district). A few Muslimgroups are also native to the area, although most have come recently. The Muslim Gujjar herders alsomigrate to the hills.6 The Gujjars also inhabit forest areas such as in Rajaji and Corbett.

Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh is the second largest Indian state in size with an area of 308,000 sq km.7 The forestarea of the state is 94,689.38 sq km constituting 30.71% of the geographical area of the state.8 Thereare 9 National Parks and 25 Sanctuaries spread over an area of 10,862 sq. km constituting 11.40% ofthe total forest area. The national parks are: Bandhavgarh, Kanha, Satpura, Sanjay, Madhav, Van Vihar,Mandla Plant Fossils, Panna and Pench. The wildlife sanctuaries are: Bori, Bagdara, Phen, Ghatigaon,Gandhisagar, Karera, Ken, Ghariyal, Kheoni, Narsinghgarh, N. Chambal, Nauradehi, Pachmari, Panpatha,Kuno, Pench, Ratapani, Sanjay Dubri, Singhori, Son Ghariyal, Sardapur, Sailana, Ralamandal, Orchha,Gangau and V. Durgawati.9 The state has been a destination for wildlife tourism, cultural and heritagetourism, and pilgrimages. The state plans to enter the leisure and business tourism.10

The total population of Tribals in Madhya Pradesh is 122.33 lakh constituting about 20.27% of thetotal population of the state. There are 46 Scheduled Tribal groups and 3 Special Primitive TribalGroups. About 40.63% of total geographical area of the state is under the Tribal Sub Plan and 33.6%of total geographical area has been notified as Scheduled Area.11 The tribal area of Madhya Pradeshcan be divided into four main zones as follows:

Western Cultural Zone: Districts of Ratlam, Jhabua, Dhar, Barwani, Khargone, Khandwa, Harda,Dewas and Indore fall under this zone. The main tribes residing in this zone are Bhil, Bhilala,Barela and Patelia.

Central Cultural Zone: This zone comprises of Mandla, Dindori, Balaghat, Seoni, Chhindwara,Jabalpur, Katni, Narsimhapur, Sagar, Damoh, Umaria, Sehore and Bhopal. The main tribes residingin this zone are Gond, Pardhan, Korku, Baiga, Bharia, Nagarachi and Ojha.

North-Eastern Cultural Zone: Districts of Shahdol, Sidhi, Rewa, Satna, Panna, Chhatarpur, Gunaand Tikamgar fall under this zone. Kol, Biar, Panika, Sour and Pav are the main tribes residing inthis zone.

North-Western Cultural Zone: This zone consists of Morena, Shivpuri, Sheopur, Datia, Gwaliorand Bhind districts. The main tribe residing in this zone is Seharia. Three Special Primitive Tribal

5

The Tourism Development Conundrum

Groups - Bharia (Patalkot, Chhindwara), Baiga (Umaria, Shahdol, Dindori, Balaghat and Mandla)and Seharia (Shivpuri, Sheopur, Guna, Gwalior, Morena) reside in Madhya Pradesh.12

Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh, carved out of Madhya Pradesh came into being on 1st November 2000 as the 26th Stateof the Union. It fulfils the long-cherished demand of the tribal people.13 The forest area of the state is59,772.39 sq km. 14 It has 10.88% of its forests under Protected Area (PA) network. There are threenational parks: Indravati, Kanger Ghati and Guru Ghasidas, and eleven wildlife sanctuaries:Achanakmar, Badalkhol, Bhairamgarh, Barnawapara, Gomarda, Pameda, Semarsot, Sitanadi, TamorPingala, Udanti, Bhoramdev.15 The state has identified ecotourism, culture, heritage, ethno tourism,pilgrimages, adventure tourism, and business & leisure tourism as the thrust areas.16

The population of Chhattisgarh is notable for the high proportion of Scheduled Tribes and for specific sectsprimarily constituted of Schedule Castes. Of the total population of Chhattisgarh, tribals constitute at least32.5%, which is a significantly high percentage. In the last few decades, the demographic profile of tribaldominated areas has undergone a change. This is a cause for concern as it represents large-scale intrusionof non tribals in tribal areas. This changing demographic profile is strongly evident in Bastar, where theproportion of tribals has decreased in the last few decades. According to the 1991 census the tribal populationin the ten districts of Chhattisgarh was Durg -12.6 %, Raipur - 18.6%, Rajnandgaon - 25.3 %, Bilaspur -23.4 % Surguja - 54.8 %, Raigarh - 45.5%, Bastar - 67.7 %. The various tribes in the Chhattisgarh regionare Gonds, Muria, Bhumja, Baiga, Kanars, Kawars, Halbas etc.17

Andaman Islands

The Andaman & Nicobar are a group of picturesque islands, big and small, inhabited and uninhabited,a total of 572 islands, islets and rocks lying in the South Eastern Part of the Bay of Bengal.18 Theforests in the Andaman and the Nicobar group of islands occupy 7,606 km² or 92.2 per cent of the totalgeographical area of 8,249 km²; of this 5,883 km² is forests in the Andaman group and 1,723 km², inthe Nicobar group. (Note: The Directorate of Economics and Statistics puts the forest cover in 2006as 5,629 km2 for Andamans and 1,542 km2 for the Nicobars). Of the total forest cover, dense forestswith crown density of 40 per cent and above constitute 85.9 per cent, open forests with crown densityless than 40 per cent constitute 1.7 per cent and mangroves constitute 12.7 per cent. The legallynotified forests cover 7,170. 69 km² (86.93 per cent of the geographical area); of this, 4,242 km² areprotected forests and 2,929 km² are reserved forests. The A&NI are fringed by one of the mostspectacular and extensive reefs in the world that hold significance nationally and globally as the lastpristine reefs in the Indian Ocean. However, the extent of reefs in the A&NI is not accurately knownyet and recent surveys report it as 11,939 km². There are two protected areas for reefs in the Andamans– the Mahatma Gandhi Marine National Park and the Rani Jhansi Marine National Park, both havingadjoining reefs that need inclusion.19

The Andaman Islands are home to four indigenous tribes. The Great Andamanese people numberedaround 6,000 in the 1850s, when the islands were colonised by the British for establishing a penal colony.Today they number 43 and have been marginalised to Strait Island on the southeast coast of MiddleAndaman. The Onge who now inhabit Little Andaman Island were the next to be contacted in 1920 andthey met a fate similar to that of the Andamanese. The Sentinelese, estimated to be 39 in number, have forlong inhabited North Sentinel Island 60 km southwest of South Andaman Island. The Jarawas are in theinterior and west coast of South and Middle Andaman and currently number about 240.20

A dynamic demographic profile of the islands makes it difficult to define the term “local community”, asit does not constitute any homogeneous group. There are 503 inhabited villages in the A&NI of which334 are in the Andaman District on eleven islands and the remaining 170 villages, hamlets, and smalland individual family units on 12 islands in the Nicobar district. The total population according to the2001 census is 356,152.21

6


2. People’s Struggles in the StatesThe Constitutional provisions of the 73rd Amendment and Schedule V & PESA Act (refer sectionsbelow for details) that accord rights to indigenous and local communities to land and autonomy havenot been adequately devolved by the state legislatures. The gradual increase in the struggles ofindigenous peoples and local communities for human rights, constitutional rights and for culturalidentity, rights over natural resources and common property resources (CPR), is seen as an obstacleby the governments. Often these voices of dissent are suppressed by use of state sponsored violence.The land of indigenous and local communities is continuously being encroached upon to usher indevelopment that usurps not only their land but also their autonomy, control over their region andtraditional rights and systems of self governance. Land for mining, dams, industries and power plantsis appropriated even in Scheduled Areas in the under the guise of economic growth and development.Many of these areas are sites of conflict - seeing increasing violence and armed struggles as thedemand for development that reaches people according their needs and aspirations is rejected andtop down development measures that do not benefit local people are imposed.

While the state functions as facilitator cum real estate broker for acquiring land for industries, thecommon land of villages and people’s rights over these common property resources in ScheduledAreas are handed out to private bidders. The ever decreasing availability of per capita commonproperty resources have direct linkages to worsening the status of families that continue to depend onthe CPRs to meet their daily needs, livelihoods, income needs and employment opportunities derivedfrom the CPRs. The accelerated privatisation of common property resources and their decreasinggeographical coverage is also increasing inequalities within the society, increasing hardship for womenwho collect these resources and thereby making worse the living standards of families at the bottomof the development pyramid. Though the state is just a trustee of these public resources, it hasincreasingly connived with industry to privatise these resources for commercial gain and therefore

Figure 1: Critical issues of study states in which context tourism is located

Map source: Government of India

7

impeded free public use. On the other hand, extractive industries are allowed to operate even inprotected areas and other ecologically sensitive areas, on government subsidies and incentives withprocedures that streamline approval of these projects in the absence of any environmental or socialimpact assessment reports.

It is therefore that when the tourism industry makes an easy entry into these spaces, facilitated bygovernments that the local people ask “why the Taj is considered eco and not the Baiga” 22.

3. Key Tourism Issues in the StatesIn order to understand the key tourism issues in the states the following sites were selected:

Uttarakhand – Corbett national parkMadhya Pradesh – Bandhavgarh and Kanha national parksChhattisgarh – Achanakmar and Barnwarapara wildlife sanctuariesAndaman Islands – various tourism locations especially South Andaman Island, Havelock andNeil Islands

Uttarakhand

Created in 1955-56, it is the oldest National Park of India. It was one of the nine Tiger Reservescreated at the launch of the Project Tiger in 1973. Corbett National Park lies in two districts – Nainitaland Pauri. It covers an area of 521 sq. km and together with the neighbouring Sonanadi WildlifeSanctuary and Reserve Forest areas, forms the Corbett Tiger Reserve over 1,288 sq. km.23 Theoriginal area of the Park was 323.75 sq. km. to which 197.07 sq. km. was added later. An area of797.72 sq. km. was added as buffer of the Corbett Tiger Reserve in 1991. This area includes thewhole of Kalagarh Forest Division (including 301.18 sq. km. area of Sonanadi Wildlife Sanctuary),96.70 sq. km. of Ramnagar Forest Division and 89 sq. km.24

Tourism is allowed in selected areas of Corbett Tiger Reserve.25 The main tourism areas in Corbett areDhikala, Jhirna, Bijrani, Sonanadi and Domunda. Only day visits in conducted safaris are allowed in thetourism areas in vehicles approved by the Forest Department and accompanied by a Forest Departmenttrained and licensed guide. For night halts three tourist complexes located at Dhikala, Gairal and Bijranioffer a choice of accommodation type. Dhikala has the maximum bed capacity including a dormitory.Basic lodging is available for tourists at other Forest Rest Houses at Malani, Sultan, Gairal, Sarpduli,Khinanauli, Kanda and Jhirna. Visitors can also stay at the Forest Rest Houses at Lohachaur, Rathuadhab,Halduparao, Mundiapani, Morghatti, Sendhikhal and Dhela.26 Apart from these, there are many resorts,lodges and hotels in Ramnagar and Dhikuli, which are on the border of the Park. The number of tourismestablishments in Dhikuli alone has been estimated as 49 along a stretch of 18 km.27

Corbett remains open to tourists from 15th November to 15th June. The main reason for closure of thePark during the rest of the year is that during the monsoons most of the roads get washed away.Repair work starts after the rains end and it is only by November that roads are back in motorablecondition.28 The number of visitors to Corbett in 2006-07 was 139,047, with 130,714 domestic touristsand 8,333 foreign tourists.29

Key Tourism Issues

The Corbett National Park has been a heavily visited area for many years. This heavy influx of touristshas led to visible stress signs on the natural ecosystem. Excessive trampling of soil due to touristpressure has led to reduction in plant species and has also resulted in reduced soil moisture. Thetourists have increasingly used fuel wood for cooking. This is a cause of concern as this fuel wood isobtained from the nearby forests, resulting in greater pressure on the forest ecosystem of the park.30

Additionally, tourists have also caused problems by making noise, littering and causing disturbancesin general31.


8


The development of private tourism resorts around Corbett began in early 1990s. The touristswho came to Corbett earlier were the serious types but the profile of tourists has changedconsiderably over the years. Now the tourists who come mainly from cities are not interested inwildlife and nature, but rather want to only have a sighting of the tiger. The way tourism ishandled in Corbett gives an impression that Corbett belongs to the tourism industry. There isalso no proper interpretation centre for the tourists.

The [migratory] corridors around Corbett have been choked due to the coming up of the resorts.This has led to an increase in human – animal conflict.

Villages around Corbett have been displaced by resorts and in many instances land belongingto Scheduled Tribes has been purchased in connivance with the government.

There is lot of sewage that is being dumped in the Kosi River from the resorts. During weekendsand other holidays [when there is a surge of tourists] resorts play music loudly, which disturbsthe local people and the animals in the forest.

- Pers. Comm. with Ganesh Rawat, journalist, Ramnagar, 8th November 2008

Corbett receives around 3,000 visitors per day during the tourist season, but most of them donot come to the bazaar and stay in the resorts. So where is the question of local people benefittingfrom tourism? The only opportunities for local people are to run Gypsies (safari vehicles) insidethe Park and some of them get employed as guides.

Tourism in Corbett is very expensive and is beyond the reach of low budget tourists. Therefore,facilities for low budget tourists should also be created. In this regard, home-stay facilitiescould be created in Ramnagar by involving the local Panchayat. These could be marketed bythe Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam.

There is serious issue of land around Corbett. While the norm in Uttarakhand is that peoplefrom outside Uttarakhand cannot buy more than 100 sq m of land without the permission of theDistrict Magistrate and stating clear reasons; upto 100 sq m can be bought without permission;there has been large scale transactions of land in Dhikuli, Marachula (near Ramganga River)and Dhela. The cost of land has increased to Rs. 40,00,000 per bigha32 while it was onlyaround Rs. 50,000 per bigha ten years back.

The Government listens only to resort owners & not local people. To make a submission localpeople have to make roads block, whereas government officials are sitting in resorts andaddressing their issues. No resort owner is interested in addressing over all development issuesof the area like education, transportation etc, from which they will also be benefitted. Similarly,the Forest Development will hold discussion with resort owners and not with local tradersassociation.

- Pers. Comm. with Prabhat Dhyani, Editor, Uttarakhand Prabhat Times,Ramnagar, 8th November 2008

Human – animal conflict in Corbett has also been attributed to tourism when a woman was killed by atiger in Dhikuli on the periphery of the Corbett National Park. A media report states: “The tiger wasdeclared a maneater after it killed a woman who had entered the buffer zone of the reserve three daysago. It has also attacked two people who were riding a motorbike. We have all options open to dealwith this now. It may be eliminated if it cannot be caught,” says Vinod Singhal, director, Corbett TigerReserve. But the problem, he admits, is man-made. “This particular tiger did not tolerate the presenceof elephants (carrying tourists) and used to charge at them. He gradually lost his fear of humans.Tourism around the park is a problem. Ideally, it has to be checked,” he says.33 The story is further

9

corroborated by the woman Bhagwati Devi’s husband, B. C. Nainwal who says “It is the policies of thegovernment that made the tiger a victim of public ire ... The tiger was roaming near Dhikuli for four-fivemonths. The main reason was elephant safaris by resorts here. They are known to throw meat in frontof the tiger to increase the sighting of the big cat.”34

Madhya Pradesh

– Kanha National ParkKanha is one of the oldest wildlife sanctuaries in India and is spread over Mandla and Balaghatdistricts. It was declared as a reserve forest in 1879 and upgraded to a wildlife sanctuary in 1933. Itwas declared as a National Park in 1955 and then declared as a tiger reserve in 1973. It covers anarea of 944 sq km, which forms the core zone of the Kanha Tiger Reserve; the surrounding area of1,009 sq km is the buffer zone. The neighbouring 110 sq km Phen Wildlife Sanctuary forms micro-core of the Kanha Tiger Reserve. Between 1969 and 1998, 27 villages were relocated from the corezone of the Park.35

The Park is open to tourists from 1st October to 30th June, and it remains closed between the monsoonmonths of July and September. There are two entry points to the Park namely Khatia and Mukki. Touristsare allowed in two batches during morning and afternoon between 6.30 am – 10.30 am & 2.30 pm – 5.30pm. Only light petrol and diesel vehicles with four-wheel drive manufactured in the last 5 years areallowed inside the park.36 Each vehicle has to be accompanied by a Forest Department trained andlicensed guide. A total of 140 vehicles are allowed per day. Most of the vehicles are locally owned.

Accommodation is provided by both government and private establishments. While some governmentlodges are located inside the Park, the private lodges are concentrated around the two entry pointsnamely Khatia and Mukki.37 The Forest Department puts the capacity of accommodation to 500 beds.Kanha received 97,258 domestic tourists and 8,573 foreign tourists during the year 2007.38

– Bandhavgarh National ParkBandhavgarh has been an excellent habitat of tiger and is known for the highest density of tigers inthe world. The area of 105 sq km was notified in 1968 as a National Park. The remaining part of theNational Park i.e. 343.842 sq. km. is yet to be finally declared though State Government had made theinitial notification in 1982. Panpatha Sanctuary with an area of 245.847 sq. km. was declared in 1983.Considering the importance of the National park, it was included in the Project Tiger Network in 1993.The adjoining Panpatha Sanctuary too was declared as a part of the Reserve.39 It is located in theUmaria District of Madhya Pradesh.

Like Kanha, the Park is open to tourists from 1st October to 30th June, and it remains closed betweenthe monsoon months of July and September. Tourism is restricted to 105 sq km of the Tala Range,which amounts to 23.4% of park area. The tourism zone is divided into three zones and each zonehas limited vehicle entry. There are two entry points: Tala & Gohri gates in two batches during morningand afternoon between 6.30 am – 10.30 am & 2.30 pm – 5.30 pm. Around 50 vehicles are allowedinside the Park per day.40 Only light petrol and diesel vehicles with four-wheel drive manufactured inthe last 5 years are allowed inside the park41 and have to be accompanied by a Forest Departmenttrained and licensed guide. Most of the vehicles are owned by local people and resort owners.

Tourism started when craze for wildlife tourism increased. Initially in the 80’s visitors were fewer than1,000 per year. The tourist arrivals picked up slowly. During 90’s the number rose to 2,000 and in thelast year (2007) the number of tourists increased to 60,000 per year. Of these, around 20,000 areforeigners and rest domestic. The number of tourists during holidays and weekends is very high. Nowthere is restriction to the tourist entry based on the carrying capacity study42. From January 2008, thepark has started online bookings for safaris. Bandhavgarh received 55,835 domestic tourists and13,706 foreign tourists during the year 2007.43

Accommodation is available at the Forest Rest House run by the Forest Department and at WhiteTiger Forest Lodge run by the Madhya Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation.44 The private


10


establishments are located in the areas of Tala – Ranchha (4 resorts), Tala (15 resorts), Tala –Bijheria (9 resorts) and Gohri Gate (1 resort).45 Additional six hotels were due for completion andcommencement of operations in 2009.46

Key Tourism IssuesThe local people mainly get jobs as guides and safari vehicle drivers47. There are 57 guides andaround 80-90 safari vehicles in the village owned by local villagers and resorts. The guides are selectedfrom surrounding villages, which are about 166 villages in a periphery of about 5 km in the bufferzone.48 The guides earn Rs.150 per day during the tourist season and the safari vehicle drivers earnaround Rs. 2,000 per month. The tourists give them a good amount as tips.49

In the hotels and resorts, they get jobs as helpers and room boys.50 Some of them get jobs in resortsfor cleaning and grass cutting. 51 The villagers also get jobs as labourers with the Forest Departmentin activities like water hole management and fire protection.52 Sometimes resorts like the Taj53 andother resorts conduct tribal dances wherein local people are paid around Rs. 700 – 1,000 for aperformance.54

The primary occupation of local people is agriculture and in the tourism season people seek employmentin hotels and resorts. Therefore, the availability of people gets reduced in agriculture. The people workfor about of 15-20 days in the tourism season and their monthly incomes [during the tourism season]have doubled on an average from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 4,000. This has led to availability of expendableincomes with the local people, which they are now spending on consumption of alcohol. In the broadersocio-cultural context of the area, women more than men are engaged in labour (agriculture and otherwork). However, none are employed in hotels except during the construction phase. Employment inhotels is considered as a social taboo for women.55 Overall, most of the employment (managers, frontoffice staff, and waiters) is given to non-locals.56 The tourism establishments do not source materialsfrom the local markets.57 Hence there is very little benefit to the local economy.

Many tourism establishments use firewood as fuel for heating and cooking, and for organising campfires for the tourists.58 The firewood is collected from the forests by the local people who in turn sell it tothe establishments.59 As there are many tourism establishments still being built, there is a lot of demandfor mud-bricks. The kilns, where these mud-bricks are manufactured, use timber to fire the kilns and thetimber is extracted from the forests by local people.60 The construction of tourism establishment alsouses a lot of bamboo and bally (poles of young trees), which are extracted mainly from those forestareas that are not within the national park.61 This has led to depletion in the vegetation cover of the area.

The existence of non-biodegradable solid wastes like plastic bags, covers, wrappers, bottles, teacups and glasses is posing a serious problem to the well being of the local environment. There haveeven been deaths of domestic and wild animals due to consumption of plastic carry-bags62, which areoften disposed with left-over of food stuff inside them. The animals are attracted by the smell andsince they cannot take the food stuff of the carry bags, they consume the food stuff along with thecarry bags.

Chhattisgarh

– Achanakmar Wildlife SanctuaryThe Achanakmar wildlife sanctuary was constituted in the year 1975 it comprises of 557.55 sq km.63

Most of the visitors are day tourists. There is a guest house that is run and managed by the CG ForestDepartment.

An information / interpretation centre has been established beside a café, where photographs of theforests, flora & fauna have been displayed. There is a resort named Jungle Resort, owned by Dr.Anish Deshkar from Bilaspur that is inside the wildlife sanctuary. It has three rooms with 3, 4 and 6beds respectively and is mostly used by Bengali tourists during the peak tourist season of October toJanuary. Visitation statistics to Achanakmar were not available with the authorities.

11

– Barnawapara Wildlife SanctuaryLocated in northern part of Mahasamund district of Chhattisgarh, Barnawapara Wildlife Sanctuaryis one of the finest and important wildlife sanctuaries in the region. Established in 1976 underWild Life (Protection) Act of 1972, the sanctuary is relatively a small one covering an area ofonly 245 sq km.64

Barnawapara receives around 25,000 tourists during the year. Most tourists are day visitors. Duringthe Pushpunni mela (local festival held on 31 Jan every year), around 70,000 tourists come in personalvehicles. The revenue generated from tourism in Barnawapara in 2007-08 was Rs. 15,60,000.65

About 40-45 local youth have been trained as guides and their fee is Rs. 60 / trip / hour. Their traininghas been on introducing themselves and the PA; filtering food stuff, water bottles, packed materialand plastic bags; preventing tourists from getting down from the vehicles. The guides can explain alittle about birds and plants mostly in local names, but communicating with foreign tourists is difficultas they don’t know English.66

Key Tourism IssuesThe scale of tourism is very low as compared to other places like Kanha and Bandhavgarh nationalparks. Therefore there are no substantial impacts of tourism in these wildlife sanctuaries. The presenceof a private resort inside the Achanakmar Wildlife Sanctuary is a matter of concern and it is a clear

Figure 2: View of Jungle Resort, Achanakmar Wildlife Sanctuary

Source: EQUATIONS, 2008

violation of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (see figure 2). However, the Chhattisgarh Forest Department,in a bid to promote ecotourism, has constructed a luxurious resort in a forest area adjacent to theBarnawapara Wildlife Sanctuary, the case study of which has been described.

The Chhattisgarh Forest Department has completed construction of an “eco-resort” on the peripheryof the Barnawapara Wildlife Sanctuary (see figure 3). The land belongs to Chhattisgarh ForestDevelopment Corporation. Total cost of construction is Rs. 2.16 crore. The resort has 6 cottages in 2blocks and has a capacity of 24 beds, along with a reception centre, restaurant and staff quarters. Theresort is electrified by a 10KW solar unit, installed at a cost of Rs. 15 lakhs. The reason for opting solaras the source of electricity was out of necessity as there is no other power supply to these areas. Theresort has been handed over to the Chhattisgarh Tourism Board for running and management. Theproperty is being considered for privatisation.67 The Chhattisgarh Tourism Board considers privatisationthrough the PPP model (public-private partnership) as a good option. The main activity of theChhattisgarh Tourism Board is to create infrastructure and hand them over to private players to operate.


12


The private players will accrue benefits and the State will be benefitted through collection of taxes.The Board is also of the view that the government should not run hotels rather they should be moreinvolved in creating infrastructure and marketing destinations.68

The Mohda Eco Resort is located in a forest and on the banks of a lake, which are common propertyresources. The diversion of forest land to a non-forest purpose can be challenged under the Forest(Conservation) Act, 1980. While this project is a clear case of diversion of forest land for commercialpurposes, what is even more serious is its transfer to private parties. The common property resourcesof the forest and water-source, which could have been used by the local people, have now beensegregated for the exclusive use and enjoyment of tourists.

Andaman Islands

The main tourism locations in the Andaman Islands are Port Blair, Wandoor, Ross Island, North Bay,Mount Harriet, Chidiyatapu, Baratang, Diglipur, Havelock, Neil, Mayabunder, Rangat, and Jollybuoy,Red Skin in the Mahatma Gandhi Marine National Park. The number of tourists who visited AndamanIslands in 2006 were 1,18,648 domestic tourists and 9,051 foreign tourists.69 There is low seasonalvariation within the year for domestic tourists but the numbers are slightly higher in the months ofNovember, December and January. However, for the foreign tourists, there is high intra-year seasonalitywith peak season being mid October – mid March.70

Key Tourism IssuesFor most domestic tourists, the reason for choosing the Andamans as a holiday destination is theleave travel concession (LTC) provided by the central government and for foreign tourists, it is thepast experiences and recommendations of other tourists. While the beaches and the pristine naturalbeauty of the Andamans is a motivating factor for both domestic and foreign tourists, the latter alsocome to Andamans for snorkeling and diving.

The main social issues of tourism in the Andamans are that there is some resentment about rise inprices of essential goods, fruits, vegetables that the local people attribute to tourism. There is dissentover attire of foreign tourists and fears of local youth aping western culture and values, lifestyle.Tourism has given women some opportunities to enter economic activities although the industry stilltends to be dominated by men. Presently there is not too much evidence of child labour but this couldincrease especially with increase in migrant labour. There is low evidence of tourism-linked prostitution

Figure 3: Views of Mohda Eco Resort, Barnawapara Wildlife Sanctuary


13

currently in the Andamans, however fears exist that this is on the rise. Tourism-related crime is on therise in few Islands although these incidents have been sporadic and subject to varying interpretations.Tourism related drug abuse and drug peddling is present in the Islands. By and large tourists, especiallywomen, perceive the Andamans as a safe destination (96.5% of domestic and 90.7% of foreign touristsperceived the islands to be a safe destination).71

However, tourism’s impact on the indigenous tribes – the Jarawas – is a matter of serious concern asthere is continuing use of the Andaman Trunk Road despite the Supreme Court of India’s order in May2002 to close it down in six months. Tour operators take tourists, especially domestic tourists, onexpectations of seeing ‘primitive, naked tribes’.72 The main concern is that the Jarawas do not haveimmunity against many diseases like measles. Any contact with other people would mean increasingtheir vulnerability to such diseases. For the Jarawa, each disease is an epidemic to which many havelost their lives.

Tourism currently does not seem to play a significant role in terms of the Gross State DomesticProduct (GSDP) and employment, contrary to popular belief and policy positioning. Despite significantincrease in tourist arrivals over last 2 decades, contribution of sector to GSDP has stagnated at 8%due to low local expenditure by tourists. Revenue generation from tourism is low and accounts foronly 1.4% of total revenue receipts. Employment in the tourism sector is less than 1.5% of total mainworkforce of the Islands and a substantial percent of the workforce does not get secure employmentin tourism. The tendency is to recruit skilled labour from Port Blair or mainland. The local workforceemployed is only in low-skill and seasonal kind of jobs. There is evidence of local entrepreneurship intourism – 50% of accommodation units within Port Blair and in other Islands are owned by locals.Tourism has created some jobs in the ancillary industry - taxi, auto drivers, shop owners, guides, butthese are of a seasonal nature.73

But what are more alarming are the environmental impacts of tourism in the Andamans. There isalready a strain of other development activities and population pressure on natural resources ofAndamans and its biodiversity. Tourism, which is largely unregulated and unplanned, has led toincreased pressure on fresh water availability. The tourism infrastructure is inconsistent with theecological setting and is very energy intensive. There is a serious problem of waste disposal and

Figure 4: One of the Many Solid Waste Dumping Sites in Havelock Island,Andaman Islands (Note the High Content of Non-biodegradableSolid Wastes Like Plastic Bags, Covers, Wrappers and Bottles)



14


pollution from solid wastes: the sewage is disposed directly into the sea and the solid wastes areallowed to accumulate, then burnt (see figure 4). Land based development activities and tourist activitieslike snorkeling have had an impact on the coral reefs. The former has led to sedimentation that haschoked the corals (as they are filter feeders) and the latter due to physical damage. Important regulationslike the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 1991 and environmental impact assessments have notbeen implemented and tourism has violated them consistently. There has also been poorimplementation of Orders of the Supreme Court based on the Shekhar Singh Commission Report.These impacts are critical to be taken note of seriously in the context of the impacts from climatechange wherein Islands are the most vulnerable. 74

4. Common Tourism Issues in the States

Regulating Tourism Growth Around PAs

The growing number of tourism establishments on the boundaries of National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuariesis a matter of concern. While the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 does allow tourists into Protected Areas, itclearly disallows private, commercial establishments to be located inside. Presently, there is no regulationor control on the number of tourism establishments coming up on the peripheries of Protected Areas.75

The Indian Board for Wildlife, the apex advisory body in the field of wildlife conservation in the country, inits XXI meeting in January 2002 resolved that “lands falling within 10 km of the boundaries of NationalParks and Wildlife Sanctuaries should be notified as eco-fragile zones under section 3(v) of the Environment(Protection) Act and Rule 5 Sub-rule 5(viii) & (x) of the Environment (Protection) Rules”. Despite this, arash of tourism establishments are found cheek by jowl in the immediate periphery of every ProtectedArea of repute like Corbett, Bandhavgarh, Kanha. Newer Protected Areas like Barnawapara WildlifeSanctuary have also begun to see tourism establishments coming up on their peripheries.

The Madhya Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation (MPTDC) has also come up with scheme toboost private investment for tourism development around Protected Areas. The scheme seeks toinvite investment for building hotels, resorts, entertainment centres, golf courses etc in “chosen locationsthat have immense potential and investor-friendly politico-administrative environment”.76

The MPTDC will facilitate land acquisition for private investors. They have stated that a land bank hasbeen created by identifying pieces of land spread over eleven districts of the State namely Jabalpur,Umariya, Chhattarpur, Dhar, Indore, Tikamgarh, Ujjain, Bhopal, Panna, Seoni and Narsinghpur. Specificareas have been identified within these districts from which pieces of land will be leased out for 90years on freehold or public-private partnership basis. The MPTDC has identified land for creatingbanks around the Bandhavgarh National Park in Umariya district for construction of resorts andrecreation centres. Land for construction of resorts and hotels is also available within 10 km distanceof the Panna Tiger Reserve at various locations in Janwar, Jardhowa Tara, Sakeria, Amjhiriya andsimilarly at Seoni which is 9 km from Pench National Park. It intends to build world-class infrastructurearound national parks and sanctuaries for attracting high end tourists. The investment scheme seeksto boost tourism infrastructure development as close as possible to national parks and wildlifesanctuaries. Schemes such as these do not take into account the impacts of tourism development onthe boundaries of Protected Areas.

Protected Areas do not have physical boundaries such as fences. The surrounding areas of ProtectedAreas have many different land uses ranging from forests, agriculture land or fallow land (agricultureland that has been left uncultivated), to human settlements and even intensive activities like mining.In the case of Protected Areas discussed above, land use is mostly forests and agriculture, fallowland. These areas are used by wildlife for various purposes like finding food and water in other areaswhen there is less available inside the Protected Areas and periodic migration. When the populationof species increases inside the Protected Areas, the animals have the ability to spread to the surroundingareas, or use the corridors to move to other habitats.

15

The development of tourism establishments around Protected Areas hinders the use of surrounding areasand also blocks the movement of animals to other forest or protected areas through the corridors.77 Theanimals are then forced to enter human habitations thereby increasing the possibility of human-animalconflicts. These conflicts have lead to damage and loss of property as well as human and animal lives.

The other problems are of habitat loss and fragmentation due to infrastructure developments likeconstructions of roads.78 The location and numbers of resorts crowding on the periphery of the Parkhas become such a severe problem in Corbett that the local people are considering filing a PublicInterest Litigation on this issue.79

Disregard for Provisions of the Constitution (Seventy Third) Amendment Act, 1992

The Constitution (Seventy Third) Amendment Act, 1992 (also known as the 73rd Amendment) requiresa three tier system of Panchayati Raj Institutions to be constituted for decentralisation and devolutionof powers from the Centre to the grassroots in order to enable these bodies to function as institutionsof local self government. The 73rd Amendment further requires the Legislatures of all Indian States todelegate decision making powers on issues specified under Schedule XI of the Indian Constitution tothe Panchayats to enable them to plan and implement schemes for their social and economicdevelopment on, among others, land improvement, land reforms and maintenance of communityassets80. The panchayats have also been given the powers as institutions of local self government todecide on the kind of development that they would like in their areas of jurisdiction. They have alsobeen empowered to impose taxes, tolls and duties through a law by the state legislature.

The panchayats are not consulted when tourism projects or plans are prepared by the governments,private investors or companies. The panchayats get to know about the project or plans at theimplementation stage only after all clearances have been given by various other departments. Whereasclearances on power, water supply and sewage are given by the electricity department and publicworks department respectively, the issue of land allocation and conversion if any is done at the DistrictCollector’s level and the panchayats have no say in land matters. The role of the panchayats is thenreduced to a formality81 when a letter of intent is written to the panchayats for specifying purpose ofland-use82 and a ‘No Objection Certificate’ is requested from the panchayats. At this stage, thepanchayats do not refuse because clearances have already been given by other departments.


“There is no dialogue with local panchayats and departments take decisions unilaterally on anykind of developmental activity. No body is informed of any projects that they [government orindustry] make … When the tourist resort [ecotourism venture of the Chhattisgarh ForestDepartment] was inaugurated by the Chief Minister on 26 July 2008, there were no discussionswith the local people; in fact the local people were prevented from meeting the CM. At least themain people of the village could have been invited but even that was not done. Ironically thetheme of the inauguration programme was ‘handing over to people’ and the people were notinvited. The CM had come with nearly 20 other cabinet ministers. It would have been appropriateif they had visited a few villages and inquired about their conditions … There are many tourismresorts that have come up on the periphery [of the Barnawapara Wildlife Sanctuary] and thepermission is given by the Chhattisgarh Forest Department. [That is because] The land isowned by government”.

- Mr. Niranjan, Panchayat Pradhan, Loridkhar Village, Barnawapara Wildlife Sanctuary,Chhattisgarh83.

“The role of the panchayats is a formality … With respect to land, all matters are done at theRegistrar’s level and there is no role for the panchayats”.

- Mr. Rajesh Singh, Sarpanch, Tala Village Panchayat, Bandhavgarh, Madhya Pradesh84.

16


“I am not looking at large scale tourism and do not want cement construction and very bigresorts coming into Neil. The Panchayat needs to be careful that their land is not sold out toindustrialists from outside. The Panchayat is helpless regarding plans to develop tourism in theIsland. There are not enough funds to maintain cleanliness on the beaches. The Administrationhas to provide the funds or take over maintenance”

- Ram Krishna Biswas, Pradhan, Neil Island, Andaman & Nicobar Islands85

The case of Kanha National Park is of special relevance to the issue of implementing the 73rd

Amendment because it falls in the category Schedule V Areas. Article 244 of the Constitution of Indiathrough its Schedule V provides protection to the indigenous peoples living in the Scheduled Areasand gives them the right to self rule. It disallows the transfer of indigenous peoples’ lands to non-indigenous peoples. The 73rd Amendment is applicable in Schedule V Areas through the PanchayatExtension to Scheduled Areas (PESA) Act, 1996 to improve the system of participatory governancein the Scheduled Areas. The Constitution of India through the Schedule V along with the Panchayat(Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA) re-enforces the rights of the indigenous peoples toterritorial integrity and to decide on their own path of development. Within a year of passing of thisAct, i.e. by 24 December 1997, all the states with Scheduled Areas were to amend their existingPanchayati Raj Acts and incorporate the PESA provisions. The PESA Act in recognition of the traditionaland customary laws of the tribal areas mandates the gram sabhas to:86

Approve the village’s plans & projects for social and economic development before they areimplemented by the Gram Panchayat.Identify beneficiaries for poverty alleviation programmes.Give certification for utilization of funds by the panchayat for the mandated activities, thus makingthe gram sabha a powerful instrument in socio economic development of the tribals.The gram sabha or panchayat at the appropriate level has to be consulted before any land acquisitionis done for development projects in Scheduled Areas or before rehabilitation of project affectedfamilies is undertaken.

Source: www.indiabiodiversity.org

Figure 5: Location of Kanha National Park in Schedule V Areas of Madhya Pradesh

17

The Kanha National Park is spread over two tehsils namely Bichhiya Tehsil in Mandla District andBaihar Tehsil in Balaghat District (see figure 5). The entire district of Mandla and Baihar Tehsil are underSchedule V status. Tourism development in and around Kanha National Park is a case that exemplifiesthe violation of the Constitutional provisions in Schedule V Areas. What has been observed in the caseof Kanha National Park is a growing number of private, tourism establishments that are added everyyear. Both at the Khatia gate and Mukki gate, there are nearly 70 tourism establishments and distributedroughly as: 40 near the former and 30 near the latter. Land is continuously being sold locally and is beingbought over by investors to build tourism establishments like hotels, resorts and lodges.

The figure above shows an advertisement for sale of land claiming it is in a general category (meaningit is not in a Schedule V Area). However, a Central Government Order87 issued by the Ministry of Lawand Justice88 clearly states that the whole of Mandla District and Baihar Tehsil in Balaghat District areScheduled V Areas. Therefore, the claim that the land on sale is general category or non-Schedule Vland is false. It is likely that most land transactions relating to tourism establishments around KanhaNational Park are unconstitutional and illegal. But this continues quite brazenly.

Additionally, the Chhattisgarh Government is providing incentives to investors for establishment andexpansion of tourism units and infrastructure for economic development and employment generation. Inthis Incentives Scheme the government is also inviting tourism units to be established in Schedule VAreas namely Kanker, Dantewara, Koria, Surguja and Jaspur Districts. Under this scheme tourismprojects will be given “quick approval” by a High Level Committee who will “remove all obstacles totourism initiatives”. 89 The Chhattisgarh Government is providing 100% tax exemption for establishmentof tourism units in Schedule V Areas. Though land transfer is not allowed, the Chhattisgarh TourismBoard offers a 50% exemption on land premium to investors for new tourism projects as well as simplifyingthe process of land allocation to investors, which has been diverted for tourism; creation of land banksby identification of Nazul land90 which will be transferred to the tourism department for leasing it out todevelopers for 33 years. Similarly tourism infrastructure projects are being encouraged into ScheduledAreas by giving them a 15% subsidy on capital investment with a cap of Rs. 20 lakhs.91 The TribalAdvisory Councils that represent interests of the resident tribal population has no role in tourismdevelopment in their areas. None of these are permissible in Scheduled Areas and the spirit of privilegingtribal rights and autonomy – which is the basis on which the state was formed – seems to have beendiscarded quite summarily by those who are supposed to protect and ensure these very rights!

5. ConclusionTourism is being actively pursued by the state governments and tourism industry. The natural areaswith their aesthetically appealing landscapes and attractions such as wildlife are the important productsfor tourism. This form of nature based tourism is often used interchangeably with attractive termssuch as ecotourism and wildlife tourism.

Ecotourism is presented and positioned as leading to conservation and benefits to local people. Inreality however the operating paradigm is to make it private investment led and through privatisationof resources. The tourism policies of Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and AndamanIslands are examples of this kind of ecotourism development.

Tourism in Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Andaman Islands has disregardedConstitutional provisions. It has disregarded the rights of the panchayats by keeping them out ofdecision making spaces and taking control over resources such as land thereby contravening the 73rd

Constitutional Amendment. It has also usurped common property resources that are important for thesustenance and livelihoods of indigenous and local communities. Therefore its claims of conservingthe environment and benefitting indigenous and local communities are hollow and have not been met.Moreover, tourism is currently being pushed into areas where indigenous and local communities havebeen struggling for basic rights such as land, autonomy and access to resources on which theirlivelihoods are dependent. In places like Kanha, tourism development has taken place in contraventionto the Constitutional provisions of Schedule Areas.


18


While the claims of tourism to conserve environment and benefit local people have not materialised,it continues to be pushed into newer areas on hollow promise and claim of its immense potential tocreate employment and consequently alleviate poverty. However the costs of tourism on localresources, livelihoods, environment, culture, women and children are not taken into account. In theabsence of local participation and decision making over tourism projects and the governments’apathy to local grievances and development needs, an atmosphere of distrust, fear and conflict hasbegun to take place. Tourism is thus turning out to be like any other activity that gives benefits to afew at the cost of many.

Given its poor record, there is no justification for governments to privilege the promotion of tourismover peoples’ rights. The Constitutional provisions of the 73rd Amendment, Schedule V Areas andPESA Act need to be fully implemented and enforced while planning tourism development inthese areas.

Endnotes1 Scheduled Areas mean “… such areas as the President may by order declare to be scheduled areas”. Scheduled Areas

have a predominantly tribal population and provide autonomy to the tribal areas. Central and State laws are not automaticallyapplicable to the Schedule Areas. With respect to land in these areas, the Constitution lays down in Article 244(1) Part BSection 5 (2) that the governor has the power to make regulations that may prohibit or restrict the transfer of land by oramong members of the Scheduled Tribes to non-tribals, and also regulate allotment of land to members of the ScheduledTribes.

2 Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam, http://www.gmvnl.com/newgmvn/facts/index.aspx data retrieved April 2009.3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uttarakhand4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uttarakhand5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uttarakhand6 Rawat, 1999, “The People of Uttarakhand”, http://uttarakhand.prayaga.org/info4.html data retrieved April 2009.7 http://www.mpinfo.org/mpinfonew/english/factfile/mp.asp data retrieved April 2009.8 Madhya Pradesh Forest Department, http://mpforest.org//forest.html data retrieved April 2009.9 Madhya Pradesh Forest Department, http://mpforest.org//wildlife.html data retrieved April 2009.10 Madhya Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation, http://www.mptourism.com/tourpol.html data retrieved April 2009.11 http://www.trdi.mp.gov.in/statistics.asp data retrieved April 2009.12 Government of Madhya Pradesh, http://www.mp.gov.in/tribal/Tri.htm data retrieved April 2009.13 Chhattisgarh Forest Department, http://cgforest.nic.in/about_chhattisgarh.htm data retrieved April 2009.14 Chhattisgarh Forest Department, http://cgforest.nic.in/forestresources.htm data retrieved April 2009.15 Chhattisgarh Forest Department, http://cgforest.nic.in/livingwithwildlife.htm data retrieved April 2009.16 Government of Chhattisgarh, http://www.chhattisgarh.gov.in/tourism/tourism1.htm data retrieved April 2009.17 Government of Chhattisgarh,http://www.chhattisgarh.gov.in/profile/corigin.htm#seed data retrieved April 2009.18 Andaman & Nicobar Islands Administration, http://www.and.nic.in/Know%20Andaman/Intro1.htm data retrieved April 2009.19 EQUATIONS et al, 2008, p 16.20 EQUATIONS et al, 2008, p 18.21 EQUATIONS et al, 2008, p 21-22.22 Stated by a participant from the Baiga tribe at a consultation “Tourism Development in Chhattisgarh: Threats and Challenges”

on 25-26 January 2007, organised by Nadi Ghati Morcha and EQUATIONS.23 http://www.corbettnationalpark.in/page_ctr_revealed.htm data retrieved April 2009.24 Project Tiger – Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India, http://projecttiger.nic.in/corbett.htm data retrieved

April 2009.25 http://www.corbettnationalpark.in/page_visit_ctr.htm data retrieved April 2009.26 http://www.corbettnationalpark.in/page_visit_ctr.htm data retrieved April 2009.27 Information shared by participants at a Consultation on Tourism Issues in Uttarakhand organised by EQUATIONS at

Ramanagar on 8 February 2009.28 http://www.corbettnationalpark.in/page_visit_ctr.htm data retrieved April 2009.29 Uttarakhand Forest Department, 2007, Uttarakhand Forest Statistics, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun, p 83.

19

30 Tiwari, P. C. & Joshi, Bhagwati (Eds.), 1997, “Wildlife in the Himalayan Foothills: Conservation and Management”, IndusPublishing Company, p 309.

31 Ibid, p 311.32 1 bigha = 43,200 sq ft, which is a little less than an acre (1 acre = 43,560 sq ft); therefore 1 bigha = 4,017.6 sq m (@ 1 sq

ft = 0.093 sq m).33 Sinha, N, Feb 2009, “Tiger declared maneater in Corbett, forest dept blames tourist pressure”, Indian Express, New Delhi

(http://www.indianexpress.com/news/tiger-declared-maneater-in-corbett-forest-dept-blames-tourist-pressur.../420907) dataretrieved April 2009.

34 Kaur, R, 2009, “Unlikely Maneaters” Down to Earth, Centre for Science & Environment, Delhi.35 Madhya Pradesh Forest Department, http://mpforest.org/Intranet/kanha/index.html data retrieved April 2009.36 Madhya Pradesh Forest Department, http://mpforest.org/Intranet/kanha/index.html data retrieved April 2009.37 Madhya Pradesh Forest Department, http://mpforest.org/Intranet/kanha/index.html data retrieved April 2009.38 Tourist arrivals statistics obtained from MPTDC.39 Project Tiger – Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India, http://projecttiger.nic.in/bandhavgarh.htm data

retrieved April 2009.40 Pers. Comm. with Mr. Asim Srivastav, Field Director, Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve, at Tala on 30 January 2008.41 Madhya Pradesh Forest Department, http://mpforest.org/bandhavgarh.html#BANDHAVGARH data retrieved April 2009.42 The Carrying Capacity that the Madhya Pradesh Forest Department has adopted is limited only to the number of safari

vehicles that are allowed inside the Protected Areas. The concept does not apply to any other tourism activity like numberof establishments around the Protected Area. Carrying Capacity has been calculated based on the principle:

Physical Carrying Capacity = No. of persons/unit area which is equivalent to No. of vehicles/unit length

Calculation of number of vehicles have been done based on the following conditions:

1. At least there should be a gap of 500m between two vehicles. ie. Within 1 km, there can be 2 vehicles.

2. Roads prone to moderate erosion (dusty), reduce the number such that one vehicle is allowed within 1 km.

3. Roads prone to heavy erosion, (slopes), reduce the number such that one vehicle is allowed within 2 km.

4. In sensitive areas (breeding period/endangered species), one vehicle will be allowed per km.

5. Management efficiency of the park officials: 40%.

E.g.: Let us take total length of the road to be 125 km.

As per condition 1, total vehicles allowed 125x 2 = 250 nos.

Roads prone to moderate erosion be 20 km.

Applying condition 2, no. of vehicles allowed = 20x1 = 20 nos.; reduction = (20x2) -20 = 20 nos.

Roads prone to heavy erosion be 10 km.

Applying condition 3, no. of vehicles allowed = 10x1/2 = 5 nos.; reduction = (10x2) – 5 = 15 nos.

Roads within sensitive habitat be 50 km.Vehicles allowed = 50 nos.Total reduction = (50x2) – 50 = 50 nos.Total vehicles allowed in 125 km stretch after reductions = 250 – 20 – 15 – 50 = 165.Efficiency of the forest staff = 40%.Therefore total number of vehicles that can be allowed = 165x40/100 = 66 nos.Source: Pers. Comm. with Dr. P. B. Gangaopadhyay, Chief Wild Life Warden, Madhya Pradesh Forest Department, on1 February 2008.

43 Tourist arrivals statistics obtained from MPTDC.44 Madhya Pradesh Forest Department, http://mpforest.org/bandhavgarh.html data retrieved April 2009.45 Pers. Comm. with Mr. Satyendra Tiwari, Skays Camp, Tala on 19 September 2008.46 Pers. Comm. with Mr. K L Patel, Manager, White Tiger Forest Lodge, Madhya Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation,

on 31 January 2008.47 The most popular safari vehicles are the Maruti – Suzuki manufactured Gypsy model, which is a four wheel drive SUV.48 Pers. Comm. with Mr. Asim Srivastav, Field Director, Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve, at Tala on 30 January 2008.49 Pers. Comm. with Dr. Deepak Patel, Jungle Tours & Travels at Tala on 31 January 2008.50 Pers. Comm. with Mr. K L Patel, Manager, White Tiger Forest Lodge, Madhya Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation,

on 31 January 2008.51 Pers. Comm. with Dr. Deepak Patel, Jungle Tours & Travels at Tala on 31 January 2008.52 Pers. Comm. with Mr. Asim Srivastav, Field Director, Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve, at Tala on 30 January 2008.53 The property is Mahua Kothi and is a joint venture between Taj Hotels Resort and Palaces and &Beyond.


20


54 Pers. Comm. with Dr. Deepak Patel, Jungle Tours & Travels at Tala on 31 January 2008.55 Pers. Comm. with Mr. Rajesh Singh, Sarpanch, Tala Gram Panchayat on 18 September 2008.56 Pers. Comm. with Mr. Satyendra Tiwari, Skays Camp, Tala on 19 September 2008.57 Pers. Comm. with Mr. Rajesh Singh, Sarpanch, Tala Gram Panchayat on 18 September 2008.58 Pers. Comm. with Mr. Satyendra Tiwari, Skays Camp, Tala on 19 September 2008.59 Pers. Comm. with Mr. K L Patel, Manager, White Tiger Forest Lodge, Madhya Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation,

on 31 January 2008.60 Pers. Comm. with Mr. Satyendra Tiwari, Skays Camp, Tala on 19 September 2008.61 Pers. Comm. with Mr. Satyendra Tiwari, Skays Camp, Tala on 19 September 2008.62 Pers. Comm. with Mr. Rajesh Singh, Sarpanch, Tala Gram Panchayat on 18 September 2008.63 Chhattisgarh Forest Department, http://cgforest.nic.in/nature_tourism.htm data retrieved April 2009.64 Chhattisgarh Forest Department, http://cgforest.nic.in/nature_tourism.htm data retrieved April 2009.65 Pers. Comm. with Mr. R. K. Sinha, RFO Barnawapara Wildlife Sanctuary, on 13 September 2008.66 Pers. Comm. with Mr. R. K. Sinha, RFO Barnawapara Wildlife Sanctuary, on 13 September 2008.67 Information given by Chhattisgarh Forest Department staff at the site on 13 September 2008.68 Interview with Managing Director (Marketing), Chhattisgarh Tourism Board, Raipur on 12 September 2008.69 Department of Information, Publicity and Tourism, Andaman & Nicobar Islands Administration, 2006.70 EQUATIONS et al, 2008.71 EQUATIONS et al, 2008.72 EQUATIONS et al, 2008.73 EQUATIONS et al, 2008.74 EQUATIONS et al, 2008.75 Government of India, 2005, “Joining the Dots”- Report of the Tiger Task Force, Ministry of Environment & Forests, New

Delhi, p 134.76 Madhya Pradesh State Tourism Development Corporation, “Investment Opportunities In Tourism Sector of Madhya

Pradesh”, 1998-2007, http://www.mptourism.com/MPTPDF.pdf, retrieved on March 2009.77 Pers. Comm. with Dr. H. S. Pabla, Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Wildlife), Madhya Pradesh Forest

Department, on 8 October 2008.78 Pers. Comm. with Dr. H. S. Pabla, Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Wildlife), Madhya Pradesh Forest

Department, on 8 October 2008.79 Shared by participants at a Consultation on Tourism Issues in Uttarakhand organised by EQUATIONS at Ramanagar on

8 February 2009.80 Land improvement, implementation of land reforms, land consolidation and soil conservation (point no. 2 of the XI Schedule

of the Constitution of India).The panchayats also have right to take decision on social forestry, farm forestry and minorforest produce; fuel and fodder; construction of roads, culverts, bridges, ferries, waterways and other means ofcommunication in the panchayat.

81 Pers. Comm. with Mr. Rajesh Singh, Sarpanch, Tala Gram Panchayat on 18 September 2008.82 Pers. Comm. with Mr. Satyendra Tiwari, Skays Camp, Tala on 19 September 2008.83 Pers. Comm. with Mr. Niranjan, Panchayat Pradhan, Loridkhar Village on 13 September 2008.84 Pers. Comm. with Mr. Rajesh Singh, Sarpanch, Tala Gram Panchayat on 18 September 2008.85 Pers. Comm. with Mr. Ram Krishna Biswas, Pradhan, Neil Island, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, July 2007.86 Legal aid system on local governance, 2004, http://www.laslg.org data retrieved March 2009.87 No. C.O.192: The Scheduled Areas (States of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Madhya Pradesh) Order, 2003 dated New

Delhi, the 29th February, 2003.88 (Legislative Department) Notification G.S.R. 114 (E), Tribal Research and Development Institute, http://www.trdi.mp.gov.in/

tribalZone.asp data retrieved March 2009.89 http://www.chhattisgarhtourism.net/download/Incentive%20Scheme%202006.pdf, data retrieved March 2009.90 Nazul land is the land which is given on lease by the municipal authorities to private persons for non-agricultural purposes.

This type of land being barren, no agricultural activity is possible on it. http://ncm.nic.in/major_iniative.html91 http://www.chhattisgarhtourism.net/download/Incentive%20Scheme%202006.pdf, data retrieved March 2009.

21

Women’s Engagement with Community Based andNature Based Tourism

Women Speak!

Tourism has always had a link with women. Mass tourism claims that it employs more women thanmen and women are often seen as the face of tourism, quite literally, as they appear in travelbrochures as the ubiquitous image of warmth, welcome and hospitality.

When understanding tourism growth in natural resource rich areas we have been particularly interestedin understanding how the growth of tourism engaged, impacted, helped or hindered women. To whatextent did tourism actually provide opportunities for empowerment? To what extent did it changestereotypes and gender injustices? Were women able to break the shackles of religious or socialprescriptions related to their role and relative power by engaging in tourism as compared to moretraditional roles and settings? What was the nature of women’s participation in tourism? To whatextent did they influence decision making and the nature of tourism? Did they gain – economically,socially, and politically? Have they been able to challenge patriarchal structures and demand equalparticipation and benefits from tourism? How did tourism impact their lives? What are their concerns& dilemmas and in what ways have they engaged or wish to engage with tourism?

To explore these questions, we have attempted to gather together and amplify the voices of women indifferent spaces which we heard in the course of our interactions with communities engaging with tourism.

To do this we present case studies of nature based (and in most cases community based) tourism andexamined it through a gendered lens. The observations and insights are derived from more generalcontexts and were not specific to research addressing gender issues.

Mountain Shepherds Initiative, Uttarakhand1

Mountain Shepherds Initiative (MSI) is a community owned and operated ecotourism initiative basedin Uttarakhand. It attempts to engage with the local communities and their youth to harness the potentialof tourism in the larger interest of the local community. The initiative is a result of the long struggle ofcommunities in the Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve for control over land, forests and natural resources.MSI works with vision of developing a model for tourism that is sustainable and defined by the localand indigenous communities residing in the Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve. The MSI has trainedlocal youth in mountaineering and trekking, instructions and mountain search and rescue for takingtourists groups on expedition. Another tourism component of MSI is the homestays that they provideto tourists in collaboration with local communities in areas like Lata and Tolma.

“The Mountain Shepherds story begins in Lata, a village situated in the Niti Valley. The people of theNiti Valley belong to an Indo-Tibetan ethnic group known as the Bhotiya. Those in the Niti Valleybelong to the Marchha and Tolcha groups and have traditionally gained a livelihood as transhumantshepherds, traders, or farmers. In the 1970s, Bhotiya communities were at the forefront of the famousChipko movement2 that saw village women led by Gaura Devi to save their forests. From 1998 to thepresent, they have persisted in their efforts to regain access rights to the Nanda Devi National Park.With the creation of Uttarakhand state and its emphasis on the tourism sector, this movement gavebirth to the Nanda Devi Campaign in Lata village. Sparked by the urgent need to ensure local controlof the tourist trade, the campaign issued the progressive 2001 Nanda Devi Biodiversity Conservation

July 2009

22


and Eco Tourism Declaration to guide its future. In 2003, the Indian government made a major revisionto the park rules that had strictly governed the Nanda Devi protected area for over twenty years. Apartial reopening began allowing 500 visitors to enter a small segment of the park’s core zone everyyear, although the peak itself would remain off limits.”

MSI was formerly inaugurated in 2006 in the vicinity of the Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve. It islocated both in the context of a wider social and environmental struggle. A 2006 Inaugural Women’sTrek marked their first foray into the tourism business, attempting the challenging task of establishinga community-owned operation in keeping with its aspirations for a future without human exploitationand environmental degradation3.”

Women’s participation in the tourism initiative of MSI is largely prescribed by social norms - the rolesthat women are allowed to participate in are decided by the community first and then their family. Thereforewomen’s participation in tourism is not only gendered but also decided primarily by the family andcommunity and this is accepted by women. The participation of girls in tourism is at a very nascent stagein Lata village, and it is too early to say if this will enhance women’s participation in decision makingwithin the family and the community in the future. Though girls are being trained in mountaineering it hasnot meant that families are sending their daughters on regular expeditions. The family and communityhas clearly different norms about what ways the daughters participate in tourism as compared to thefreer hand that sons have to decide if they would like to be involved in the tourism project of the MSI.

Apart from their traditional roles of carers within the family and thus caring for the visitors, this communitybased initiative also relies on women’s traditional skills in carpet weaving. Thus traditional knowledgeand skills are the basis for including women into the tourism loop. Most tourism initiatives often end upemploying women in areas where they need least additional training and can leverage on sociallyprescribed or traditional knowledge and skills such as care giving. In the MSI case, on the contrarythough women are not primarily involved in looking after the guests since the youth trained by the MSIcater to the tourists, the payment for using the homestays by tourists is handed over to the landlady(i.e the women). With a range of Rs. 150- 250 per day in Tolma and Lata respectively going to womendirectly it is a positive move that acknowledges their contribution (for the use of the place as well asthe labour in keeping it clean and providing bedding for tourists). To some extent it also recognisesthe time intensive nature of women’s work who being involved in agricultural activities are less likelyto have the time to engage with tourists.

Figure 1: Bhotiya Women Weaving Mats & Carpets, Lata Village, Uttarakhand


23

Women Speak!

Women are also involved in the production of souvenirs during the winter months (Figure 1). Theyproduce smaller hand woven mats for yoga or meditation purposes. Tourism provides a market fortheir produce and thus an alternate income particularly to those households that are not providinghomestays or involved in any other ways in tourism. It is an attempt to provide tourists with localsouvenirs; relying on their traditional knowledge of weaving and knitting and by enhancing their skillsthrough the introduction of vegetable dyes.

The MSI being community based has a stronger element of community support when compared tomany other tourism initiatives that are introduced without much local participation.

The greater participation of men in tourism activities such as trekking and mountaineering whichincludes working as instructors, search and rescue volunteers, cooks and guide for tourists groupshas also meant a diversion of responsibilities in agriculture work earlier handled by men to women.The women are loaded with the usual household responsibilities and in addition because the men areaway the entire load of caring for children, collection of fuel wood, fodder and water take them in thehilly terrain.

Further more, the peak harvesting season is also the main tourism season and this has resulted inmen being away for tourism linked activities leaving the women to shoulder a greater (physical) workloadat this time. It is interesting that this incursion of women into men’s traditional (gendered) areas is notobjected to by the community, but they are more unwilling to “allow” the women to engage in activitywhich is more externally-oriented.

Sunil Kainthola who coordinates MSI in Dehradun shared a story of one of the MSI youth Raju whosemother told him in a “friendly” manner: “You have taken my husband with you, you have also takenaway my two sons into tourism. Now it will rain any moment. Our grain will get spoilt unless weharvest it. Then what will we eat? There is no one to work with me – so now you come with me to thevillage and work with me.”

Thus women’s additional load directly and indirectly because of tourism ends up fetching them verylittle direct economic benefit – in the form of additional earnings– but loads them with additional work– all of which is neither measured, valued nor compensated for in economic terms.

From another perspective given the exploitative nature of tourism with respect to the commodificationof women and abuse, the community at Lata has taken into account the risks that women are likely toface when tourism makes inroads into their spaces. The community (both men and women) whodecide the norms then become the buffer to decide which roles it would like to see its women in, giventheir knowledge and skills. The Bhotiya women were at the leadership of the Chipko movement inasserting their rights to natural resources. Whether this assertion has translated to their choice ofways of income generation is not very clear or evident yet. Some families have allowed the daughtersto be trained in mountaineering and related courses but tourism led business activities is new for thecommunities and may also explains the absence of women in business activities.

With the MSI core competence and product being adventure tourism in the Himalayas the organisationhas greater involvement of boys and less of girls. In certain areas like Uttarakashi women like BachendriPal4 are role models for women taking up training in mountaineering and instructorship. While girlsare being encouraged to train in becoming instructors it is a physically demanding role and this aspectseems to draw more boys. Beginning with training provided by the forest department in 2004 and thatprovided by MSI in 2006, girls have gone on three treks since 2006 with exclusive women’s groups aswell as in mixed groups (of boys and girls) with tourists.

MSI has also taken a firm stand on guiding the community about the roles where women may haveopportunity but increased vulnerability to exploitation by tourists. It has created a space for discussingabout what roles women would be comfortable in taking up rather than just going by the demand ofthe tourism industry which can be exploitative when unchecked. The opportunity to train girls inmountaineering was a step forward, but the decision was that girls would accompany women only

24


groups. This was seen as a via media between the complexity of developing spaces for women toparticipate in tourism, recognising the risks in terms of sexual harassment they may face from maletourists while accompanying them on treks and balancing this risk, with the desire to build their capacityfor leadership and management roles that have not been socially encouraged so far. In the future MSIforesees the participation of women in souvenirs, exclusive as well as mixed trekking groups, asinstructors after they complete their Method of Instruction and in managerial roles.

Andamans and Nicobar IslandsThe Andaman & Nicobar Islands (A&NI) are a group of picturesque islands and islets lying along along and narrow arc in the south-eastern part of the Bay of Bengal. While relatively isolated until theearly twentieth century, these islands of breathtaking natural beauty gained slowly in popularity as atourist destination. As in many other parts of the country, tourism has been identified a priority sectorfor development in the Islands, particularly the Andamans. The Andaman and Nicobar Islands harboura rich biodiversity with high endemicity, making them an internationally acknowledged hotspot forbiodiversity. Large areas of coral reefs, which hold significance as the last pristine reefs in the IndianOcean, lie outside protected areas, with very little protection efforts going into them. The mangrovesare also known for their diversity of various marine organisms. Over the years, the swampy areas inlowland evergreen forests have been almost totally destroyed by conversion to agriculture and openswamps have also been drained in a number of places, making this an increasingly rare habitat. It isclear that any further ecological degradation will have an adverse impact not only on the uniquebiodiversity of its fragile coastal ecosystems but also on coastal fisheries and tourism.

The Andaman Islands are home to four indigenous tribes: The Great Andamanese; the Onge, whoinhabit the Little Andaman Island; the Sentinelese, who have long inhabited North Sentinel Island andthe Jarawas, in the interior and west coast of South and Middle Andaman. During the British colonisation,house sites and agricultural lands were allotted to “convicts” who had been jailed at the Cellular Jail.In 1925, around 45 Karen families from Burma were brought to clear the forest. Between 1947 and1971, as part of a policy move of the Indian Government to meet labour requirements in the Islands,people from then East Pakistan, West Bengal, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Bihar weresettled in the Islands. Post 1970s, the A&NI have seen an unplanned influx of people from TamilNadu, Andhra Pradesh and Bihar, whereby the annual growth rate of this influx has far exceeded theaverage decadal growth of population in the Islands (approximately 4.8% p.a). Settlement andthoughtless “civilisation” attempts have lead to the decimation of the original tribal people and theyare confined to reserves with uneasy relationships with the settlers. Among those who came in, thediverse profile and stakeholding has led to some tensions raising the issue ‘who belongs to the Islandsand who does not’.

While the islands have witnessed a steady growth in tourist numbers along with the steady push ofthe A&NI administration to being the tourists back to the islands post Tsunami in 2004 has led to anincrease in the number of proposals for intensive tourism development particularly in the AndamanIslands. This includes huge investment in infrastructure, improved connectivity and concessions onLTC for domestic tourists. However, these plans, like earlier ones, are not based on how tourismoperates in and impacts the Islands, and do not consider whether ground realities support theassumptions that these plans are based on.

In 2008 EQUATIONS along with partner organisations undertook a comprehensive research study toexamine the status of tourism, its existing and likely impacts of proposed tourism development plans.5

While the level of tourism activity in the Andamans is high, women are involved in comparatively lowprofile jobs like running petty shops for selling fish and fruit. Men constitute the majority of the workforce in tourism establishments 89.3% are male and only 10.7% is female.6 Thus women in generalhave lower employment opportunities even within tourism much like in other sectors.

Tourism has affected the lives of the women in the Islands, whether they are associated with it directlyor not. One success story is of three women – Rajni Ika, Pandiamma and Kanti Tirku – who got

25

together as members of a self-help group to start an eatery in Havelock Island in December 2006.They are in contact with the guides in Port Blair who refer tourists to their eatery. They make a profitof Rs 12,000 a month which is shared between the three of them. The usual problems of the island,such as acute shortage of water and rising prices of vegetables need to be dealt with, but they arehappy with the change in their lives that tourism has brought in.

However, the tale is not all good for other women on Havelock Island. Nirmala Rao is a widow whoworks as a daily wage worker. For her, tourism is an added burden to her daily problems. Because ofincreased tourism activity she finds the prices of travelling by autorickshaw (a three wheeler) haverisen tremendously. During the peak tourist season boat tickets to Port Blair are hard to come by.

Concerns are voiced by women about rising land prices and the disillusionment of the youth. ArathiRoy, a housewife of Havelock says, “The government has brought us here (as settlers). Now they areallowing foreigners to get land here. In the future the government may sell out on us”. She also fearsthat children and youth will imitate foreigners in behavior and mode of dress. The level of education ofthe youth tends to be low. While tourism is the only sector on the Islands that increases opportunities,by opening up jobs like taxi driving and guides, she also raises an alarm by drawing attention towardsthe increasing habit of drinking alcohol, with easy availability in the Islands. “Prostitution could be aserious problem in the future”, she fears.

Endogenous Tourism Project7

The Endogenous Tourism Project-Rural Tourism Scheme (ETP) is a joint project of Government ofIndia-Ministry of Tourism and United Nations Development Programme (GoI-UNDP) to support therural tourism initiatives of the GoI which would serve to create sustainable livelihood opportunitiesamong low income communities living in rural areas through the setting up of alternative models oftourism. The GoI-UNDP Project Document clearly locates this project in context of development andsocial justice, ethics, sustainable human development, elimination of poverty, addressing inequalitiesand inequities. Thus a unique feature and indeed core principle of the ETP is to examine and takefurther the links between tourism and development”8.

While the ETP project was aimed at the economic objective of making livelihoods sustainable andemployment generation through community based actions, it also aimed at empowerment of women,marginalised communities and youth, as well as gender equality through a convergence between theeconomic and social issues. EQUATIONS was commissioned in 2008 to review the ETP in an attemptto garner in a participative manner the experiences and learning of this large scale and ambitiouseffort. We highlight in the section below aspects that relate to the role and impacts on women9.

When tourism is introduced into rural communities with the aim of social and community empowerment,it is often assumed that communities are homogenous in an economic and social sense. Our study ofthe community based tourism projects in several rural sites found that when tourism aims forempowerment by involving women in strong patriarchal societies it creates social tensions betweenthe two sexes. When women take on a greater role in tourism activities and begin to demand a greaterrole in decision making in these traditional and conservative societies, it challenges the “superior”role that patriarchy assigned to men.

Patriarchal norms, caste and gender are central to define the nature of participation of women intourism. These social norms define whether women can actually take up roles of influence and decisionmaking, even if these roles are architectured into the project. Hodka, near the astoundingly beautifuland stark Rann of Kutch (a cold Desert) in Gujarat, is an extremely conservative community wherethe women lived in pardaa10 in the hamlets. When the model of tourism that the community couldengage in was first debated, the idea of homestays was strongly resisted by the communities. Theydid not want the tourists to come to stay in their village. The community decided that their engagementwith tourism would be in the form of a resort outside the boundaries of their hamlet – which ensured akind of containment of the dangers of tourism, along with a desire to reap its benefits!

Women Speak!

26


Their norms were not only about women and clearly were about preserving strongly held culturalnorms – many of which were also deeply patriarchal. They also felt that tourists should not be scantilydressed in shorts. Consuming alcohol was forbidden in their society and so they didn’t want thevisitors to come and have alcohol and expose their younger generation to this habit11.

While Hodka has many elements of a successful foray into tourism women who were initially a part ofthe Hodka Paryatan Samiti left this Village Tourism Committee (VTC) - due to social taboos andpressures resulting in the management of the Shaam-e-Sarhad resort being completely male. Thereis an institutional framework within the ETP that seeks to address gender issues by challengingexisting power structures, but the social structures proved too hard to break through. The strongresistance by the men towards the participation of women in any of the decision making forums inHodka was evident. Although a group of women are involved in the plastering and designing on thewalls of the resort, women, largely have been denied access to any decision making body.

In Raghurajpur, near Puri-Orissa, a temple and crafts village, the Raghurajpur Heritage & TourismCommittee (RHTC – village tourism committee) is completely devoid of women. When the sub-committees were formed, women were not even consulted. They were conspicuously absent in all thesub committees except for one, the sanitation committee! Despite the presence of a women’s group inthe village it is not represented in the RHTC.

Similarly at Lachen in Sikkim there was a lack of participation of women in decision making structuresand process related to the project. This is also due to the fact that under the Dzumsa (form of localself governing body) structure the scope for participation and decision making of women is generallylow. In contrast, in Chitrakote, Chhattisgarh, tribal dominated area women have a leadership role toplay in the implementation of the ETP. Here there was a special effort by the implementing agencyto build capacity, empower women and to mobilise their participation in the functioning of the VillageTourism Committee (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Women Members of Village Tourism Committee, Chitrakote


Often women’s contribution to family income is seen as marginal and their work as unskilled. Thuseven in tourism though women are involved in skilled tasks like craft production, they continue to beseen as unskilled while men’s contribution is considered skilled owing to the gendered perception ofmen as bread winners of the family. In Raghurajpur for instance women contribute equally in the

27

production of the crafts like Pattachitra (traditional Orissa paintings on palm leaves) which is the mainand often only source of livelihood to many in the village (Figure 3). The women do all the labourintensive ground work but the men are perceived to have the skills to do the finer aspects of the craft.In reality the women are no less creative in their artistic excellence, but this is not acknowledged.

Figure 3: A Pattachitra, Raghurajpur


Women are not a homogenous group within a community. Access to tourism activities and benefits isdefined also by the social hierarchy of caste (which is invariably linked to class). Caste and class actas gatekeepers allowing certain sections of women within community to participate while excludingothers. e.g in Naggar (Himachal Pradesh), the VTC’s bias towards upper caste women does not gounnoticed. When the community was asked to choose three members from each ward, they haveinvariably chosen women from the more affluent upper caste families believing they would be in abetter position to represent and understand the implementation of the project. However decisions byupper caste women do not necessarily take into account the voices or interests of lower caste womenand often caste affiliations play a stronger role than the sympathy for common concerns as women.An examination of the norms for membership in the Village Tourism Committees that have beenevolved by the communities often tilts the balance in favour of certain dominant communities overmarginalized sections. Since backward castes themselves are not allowed easy access to decisionmaking positions within the VTCs by upper castes even within these tourism committees the situationis similar in the case of women from backward castes.

In Chitrakote a major conflict emerged on the issue of the construction of shops near the waterfall site.The objective was to sell handicrafts and food to the tourists and thereby promote the products of thecraftsmen and women trained under the project and local cuisine also promoted under it. The Panchayatand the local administration jointly decided to provide 5 acres of government land out of an 11-acreplot where the annual local festival takes place. It also started building shops near the waterfall on thegovernment land. Some vested interest groups came together and demolished the nearly completedbeautiful structures. To date no legal or police action has been taken against the perpetrators and theyhave not been brought to book.

The very nature of tourism is that it requires infrastructure skills, capital and linkages to engagesuccessfully – and in the limited space available women from lower and backward caste have adouble handicap of gender and caste and are usually out of the reckoning. Unless carefully planned

Women Speak!

28


and designed it seems very unlikely particularly in rural setting in India that social and gender inequitiescan be addressed in any significant way through tourism projects.

ConclusionThese initial case studies point to the opportunities that women have in carefully designed tourismprojects to carve out more meaningful roles and wield greater influence. But much depends on thecontext of socio-cultural norms of patriarchy and caste to determine the extent to which they canbenefit. The need to address these issues through systematic awareness building of tourism policymakers, planners and implementers, as well as local communities is critical.

1 EQUATIONS field notes to Uttarakhand – villages Lata and Tolma, September 2008.

2 In the 1970s, an organized resistance to the destruction of forests spread throughout India and came to be known as theChipko movement. The name of the movement comes from the word ‘embrace’, as the villagers hugged the trees, andprevented the contractors’ from felling them. The first Chipko action took place spontaneously in April 1973 in the villageof Mandal in the upper Alakananda valley and over the next five years spread to many districts of the Himalayas in UttarPradesh. It was sparked off by the government’s decision to allot a plot of forest area in the Alaknanda valley to a sportsgoods company. This angered the villagers because their similar demand to use wood for making agricultural tools hadbeen earlier denied. With encouragement from a local NGO, Dasoli Gram Swarajya Sangh, under the leadership of anactivist, Chandi Prasad Bhatt and women of the area, went into the forest and formed a circle around the trees preventingthe men from cutting them down. In March 1974, women from Lata, Reni and other nearby villages led by the elderlyGaura Devi protested against men that had come to clear cut local forests. The Chipko protests in Uttar Pradesh achieveda major victory in 1980 with a 15-year ban on green felling in the Himalayan forests of that state by the order of Mrs IndiraGandhi, the then Prime Minister of India. Since then, the movement has spread to many states in the country. (http://healthy-india.org/saveearth6.asp).

3 Rajiv Rawat (2008). The Mountain Shepherds Initiative: Evolving a New Model of Community-Owned Ecotourism InRedefining Tourism – Experiences and Insights from Rural Tourism Projects in India, UNDP, New Delhi.

4 Bachendri Pal was the first Indian woman on top of Everest in 1984. She was born in 1954, in a village named Nakuri inGarhwal. She shared with her parents her desire to become a professional mountaineer. The family was “devastated,” asfor them, her relatives and local people, the most suitable job for a woman was teaching, not mountaineering. However,Bachendri did not budge from her determination. She joined the Nehru Institute of Mountaineering (NIM). She was declaredthe best student and was considered as “Everest material”. She currently runs a training camp at Tata Steel AdventureFoundation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachendri_Pal).

5 EQUATIONS, INTACH Andamans & Nicobar Islands Chapter, Society for Andamans & Nicobar Ecology, Kalpavriksh,Jamshedji Tata Centre for Disaster Management – TISS, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Action Aid International India(2008) “Rethink Tourism in the Andamans: Towards Building a Base for Sustainable Tourism”, Bangalore, India.

6 Ibid, pg 126.

7 EQUATIONS (September 2008), Review Report on Sustainability In Tourism: A Rural Tourism Model, UNDP, New Delhi

8 Ibid pg 3.

9 Ibid pg 49-62.

10 Purdah or Pardaa (literally meaning ‘curtain’) is the practice of preventing women from being seen by men. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardah.

11 EQUATIONS (September 2008), Review Report on Sustainability In Tourism: A Rural Tourism Model, UNDP, New Delhi,pg 44.

Endnotes

29

September 2009

Natural Disasters:

Executive SummaryThis article is an abridged version of the issues highlighted in the post-tsunami research study publishedby EQUATIONS in 2006 and resulting in two publications entitled:

Tamil Nadu & Pondicherry – Coastal Area Assessment: a Post Tsunami Study on CoastalConservation & Regulation and Andaman IslandsCoastal Area Assessment: a Post Tsunami Study on Coastal Conservation & Regulation2.

The research was undertaken during March to December 2005 in the Andaman Islands and the stateof Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of Puducherry.3 The research study aimed at documenting thelinks between the tsunami, community livelihoods and tourism, but also included other industries likefisheries and agriculture, and it also aimed at a critique of the status of implementation of legalframeworks such as the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) notification. The study included an assessmentof both natural and man-induced factors. The assessment was carried out by way of field visits,consultations with local individuals and groups, photo-documentation, compilation of secondaryinformation and data. The investigation helped ascertain the extent of the tsunami’s impacts onhuman lives, livelihoods and ecosystems. In addition, the investigation documented and critiquedexisting legal frameworks and development plans, especially tourism relating to coastal and marinesystems in the Andaman Islands.

Coastal AreasCoastal areas in the world account for 20% of total land area, and more than 40% of the world populationlive within 100km of a coast (World Resources Institute, 2007). Coastal areas are densely populated,as they are the sites of several industrial and infrastructure developments, such as chemical andpetro chemical industries, thermal power plants, aquaculture and tourism. In addition, coastal areasare typically sites of defence and nuclear developments.

Coastal ecosystems are dynamic between the high tide and low tide zones, and are composed ofvarious habitats such as estuaries, mangroves, wetlands, coral reefs, and deep seas. These coastaland marine ecosystems are important in terms of their ecological and livelihood sustaining functions.At the same they are ecologically fragile and are extremely sensitive to the natural and anthropogenicactivities affecting them.

All over the world, coastal areas are suffering from degradation by these human induced activities;by constructions being too close to the beach and from pollution where industry waste water andsolid waste are dumped in the sea. As population density in the coastal zones increases, pressureson coastal ecosystems also increase. Pressures include habitat conversion, land cover change,pollutant loads that cause loss of biodiversity, coral reef bleaching, siltation, reduced water qualityand threats to human health from polluted water. Anthropogenic effects of the economic activitiesalong the coast, such as buildings and walls along beaches, prevent the ecosystem from recoveringfrom natural disasters.

Learning from Tsunami1

30


Natural disasters such as storms, hurricanes, cyclones and tsunamis are a frequent occurrence alongcoasts. They can ravage coastal cities and settlements. One such disaster is the tsunami whichoccurred on 26 December 2004, as a result of an earthquake measuring 9.0 on the Richter scale.The tsunami battered the coast line of several countries. In India the tsunami was one of the country’sgreatest disasters. Many people lost their lives and there was extensive damage to the coasts ofAndaman and Nicobar Islands, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry and parts of Kerala.

After the tsunami of 26 December 2004, EQUATIONS carried out an assessment of the resultingdamage in the Andaman Islands and on mainland India in the state of Tamil Nadu and the UnionTerritory of Puducherry. These studies included an assessment of both natural and man-inducedfactors affecting ecosystem health, dynamics and their impacts, reconstruction measures adoptedand their quality, community structures and their response, development plans for various sectors,especially tourism, but also including others like fisheries and agriculture, status of implementation oflegal frameworks such as the CRZ notification.

We planned to study all island groups in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands that were affected by thetsunami. However it was not feasible to carry out the research study in the Nicobar Islands, aspermits were required, and in addition there were several NGOs already in the Nicobars carryingout assessment and involved in relief work as the impact of the tsunami in terms of destruction ofecosystems, built infrastructure and lives lost was maximum there. Therefore the study was limitedonly to the Andaman Islands.

Background Information About the Andaman IslandsThe Andaman Islands, located in the Indian Ocean, are aligned in a North to South direction. They area group of 550 islands, islets and rocks that cover a land area of 6,408km2. These islands are thelargest archipelago in the Bay of Bengal, and they account for approximately one fourth of India’s coastline.

Figure 1 – Showing the Location of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands (World Atlas 2009)

The Andaman Islands have the last pristine reefs in the Indian Ocean region. These coral reefs, whichstretch over an area of 11,000km2, are of global significance as there are 197 species of coral reportedaround the islands, which accounts for about 80% of the diversity found anywhere in the world. Theyare emerging as one of the most important coral reef sites in the world (Sridha et al, 2006).

However, the coral reefs and ecosystems of small islands such as the Andaman and Nicobar groupare particularly vulnerable to environmental factors affecting small island states. These include:

limited assimilative and carrying capacity leading to problems associated with waste management

31

Natural Disasters

water storage and other factors affected by small territorial sizea relatively large coastal zone, in relation to the landmass, making these states especially prone toerosionecosystem fragility and low resistance to outside influences thereby endangering endemic speciesof flora and faunavulnerability to natural disasters, including earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, cyclones, hurricanes,floods, tidal waves and others.

These disasters also affect larger territories, but the impact is more devastating on small islands.Small island states have a relatively high proportion of land and natural resources which could beaffected by climate change, and in particular a rise in sea level, resulting in proportionately large landlosses, particularly in low-lying areas. The loss of land causes significant impacts on the environment,and on economic development, which often leads to a quick depletion of agricultural land and naturalresources (Briguglio, 1999).

Background Information About Tamil Nadu and PuducherryPuducherry is a union territory, which has an area of only 492km2 and a coastline of 45km. Puducherryconsists of four regions situated at four different locations. Tamil Nadu, the eleventh largest state inIndia, covers an area of 130,058km2 in the south eastern part of the Indian peninsula. Tamil Nadu ishome to many natural resources, Hindu temples, hill stations, beach resorts, multi-religious pilgrimagesites and five UNESCO World Heritage Sites.

Figure 2: Showing the State of Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of Puducherry (SJSSJ School)

Tamil Nadu, as shown in figure 2, has a resource rich coastline, bordered by the Bay of Bengal andthe Indian Ocean, stretching for a distance of 1,076km. Approximately 46 rivers drain into the Bay ofBengal forming several estuaries and coastal lagoons. The Cauvery River and its tributaries form alarge delta supporting agricultural activities. For tourism, there are several landforms of interest alongthis coast, including, rock outcrops, mudflats, beaches, spits, coastal dunes and strand features. Apopulation of approximately 760,000 marine fishermen and several thousand people in allied activities

32


depend on the health of this rich coast for their livelihood. Therefore management of the coastlineneeds environmental, social and economic governance.

These coastal ecosystems such as the ones in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Tamil Nadu andPuducherry, which include coastal habitats and communities, need to be protected by governmentpolicy and law. In India, one such law is the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification.

Coastal Regulation ZoneIndia’s coastal areas are governed by the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification. This notificationwas issued in 1991, under the Environment Protection Act of 1986. The CRZ Notification is a specialisedpiece of legislation for regulating anthropogenic activities along the coast. The CRZ notification isused by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) for the purpose of protecting and improvingthe quality of the environment and preventing, controlling and abating environmental protection. Thereare several other pieces of legislation, official orders and notifications that govern coastal activitiessuch as the Merchant Shipping Act of 1958, the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972, the EnvironmentalProtection Act of 1986, to name a few. However, the CRZ notification seeks to achieve three objectives:

siting or location of activities or operationsrestricting or permitting activitiesbalancing development and protection needs.

The CRZ Notification has a classification system, for the CRZ based on the zones ecological andgeomorphologic characteristics and on the nature of anthropogenic presence in the area. Theseclassifications are:

CRZ-I (i) ecologically sensitive areas such as sanctuariesCRZ-I (ii) areas between Low Tide Line and High Tide LineCRZ-II areas already developed up to or close to the shore line, such as drainage or approach

roads;CRZ-III undisturbed areas that neither belong to CRZ-I or CRZ-IICRZ-IV the coastal stretches in Andaman and Nicobar, Lakshadweep and small islands, except

those designated as CRZ-I, CRZ-II or CR-III.

The TsunamiTsunamis are large-scale natural hazards that have caused tremendous loss of life and destruction ofproperty. Historical records show that the Pacific Ocean has had the majority of tsunamis with widescale destruction. Tsunami destruction has occurred in Japan, Alaska, the Hawaiian Islands, SouthAmerica and elsewhere in the Pacific (DOD, 2005).

Although not as frequent as in the Pacific Ocean, tsunamis do occur in the Indian Ocean and pose agreat threat to all the countries of the region. The most vulnerable are: Indonesia, Thailand, India, SriLanka, Pakistan, Iran, Malaysia, Myanmar, Maldives, Somalia, Bangladesh, Kenya, Madagascar,Mauritius, Oman, Reunion Island (France), Seychelles, South Africa and Australia.

Tsunamis that travel across an ocean and attack a coastal area far away from the source of generationare called distant-tsunamis or teletsunamis, while tsunamis that are confined in an area near thesource are called local tsunamis (DOD, 2005).

On 26 December 2004, the Indian coastline experienced the most devastating teletsunami in recordedhistory. The tsunami was triggered by an earthquake at 06:29 hrs of magnitude Mw 9.3 at 3.316o N,95.854o E off the northwest coast of Sumatra in the Indonesian Archipelago. It is the most powerfulearthquake that has occurred in the world in the last 40 years. The earthquake occurred close to theSunda Trench in water depths of about 1300m. The earthquake hypocenter (the point below theepicentre within the earth) was located at a shallow depth, of about 30 km below the ocean floor. Thehigh magnitude (Mw 9.3) of the earthquake, combined with the shallow hypocenter triggered thecatastrophic tsunami in the northeast Indian Ocean. The waves travelled across the open ocean as

33

Figure 3: Showing the Travelling Waves of the Tsunami, and Time Taken toReach Various Countries (UNEP-Grid)

shown in figure 3, to the Bay of Bengal and subsequently transformed into a train of cataclysmicoscillations on the sea surface close to coastal zones of Sri Lanka, east and west coasts of India,where immense damage occurred. India had approximately 10,750 deaths, with 5,550 people missing.

In the context of the tsunami, the challenges posed to the CRZ are centred around the fact that theIsland’s tidal lines have undergone a shift because of changes brought about by earthquakes and seriousreconsideration is required due to inadequate implementation of the CRZ since its inception in 1991.

The Tsunami’s Effects on the Andaman IslandsThe Andaman and Nicobar Islands are susceptible to various natural and anthropogenic threats. Thetsunami not only affected the human populations of the islands and their infrastructure, but also causedextensive damage to the natural ecosystems that were already stressed by anthropogenic pressuressuch as deforestation and destruction of mangroves, sand mining, unsustainable fishing practices,soil erosion, coral destruction, unplanned and unsustainable tourism, wildlife trade and the introductionof exotic species (Arthur, 2004).

The tsunami caused extensive damage to infrastructure and natural ecosystems. On the islands3,513 people lost their lives and 10,000 houses were severely damaged as a result of the tsunami.The most serious loss of life in the island groups was suffered in the Nicobar Islands. The large extentof loss of human life and property demonstrates how large scale disasters such as tsunamis candevastate small islands. The assessment was covered through the following themes; impact of thetsunami on the human community, ecology and the changing geomorphology of the islands.

Natural Disasters

34


There was uplift of land by as much as 1m in the northern group of islands, creating new land andsubsidence in the southern parts causing land loss. This caused a change in the high tide line (HTL),and a change in the CRZ. The reef flats that were uplifted are now exposed during low tide, and thecoral has died. With time, these exposed reef flats will become extensive beaches and the littoralforests are likely to extend the land area. The mangroves are also affected. The mangrove roots needto be submerged for 16-18 hours a day and exposed for 6-8 hours a day to breathe. In the upliftedarea the high tide waters stay 0.75m to 1.00m below the normal level, and the waters are not reachingthe roots of the mangrove trees. This is causing the mangrove trees to dry out. In the areas where theland subsided, the mangrove roots are submerged and the roots cannot breathe.

The seawater inundated and caused a change in salination of approximately 11,010ha of agriculturalland. This is one fifth of the total area that used to be under agriculture. About 6,000 farmers havebeen affected by the tsunami, due to the loss of their land.

The Tsunami and Tourism in the Andaman IslandsEarly data from government sources gave pointers towards the extent of the tsunami impact on tourismbased solely on comparisons of tourist arrival figures. Subsequently, in a research study carried out byEQUATIONS in 2008, the impact on post-tsunami tourism arrivals in 2006 was observed. The graph infigure 4 indicates the arrival of tourists to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands between 1980 and 2006.The arrival of tourists to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, although rising throughout, saw a sharpincrease in the mid-1990s, then steadily rising until the sharp dip in 2005 on account of the tsunami. Thefall in arrivals after the tsunami indicate that arrivals of domestic tourists reduced by 72% (from 105,004to 30,225), whereas the arrival of foreign tourists reduced by 53% (from 4,578 to 2,156). This fall inarrivals is largely attributable to the fear of the ocean that was in tourists minds following the tsunami.

Figure 4 indicates that the rise in arrival of domestic tourists has been much more steady and significantthan the rise in arrival of foreign tourists. Of the total arrivals to the islands, 93% are domestic tourists,whereas only 7% are foreign tourists – reflecting a predominant visitation by those within the country.Across the 26 years for which tourist arrival data is available, the growth rate for domestic tourists isan astounding 1,243%, whereas that of foreign tourists is a much lower 332%.

The impact of the disaster on tourism reveals that much of the loss to the local tourism industry camefrom the cancellation of bookings made by tourists rather than physical loss of infrastructure or facilitieson the island itself. Tragically, the only consolation for the local tourism industry was the large numberof scientists, NGOs, relief workers and senior government officials who visited the Andamans afterthe disaster struck. The tsunami has undoubtedly adversely impacted the local tourism industry thathas increased economic hardship for communities dependent on tourism. The most worrisome aspect

Figure 4: Tourist Arrivals to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands between 1980 and 2006

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

140000

120000

100000

80000

60000

40000

20000

0

Domestic TouristForeign TouristTotal Tourist

Num

ber o

f Tou

rists

Years

35

in the post-tsunami context is that the Administration (and in particular the Information Publicity andTourism department of the Islands) does not acknowledge the link between the disaster and thevulnerability of the island’s tourism economy.

The Tsunami Effect in Tamil Nadu and PuducherryOn the Indian mainland, Tamil Nadu and Puducherry’s coastline bore the brunt of the 2004 tsunami. InTamil Nadu the aftermath effects of the tsunami were studied in 14 districts, Tiruvallur, Chennai,Kancheepuram, Villupuram, Puducherry, Cuddalore, Karaikal, Nagapattinam. Tiruvarur, Pudukottai,Ramnathapuram. Thoothukudi, Tirunelveli, Kanyakumari. In the Union Territory of Puducherry theeffects were studied in two regions; Puducherry and Karaikal.

The tsunami caused an estimated 8,005 direct deaths in the state of Tamil Nadu, and 600 deaths inPuducherry. These tsunami causalities and damage were influenced by several factors such as:

the topography of coastal and marine areasthe degree of human intervention and alteration of coastal landscapes by siting development projectsincreasing urbanisation resulting in loss of coral reefs, mangroves and sand dunesthe population density of the affected areasnature of habitat – dwelling units and locationunpreparedness of peoplenon compliance of administrative regulations and laws such as the CRZ notification.

The CRZ regulates the setting up and expansion of industries and operations within 500m of the HTL.The regulations recognised that the traditional fishing industry and coastal settlements had certaincustomary rights to the land they had long occupied, some of which was between 200m and 500mfrom the HTL. Therefore families in these settlements were given an option to relocate to new housesbeyond the 500m distance, and these houses were provided free of cost to willing families.

Disaster Management and CRZ Implementation in theContext of the Tsunami: Lessons not LearntThe occurrence of the tsunami has increased concerns among civil society groups about coastalmanagement. It has brought to the fore the issue of lack of implementation of precautionary clauses tosafeguard coastal communities from natural disasters as well as the loss of natural ecosystems.

Unregulated and large-scale tourism destroys the very resources which create the tourism opportunitiesin the first place. These impacts are further magnified in the case of fragile ecosystems such as coralreefs and mangroves. The environmental, social, cultural and economic impacts, though visible, areoften very difficult to quantify due to the complex and long term nature of these impacts. As a result,in the Andamans, Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, tourism cannot be made the mainstay of the economy,but it should be linked to other sectors. New areas should not be opened for tourism, includingecotourism, unless proper impact assessment studies have been undertaken and made available forpublic intervention, such as local governments and community groups deciding on whether a greensignal should be given to such developments at all, or insisting that mitigating factors are built in.

In view of the fact that many tsunami-affected communities still live in temporary shelters without landfor permanent housing allocated to them, preference must be given to the sustainable livelihoods ofcoastal and fishing communities rather than to tourism development.

The reconstruction of those structures and dwelling units that were unauthorised prior to the tsunamishould not be permitted by CRZ notification in any of the CRZ. Before granting clearance to any moreprojects on the coast, impact assessment studies need to be undertaken to address the additionalenvironmental damage that may result from proposed new projects. In addition, sector-wise studies,especially for tourism need to be undertaken to assess the extent to which economic benefits andemployment are created for local communities. These studies need to maintain the health and basicneeds of local communities and ecosystems as central goals.

Natural Disasters

36


For instance in the case of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, CRZ regulations have not been upheldthrough all the rebuilding and reconstruction initiatives. The uplift of the land in the northern group ofislands and subsidence in the southern parts have created a new terrestrial land mass is the northernparts while land has been lost in the southern parts of the Andaman Islands. This has caused achange in the High Tide Line and consequently in the Coastal Regulation Zone. There is therefore anurgent need to remap the HTL and the CRZ in the Andamans as well as in Tamil Nadu, as the presentsituation gives scope for violations of the CRZ notification. Demarcation of the HTL and categorisationof CRZ I, II, III and IV in areas both affected and unaffected by the tsunami and geomorphologicalchanges is necessary before undertaking reconstruction and rebuilding of the coast.

Additionally, community-based models of the management of ecosystems should be encouraged,especially in mangrove areas. Such community-based tools should be promoted as a way to increaseownership and responsibility. Similarly, traditional methods of beach conservation should beencouraged. These natural ecosystems are vital for the protection of the coast from natural disastersas well as resilience and quick recovery from natural disasters when they do occur.

This article is abridged from earlier research publications by EQUATIONS by Donna Michele D’Costa.

About the AuthorEQUATIONS was established in India in 1985 in response to an urge to understand the impacts oftourism development particularly in the context of liberalised regimes, economic reforms and theopening up of the economy. We envision tourism that is non-exploitative, gender just, and sustainable,where decision making is democratised and access to and benefits of tourism are equitably distributed.

Arthur, R. 2005. Killing the Goose and Eating it Too: Mixing Developmental Metaphors in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.Comments on the draft Andaman and Nicobar State Development Report 2005. Nature Conservation Foundation, Mysore.

Biguglio, L. 1999. Small Islands, Measuring vulnerability. Available at: http://www.ourplanet.com

DOD - Department of Ocean Development Integrated Coastal and Marine Area Management Project Directorate, Chennai,2005. “Preliminary Assessment of Impact of Tsunami in Selected Coastal Areas of India.” Chennai, India.

EQUATIONS, Feb 2006. “Tamil Nadu & Pondicherry – Coastal Area Assessment: a Post Tsunami Study on Coastal Conservation& Regulation”, Bangalore INDIA.

EQUATIONS, Feb 2006. “Andaman Islands – Coastal Area Assessment: a Post Tsunami Study on Coastal Conservation &Regulation”, Bangalore INDIA.

EQUATIONS, INTACH Andaman & Nicobar Islands Chapter, Society for Andaman & Nicobar Ecology, Kalpavriksh, JamsetjiTata Centre for Disatster Mangement – TISS, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Action Aid International India (2008) “RethinkTourism in the Andamans – Towards Building a Base for Sustainable Tourism,” Bangalore, India.

SJSSJ School, Tamil Nadu map web accessed at url:

http://www.sjssjschool.in/mainpage/thamizhagam/tamilnadu/tnmaps.html

Sridhar, A., R. Arthur, D. Goenka, B. Jairaj, T. Mohan, S. Rodriguez and K. Shanker, 2006. “Review of the SwaminathanCommittee Report on the CRZ Notification”, Draft submitted to UNDP, New Delhi.

UNEP-Grid Lab – web accessed url: http://www.grid.unep.ch/product/map/images/indianocean_propwave.gif

WorldAtlas 2009, accessed on the web on 15th August 2009 – url - http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/asia/lgcolor/andniccolor.htm

World Resources Institute (2007) “Population within 100km of coastlines.” http://earthtrends.wri.org/maps_spatial/maps_detail_static.php?map_select=196&theme=1

References

Endnotes1 This paper Natural Disasters: Learning From the Tsunami has been submitted to and published by ECOT in their book

Disaster Prevention in Tourism: Perspectives on Climate Justice.

2 Unless separately referenced, all references in this article are from these studies.

3 In August 2006 a bill was passed in the Rajya Sabha changing the Union Territory’s name from Pondicherry to Puducherry- its name before it was colonised by the French. While it was still called Pondicherry when we conducted the study in2005-06, we refer to it in this paper by its now official name, Puducherry.

37

October 2009

Canopy Tourism:

The paper shares information on canopy tourism initiatives in India. These tourism initiatives havebeen analysed from the perspective of people’s participation in decision-making, project planning andimplementation and their contribution to conservation. Case studies on the canopy tourism initiativesin Kerala –Elevated walkways in Thenmala and Tree houses in Waynad, provide an insight into thisemerging form of tourism.

The idea of canopy tourism is gathering momentum throughout the world emerging from the Southand Central American countries to the Asian countries, especially in South East Asia. Many states inIndia like Kerala, Maharashtra, Andaman and West Bengal have come up with similar initiatives insensitive and ecological fragile areas. In some places it is just walkways or places of stay, while someare transporting mechanisms like ropeways and support adventure activities.

MethodologyInformation about different forms of canopy tourism was identified by secondary research. The casestudies are based on field visits to Jungle Park, Green Magic- 1, Wayanad and Thenmala EcotourismProject at Kerala. The Jungle Park, Green Magic Resort claims to have constructed the first tree tophouse in Asia. The Thenmala Ecotourism Project has an elevated walkway which is very similar tocanopy walkways. Data from interviews with officials in both projects were also used to compile thecase study.

Concepts & Forms of Canopy Tourism

Canopy Walkways

Canopy walkways are bridges between and in the canopy of a forest; mostly linked up with platformsinside or around the trees. They were originally intended as access to the upper regions of ancientforests for scientists who conduct canopy research.

Elevated Walkways

Elevated walkways are walkways built across the canopy at different levels so that tourists are able toget a close look at the canopy from the walkways at different heights.

Tree Houses

Tree Houses are houses constructed in the trees just below the canopy. The birth of the concept oftree houses is linked to ways of living of tribal communities. Tribal communities in Kerala used toconstruct houses in the trees to protect themselves from animals. Tree houses for tourists weremodelled on these original tree houses.

Zip Line

A zip-line (also known as a flying fox, zip wire, aerial runway, aerial rope slide, death slide or tyroleancrossing) consists of a pulley suspended on a cable mounted on an incline. It is designed to enable auser propelled by gravity to traverse from the top to the bottom of the inclined cable, usually made of

Concept and Practices in the Indian Context

38


stainless steel, by holding on or attaching to the freely moving pulley. Zip-lines come in many forms,most often used as a means of entertainment.

Aerial Ropeways

Aerial Ropeway is an arrangement of overhead cables suspended from towers and supporting travellingbuckets used for transporting people, usually over rough terrain. Aerial ropeways are almost similarto “sky trams a high technology cableway that gives the opportunity of intermediate ride with shortstops to observe the cloud forest biodiversity”. Though sky trams are not found in India.

Canopy Tourism and its linkages to EcotourismIn the current scenario more and more ecologically sensitive areas are being opened up for tourismwherein in many adventure activities are promoted in the name of ecotourism. ‘Ecotourism’, whichwas meant to refer to a set of principles, has been reduced to a “product” that overlooks environmental,social and economic benefits to communities and ecosystems that it is supposed to deliver on. In thiscontext, the following section looks at critical components of ecotourism as it should be practised andthe extent to which they are practised in existing canopy tourism projects.

ConservationOne of the important aspects of ecotourism is that tourism activities lead to conservation of theecosystem, where it is operating. It incorporates principles of conservation of natural resources andbiodiversity; rational utilisation of resource: land, water, conventional and non-conventional energysources, for creation and maintenance of tourism infrastructure and facilities that are in coherencewith the needs of local environment and culture. Any developmental project affects the ecosystem itoperates in. For any ecotourism model, it is important that cumulative impact assessment is doneprior and post projects to ensure that the impacts are minimal.

In the case of canopy tourism, the aspect of conservation has been overlooked. In most cases(walkways, ropeways) it requires heavy infrastructure development and investment. For example theUttarakhand Tourism Board has recently invited bids for finalisation of ropeway projects. “The threeropeways include the celebrated Dehradun-Mussoorie ropeway that alone is expected to cost Rs.800crore. The other two projects are the Jankichatti-Yamunotri and the Thuligad-Purnagiri ropeway thatare much smaller, costing Rs 30 crore and Rs 17 crore, respectively.” The environmental impacts ofsuch infrastructure heavy development are not measured prior or after the projects. Also to recoverthe cost of investment, it is difficult to limit tourist numbers. Usually mass tourism becomes necessaryfor such models for financial viability and the conservation aspects are not addressed.

Community Participation & Benefit SharingAnother important component that needs to be addressed is the community participation in the canopytourism. For any tourism project to be sustainable, the involvement of local communities in the planning,implementation and monitoring phases of the project is essential. Involvement of local communitiesfrom the planning phase helps them in understanding the project in a broader sense and how thebenefits emerging out of such projects could be channelled to the local community. It is also essentialto involve local communities to engage with tourism development and plan tourism in more sustainableways in line with traditional customs and practises and governance.

In canopy tourism, the participation and benefit sharing depends on the scale of the operations of theproject. Since many of the canopy tourism models are aimed at high end tourists, small communitybased initiatives are non existent as they find it difficult to make these high investments.

Institutional MechanismsEcotourism requires an institutional mechanism, where there is a scope for discussions on the objectivesof tourism development, monitoring, decision making and benefit sharing mechanisms and a platformwhere people’s concerns are addressed. A multi-stakeholder platform involving the local communities,

39

Canopy Tourism

panchayats, tourism industry and the government involved in the development of the project needs tobe constituted wherein tourism activities are regulated within the existing laws and policies to ensurethat the project is environmentally, socially and economically sustainable.

Education & InterpretationAnother key element of ecotourism is the education and interpretation for the tourists.

Educating the tourists about fragile ecosystems and their links to lives of local communities is animportant component of minimising tourism impacts. Canopy Tourism provides an important scopefor the education of tourists on these aspects. An education and interpretation programme would helpthem understand the importance of the canopy they are visiting and enjoy nature in a moreenvironmentally sensitive manner.

Case Studies

Elevated Walk Way at Thenmala, Kerala

This was commissioned in 2002 at the adventure zone of Thenmala Ecotourism Project (Governmentof Kerala undertaking) at Kollam, Kerala. The elevated walkway is built in an area, which was oncereserved Forest. The land was given on lease to the irrigation department for the construction ofKallada Dam. After the construction work was over, this land area was transferred to tourism departmentfor ecotourism development in the late 90s. The walkway which starts from a deck passes through thecanopy and ends in a road at the upper part passes through the canopy at different levels. Thiswalkway has total length of 120 metres and the maximum elevation point is 21feet. The walkway issupported by 11 reinforced concrete pillars and the steps and platforms are made out of huge quantityof wood – ‘Kambakam’. The walkway connects 11 trees and was built at a cost of Rs. 25 lakhs.Around 25,000 tourists pass through this walkway annually. This is not uniform and during certainholidays, the number exceeds 250 tourists per day. At some points of time, the tourist number goesbeyond 50, especially when an excursion group comes, making it unsafe. With many tourists at atime, the scope to peacefully enjoy the canopy or understand the ecosystem more closely is limited.An observation of the officials reveals that the nesting of the birds in the area has reduced. But sinceno record of nesting was taken prior to the project, the actual impact is not known. A number of BonnetMacaques are seen in the canopies. There has been behavioural change in the monkeys with touristsfeeding them. The monkeys have been reported to snatch food items from tourists. There is noparticipation of local community in the project. On a positive note all the trees in the zone are namedand this helps the tourists to identify the trees

Tree Houses at Wayanad, Kerala

1. Jungle Park, Green Magic

The first tree house was built as an innovative tourism product in the late 90s by the Jungle Park,Green Magic -1. The idea was taken from the tribals building huts in trees to keep safe from elephants.The tree houses are erected in a coffee and cardamom plantation area. Certain types of trees likethe ‘Koli’ are selected for the construction of tree houses due to their strength. The property has twotree houses. One of the tree houses got partially damaged recently. The two tree houses on theproperty are at a height of 90 feet and 135 feet. The cost of the construction ranges between Rs.15-20 lakhs. Every year after the rains the platform has to be changed and the ropes and the waterbags used for the lift system to carry tourists up to the tree house have to be changed once in 6months. The maintenance cost is also high as everything has to be carried from Vythri to the resortand then from the base of the tree to the top. The location is very remote and the road access hasalso to be maintained. One tree house requires 5 to 6 support staff in addition to ground infrastructurelike kitchen, restaurant etc. Thus financial viability is higher when it is a part of a conventionalresort. Tourists just enjoy the scenic spot, unique location and tranquillity. There is no element ofeducation or interpretation about the canopy ecosystem or the flora and fauna. In tree houses, thereis an element of risk and tourists are prohibited from drinking and kids are not allowed to stay fromthe danger of falling down. Smoking is also prohibited due to fear of causing fires. The participation

40


of local community is limited to construction of tree huts and its maintenance. Since the tree housesare attached to the conventional resorts, which are in the ground, the day to day operations of thetree houses are also maintained by the staff of the resort.

2. Vythiri Resorts

The tree houses were constructed one year back. The Jungle Park Resort was closed down for sometime. There was demand for tree houses by tourists as well as tour operators at this point of time andthus started the initiative. Two tree houses were constructed within a span of 4 months costing around35 lakhs. The tree houses are erected in a property of 150 acres, where the resort area is 30 acresand the rest is plots and plantations. The tree houses on the property are at a height of 90 feet and 60feet. Every year the bamboo roof and bamboo ply are to be changed and repainted. Stay in the treehouse is expensive as the cost of accommodation goes up to Rs. 12000 per day. 95% of the guestsare foreigners and the tree houses are booked for 300 days per year. The tree house needs 6 supportstaff to serve the guests. Tourists are taken for morning and evening trails and naturalist accompaniesthem, but education on canopy ecosystem is nil. Liquor consumption, smoking and children below 12years are not permitted owing to safety reasons.

Analytical Views of Case Studies in Relation to EcotourismThe two case studies hardly satisfy the crucial components of ecotourism. In both the cases, investmentis high (around 20 lakhs) though the projects have not contributed to conservation or provided benefitsto the community. In the case of elevated walkway, we have observed the presence of birds andnesting reducing and changes in animal behaviour due to increasing tourism activities.

For the tree houses, also there is no element of conservation due to high requirement of naturalresources for construction and maintenance activities at regular intervals.

In the elevated walkway, the tourists spend around 10 minutes and with no restrictions on number oftourists at a given time, the scope for peaceful watching and understanding of canopy is also limited.In both the cases, no efforts have been made to raise awareness about the sensitivity of the ecosystemor educating tourists about activities they can be engaged in like bird-watching, identifying the variousspecies of insects or reptiles. The involvement of local communities in the planning of the project oraccessing and routing benefits to them is absent. Since these infrastructures are built without takinginto consideration the long term impacts and benefits these will provide to local communities as in thecase of elevated walkway or private entrepreneurship model as in the case of tree houses, noinstitutional structures have been created to look into the aspects of planning, monitoring or operationof these models.

ConclusionThe above case study models and other models like aerial ropeways, are investment heavy projectsSuch huge infrastructure models are environmentally damaging and could never be considered asecotourism models.

Many canopy style tourism projects are coming up in ecologically sensitive areas like Andaman &Nicobar Islands and it is important to look at whether these constructions are made in accordancewith the existing legislations and building norms existing in the country. It is important to understandthe socio- economic and environmental impacts of such projects.

While linking canopy tourism to ecotourism, it is essential to understand to what extent the project issustainable. In models like tree houses, there is a need to involve local communities and stakeholdersand ensuring they have access to benefits either through employment, sustainable local sourcing ofraw material that contributes to local economy. An independent infrastructure may not be able to dothis. Creation of interpretation centres, training local communities to work as trained guides for thetourists, providing facilities for bird watching, studying the canopy life – all could create additionalpossibilities for engagement of local communities and channelizing benefits to them.

41

An Independent Monitoring ReportREDD in India

India covers 2.5% of the world’s geographical area and is home to 1.8% of the world’s forests. Indiaalso supports 17% of the world’s human population and 18% of its livestock population. The Indianforests are home to around 100 million people and provide sustenance to them.

India is rich in flora and fauna with more than 45,500 flowering plants and 91,000 animal speciesfound in 16 major forest types. India’s forests meet nearly 40% of the country’s energy needs and30% of its fodder needs.

1

According to the State of Forest Report 2005 published by the Forest Survey of India2, the recorded

forest area in the country is 769,626 km2 (or 23.41% of the country’s geographic area). Of this, 419,028

km2 is Reserved Forest (54.4% of the total forest area), 216,605 km

2 is Protected Forest (28.14%) and

133,993 km2 is Unclassed Forest (17.4%).

Reserved Forest is an area notified under the provisions of either the India Forest Act (1927) or theState Forest Acts, and has full protection. In a Reserved Forest all activities are prohibited unless theyhave been explicitly permitted. Protected Forest is also notified under the provisions of the sameActs, but the degree of protection is more limited: in Protected Forests all activities are permittedunless prohibited.

Unclassed Forest is an area recorded as forest but not included in any other forest category. Unclassedforests are actually outside the control and management of the forest departments and primarilybelong to communities and individuals.

According to the Ministry of Environment and Forests, in 1999, around 31 million ha of Indian forestswere degraded.

The total forest cover of the country as per the 2005 assessment is 677,088 km² and this constitutes20.6% of the geographic area of the country.

3 Of this, 54,569 km² (1.66%) is very dense forest, 332,647

km² (10.12%) is moderately dense forest, and 289,872 km² (8.82%) is open forest cover. MadhyaPradesh with 76,013 km² has the maximum area under forest cover, followed by Arunachal Pradesh(67,777 km²) and Chhattisgarh (55,863 km²). In terms of the actual proportion of a state under forestcover, Mizoram has the maximum percentage (88.63%). It is followed by Nagaland (82.75%), andArunachal Pradesh (80.93%).

Precursors to Forest Governance in IndiaPrior to the advent of the East India Company and the subsequent establishment of the British Colonyin India, there was no formal forest policy. Various princely states had different approaches to managingthe forestry resources available in their areas.

British rule, though, brought with it ‘scientific’ forest management, with a narrow agenda focused onsustained commercial timber production. This favoured a few commercially valuable species to theexclusion of all else, thereby providing regular profits to the colonial empire. However, this managementpractice, spurred by the economic interests of the age, was based largely on conjecture and blindlycopied European production-based forestry models.

December 2009

42


The basic colonial approach was to declare forests as state property and curtail the rights of the forestdwellers to areas with commercially valuable species. Clear-felling of vast tracts of forest was thefavored method of ‘forest operations’, followed by complete closure to grazing and other humanactivities, such as the collection of firewood, fodder, medicinal plants, bamboo, etc. The ForestDepartment (FD) was created in 1864 to oversee these operations. This assertion of state monopolyright and the exclusion of forest communities, a process by which the British gradually appropriatedforest resources for revenue generation, thus shaped the organizing principles of forest administrationin modern India.

Towards the end of the 19th

century, almost 80% of the forests was owned by communities and privateindividuals. Today, state ownership has increased to more than 80% of the recorded forest area.

Indian Forest Policies and Their ImplicationsThe objective of the first Indian Forest Policy in the colonial period (adopted in 1894) was to managestate forests for the public benefit. It viewed forests as potential sources for generating profits, althoughit did stress the need to preserve forests in hilly regions and to treat income generation as a secondarypriority if local needs conflicted with their management of forests as revenue-earning properties.

This policy marked a significant shift in consolidating the state’s property rights regime over forests.The forest communities were not only denied their traditional rights and privileges but were given norole in preserving and managing India’s forests. It marked the beginning of the process of marginalizationof these people.

The Permanent Settlement of 1757 and the 1894 forest policy resulted in rebellions and revolts of theforest and Indigenous tribal communities that started in 1784 and continued until the first quarter of the20th century. They were primarily directed against the new land and forest policies of the British. But theBritish crushed them ruthlessly, bringing fresh areas under their control and formulating new legislationto legitimize the transfer of property rights from the community/individual to the state. The Forests Actsof 1878 and 1927 and the forest policy of 1894 facilitated the strengthening of this new order.

Figure1: Degraded Open Forest in the Tribal Heartland of Chhattisgarh in Central India.Photo: Souparna Lahiri

43

REDD in India

Chronology of forest policies and legislation in IndiaBritish Colonial Period

The Indian Forest Act, 1865The Indian Forest Act, 1878 (modified)The Indian Forest Policy, 1894The Indian Forest Act, 1927 (amended and modified).

Independent IndiaNational Forest Policy, 1952Wild Life Protection Act, 1972National Commission on Agriculture, 1976Forest Conservation Act, 1980National Forest Policy, 1988Joint Forest Management Circular, 1990The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.

Following independence, India’s Forest Policy Resolution of 1952 and the 1976 National Commission onAgriculture (NCA) report also stressed the importance of production forestry and achieving self-sufficiencyin the supply of wood products from the nation’s forests. The 1952 policy also called for the protection ofwildlife and the preservation of fauna by demarcating forests for sanctuaries and national parks.

The 1988 Forest Policy, however, departed from these economic priorities by treating forests first andforemost as an ecological necessity; then as a source of goods for use by the local populations, withparticular emphasis on Non Timber Forest Produce (NTFP); and finally as a source of wood and otherproducts for industry. It also set a target of increasing forest cover to 33% of India’s land area.Additionally, it advocated that this area be increased to two-thirds in the hills to prevent erosion andland degradation and to ensure the stability of these fragile ecosystems.

The NCA recommendations flowed directly from the increasing threats to existing forests. Theyrecognized the protective and aesthetic functions of forests, regulation of grazing and shifting cultivation,and the domestic needs of the people for various forest products, such as fuel wood and fodder.

4

Thus, the NCA advocated a social forestry model involving industrial plantations on degraded forestslands and non-forest lands to meet the growing domestic demand for forest products and the fuelwood and fodder of local communities. Social forestry was seen as a way to reduce pressure onnatural forests and the dependence of forest communities on those forests.

The basic objectives of the 1988 Forest Policy were:Maintaining environmental stability through preservation and restoration of the ecological balance.Conserving the country’s natural heritage by preserving its remaining natural forests.Checking soil erosion and denudation in water catchment areas.Checking the proliferation of sand dunes.Increasing forest/tree cover through afforestation and social forestry programs on denuded, degradedand unproductive lands.Meeting the requirements of rural and tribal populations for fuel wood, fodder, minor forest produceand small timber.Increasing the productivity of forests to meet essential national needs.Encouraging efficient utilization of forest produce and maximizing substitution of wood.Creating a massive people’s movement, with the involvement of women, to achieve these objectivesand minimize pressure on existing forests.

The 1988 policy also paved the way for the implementation of Joint Forest Management (JFM). Theprogram was promoted by a Government of India circular to all states and union territories givingguidelines for the “involvement of village communities and voluntary agencies in the regeneration ofdegraded forests.” This document, for the first time, specified the rights local communities have overforest lands, giving the protectors usufructs such as grasses, NTFPs, and a portion of the proceeds(ranging from 20-100%) from the sale of trees when they mature.

44


Forest Legislation, Conservation and Forest-dependent Communities’ RightsThe first Colonial Forest Act was drafted in 1865, primarily for the colonial government to declareforests as state property, and carry out ‘scientific forestry’ to gradually replace existing mixed forestswith monocultures of commercially valuable species. That 1865 Act was modified in 1878, as thecolonial establishment found that people’s rights were interfering with the clear felling of commerciallyvaluable forests. The provisions were found to be too friendly to the traditional rights of forest peopleand not stringent enough in curtailing them. This was the reason underlying the division of forests intoReserved Forests (RF), Protected Forests (PF) and Village Forests (VF). The 1878 Act enabled thegovernment to severely curtail traditional rights (called concessions in the Act) in the first two categories,on the basis that the Village Forests would meet the basic needs of village communities.

The Indian Forest Act of 1927,5 the legislative foundation of the forest sector in independent India,was derived from that Colonial 1878 Act. Since independence, several states have enacted their ownlegislation, while others have amended the Act to suit local needs. Critically, the Act gave stategovernments the power to divert forest land for other uses. Although the 1952 policy criticized thisclause, it did not change the law, leading to millions of hectares of forest land being diverted between1951 and 1980. During this time period, 4.3 million ha of forests were lost.6 The 1927 Forest Act doesnot support people’s participation in forest protection and management, and it does not promotesocial forestry either.

The Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 (WLPA)7

is also relevant to the rights of forest-dependentcommunities, even though it differs significantly from the Forest Act in that it gives primacy toconservation over exploitation. The objectives of WLPA have been used to justify curtailing the legitimatedaily survival activities of forest-dependent people in wildlife habitats, evicting them forcibly and withoutproper resettlement, and centralizing the management of these habitats in the hands of a callous andunresponsive bureaucracy. It created the two major types of protected areas we see today: NationalParks (NPs) and Wildlife Sanctuaries (WLS). Its blanket ban on all human activities, except tourism,is causing considerable suffering among the thousands of local people, who have been deprivedaccess to the forests they depend on for their sustenance and survival, leading to conflicts betweenthem and the Protected Areas (PA) authorities, together with a sharp decline in public support forconservation. To further complicate matters, however, WLPA has not been effective in fending off thepressure of commercial and industrial interests. In effect, the Wildlife Protection Act (WLPA) of 1972criminalized forest people and took away their traditional Non-Timber Forest Products and fishingrights in protected forests, while poaching continued unabated.

There are 96 National Parks and 509 Wildlife Sanctuaries, covering 15.7 million ha, which is about4.78% of the geographical area of the country. About 20% of India’s forests fall within the ProtectedAreas network.

The Forest Conservation Act (FCA) of 19808 was the first legislative attempt to slow deforestation

by controlling government behavior. It limited the power of state governments to de-reserve ReservedForests or divert forest lands for non-forest purposes without the permission of the central government.The Act also required state governments wanting to divert forest land for non-forest uses to identify anarea of non-forest land of at least equal size for compensatory afforestation. In addition, a charge waslevied. The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) was created in 1984, to monitor statecompliance with the provisions of the legislation.

This legislation has also caused and continues to cause immense deprivation and suffering to millionsof forest people across the country. Villages are routinely denied basic amenities like roads and watersupply pipelines. Forest and Taungya (forest workers’) villages are denied schools and health centersas well. Yet large parts of protected NPs and WLS still get de-notified regularly for destructive activitieslike mining, quarrying and building of large dams.

The threat of eviction had loomed large over the forest people of this country ever since the promulgationof the 1972 WLPA and the 1980 FCA. The Supreme Court of India passed several interim orders to

45

clear encroachment of forest lands. The November 2001 MoEF order acts as the basis of the mostdraconian government orders of recent times. This order directs state governments and union territoriesto summarily evict all encroachers from forest land. Because the Court and MoEF define all landunder the Forest Departments as ‘forest land’, irrespective of the actual use of those lands, thegovernment order can be (and is being) used to evict even traditional settlements in forest areas. Asa result, the Forest Conservation Act of 1980 has rendered more than 20 million forest people asencroachers, even though it has not stopped the massive deforestation and diversion of forestsresources to industry.

A Joint Forest Management (JFM) circular recommending ‘involvement of village communities andvoluntary agencies in the regeneration of degraded forest lands’ was issued on 1 June 1990, by theMoEF. It was merely a government order with no force of the law behind it, but most states havepassed resolutions to introduce JFM and comply with the order because they were also faced withthreats of curtailment of centrally-sponsored schemes. JFM has had some impacts in situations wherestate control had already completely eroded traditions of community forest management. However, inareas where traditional forest management practices still exist (like the north-eastern states, MadhyaPradesh, Chattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa and Uttaranchal), JFM is undermining and commercializingtraditional systems and bringing community-protected forests under the control of the forest department.

JFM was essentially imposed on the forest dwellers without appropriate consultation at any stage ofits planning and implementation. It has also led to the marginalization and displacement of tribals andthe violation of their customary and traditional rights: the defining feature of its implementation hasbeen its policy of evicting ‘forest encroachers’, which has led to many forest dwellers losing theirlands and access to forest resources. There were 56 JFM project-related police firings in MadhyaPradesh during the five-year JFM period under the World Bank Forestry Project, some of whichresulted in the death of tribals.

9 In 1997, for example, two tribal villagers were killed by the armed

forces in Mandla and Dahinala when they tried to defend their crops.

The Public Hearing on Forest Rights held in Harda district of Madhya Pradesh in 2001, whosepanel comprised eminent academics Dr Nandini Sundar and Madhu Sarin and journalist RakeshDiwan, highlighted the manipulative and threatening tactics employed by the forest department toextract money, food and begar (a form of bonded labor, where tribal women are obliged to cook,clean and wash for the village forest officers). These, among many other documented grievances,led organizations like the Adivasi Mukti Sangathan (Sendhwa), Shramik Adivasi Sangathan, JanaSangharsh Morcha and Bharat Jan Andolan to develop large-scale opposition to JFM and theForestry project.

As a reaction to this opposition, the World Bank established a Joint Review Mission in 1999 to evaluatethe claims made by the Mass Tribal Organisations (MTOs). The Mission, formed by representatives ofthe World Bank, the Madhya Pradesh (MP) Forest Department and the MP Mass Tribal Organisations,investigated the impact JFM had had on Adivasi communities in the state through field visits and interviews.Throughout the process, consensus between the three participant groups was reached for every statementmade for the report. The report found that amongst other negative elements of the project

10:

There was little to no participation of forest-dependent communities in the planning, implementationor evaluation of the JFM projectThe customary rights of forest dwellers were denied; andThe livelihoods of the forest dwellers had been threatened by the project.

On the eve of the publication of the report, the Madhya Pradesh Forest Department pulled out, in aneffort to de-legitimize the whole process. The Bank then followed suit, abandoning the Joint Mission.The Mass Tribal Organisations in Madhya Pradesh published the report unilaterally in May 1999, andhave since been awaiting the promised formal response to the report from the Bank. The massdemonstrations held both locally at Forest Department offices in 1999 and in New Delhi at the WorldBank’s offices in 1999 and 2000 to obtain this response have been to no avail.

REDD in India

46


The Forest Rights ActThe Forest Rights Act (2006), however, marked a real watershed in the history of forest communities’struggle in India. For the first time, the Government of India through the Scheduled Tribes and theOther Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights), Act (2006) admitted that “forestrights on ancestral lands and their habitat were not adequately recognized in the consolidation ofState Forests during the colonial period as well as in independent India resulting in historical injusticeto the Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers who are integral to the very survivalsustainability of the forest ecosystem.”

11

After a prolonged struggle in the wake of forest communities being evicted as encroachers as per theWLPA 1972 and FCA 1980, and heated debate in the Indian Parliament, this Act was passed torecognize and vest the forest rights and occupation of forest land in forest-dwelling scheduled tribesand other traditional forest dwellers, who have been residing in such forests for generations butwhose rights could not be recorded.

The significant provisions of the 2006 Forest Rights Act are that it provides:Tenurial security and access rights to forest dwellersThe right to hold and live in forest land under individual or common occupation for habitation or forself-cultivation for livelihoodThe right of ownership access to collect, use and dispose of minor forest produce that has beentraditionally collected within or outside village boundariesOther community rights of uses or entitlements such as fish and other products of water bodies,grazing and other traditional resources accessed by nomadic or pastoralist communitiesRights of settlement and the conversion of all forest villages, old habitation, unsurveyed villagesand other villages in forests (whether recorded, notified, or not) into revenue villagesThe right to protect, regenerate, conserve or manage any community forest resource that theyhave been traditionally protecting or conserving for sustainable useThe right of access to biodiversity and community rights to intellectual property and traditionalknowledge related to biodiversity and cultural diversity.

This Act empowers the Gram Sabha12

(the traditional village assembly) to play the pivotal role inensuring the rights of forest dwellers, decision-making, planning and management. The functioning ofthe Gram Sabha is vested with the village-level Forest Rights Committee (FRC).

According to the Act, forest rights recognized in critical wildlife habitats in National Parks and WildlifeSanctuaries are violated unless it is clearly established that co-existence is not possible and there isno other alternative. The free and informed consent of the Gram Sabha will also be necessary inrelation to any resettlement and other consequences.

The forest rights to land under actual occupation will be restricted to an area not exceeding four hectares,and is heritable, and inalienable. Such rights shall be registered jointly in the name of both the spousesin case of married persons and in the name of a single person in case of a household headed by a singleperson, and in the absence of a direct heir, the right shall pass on to the next-of--kin.

The Act overrides any other forest act in terms of implementation and interpretation. The ForestRights Act is a step in the right direction not only in passing age-old rights back to the forest communities,but also for protecting, conserving and ensuring the sustainable use of the forests and its ecosystem.However, even though it was passed in December 2006, implementation has so far been very poor,primarily due to covert opposition from the Forest Department which does not want to share its absolutepower with the forest communities and still regards itself as the biggest landlord in the country. Officialsof the Forest Department together with the wildlife lobby have been creating umpteen obstacles tothis Act from the very first day. This is the reason why the FD still recognizes the Joint ForestManagement Committees – the FPCs in their official documents and reports, instead of Forest RightsCommittees as per the Forest Rights Act 2006.

47

Rights of Indigenous People and UN Declaration on Rights ofIndigenous PeoplesThe working definition of Indigenous communities and peoples arrived at by the UN Secretariat of thePermanent Forum on Indigenous Issues reads:

“Indigenous communities, peoples and nations are those which, having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories, consider themselves distinct fromother sectors of the societies now prevailing on those territories, or parts of them. They form at presentnon-dominant sectors of society and are determined to preserve, develop and transmit to futuregenerations their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existenceas peoples, in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal system.

“This historical continuity may consist of the continuation, for an extended period reaching into thepresent of one or more of the following factors:

Occupation of ancestral lands, or at least of part of them;Common ancestry with the original occupants of these lands;Culture in general, or in specific manifestations (such as religion, living under a tribal system,membership of an indigenous community, dress, means of livelihood, lifestyle, etc.);Language (whether used as the only language, as mother-tongue, as the habitual means ofcommunication at home or in the family, or as the main, preferred, habitual, general or normallanguage);Residence on certain parts of the country, or in certain regions of the world; f) Other relevantfactors.”

13

However, the Government of India and its administrative authorities do not recognize or use the termIndigenous. Instead, the Indigenous and/or tribal communities in India are recognized through provisionsof Article 366 and 342 of the Indian Constitution under a special category referred to as “scheduledtribes”. This defines them as “such tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within such tribesor tribal communities as are deemed under Article 342 to be Scheduled Tribes.” The criteria used tospecify a community as a scheduled tribe include indications of primitive traits, distinctive culture,geographical isolation, shyness of contact with the community at large, and backwardness. Thesecriteria are not spelt out in the Constitution itself but have become well established in practice. Theysubsume the definitions contained in the 1931 Census, the reports of the first Backward ClassesCommission 1955 and the Advisory Committee on Revision of SC/ST lists (Lokur Committee).

The total population of Scheduled Tribes was 84,326,240 according to the Census in 2001, whichaccounts for 8.2% of the total population of country

However, within civil society groups in India, tribal groups, experts and academics, the categorizationof certain tribal communities as scheduled tribes is controversial. The grouping of ‘scheduled tribes’does not include all the tribal communities in India and the criteria used for scheduling is not withoutdebate. In the north eastern part of the country the terms ‘tribal’ and ‘indigenous communities’ aremostly used, whereas in the rest of the country such communities are referred to as ‘Adivasis’.

India and the Definition of Indigenous PeoplesIn United Nations negotiations over the years, India has consistently refused to recognize the tribalcommunities as Indigenous Peoples, even though India voted in favour of the UN Declaration on theRights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in the UN General Assembly of September 2007. In relationto UNDRIP, Indian Representative Ajai Malhotra said his country had consistently favoured thepromotion and protection of Indigenous Peoples’ rights: the fact that the working group had beenunable to reach consensus was only reflective of the extreme complexity of the issues involved. Whilethe Declaration did not define what constituted Indigenous Peoples, the issue of Indigenous rights

REDD in India

48


effectively pertains to peoples in independent countries who were regarded as Indigenous on accountof their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region which thecountry belonged to at the time of conquest or colonization or the establishment of present Stateboundaries and who, irrespective of their legal status, retained some or all of their socio-economic,cultural and political institutions.

The Indian government’s position on this contentious issue is further clarified by the statement of thethen Chief Justice of Supreme Court, Y K Sabharwal while speaking in the International Law AssociationConference (2006) in Toronto: “Firstly, it is argued that it is not easy to identify indigenous peoples inIndia. For there have been continuous waves of movement of populations with different language,race, culture, religion going back centuries and millennia. Tribal communities have been a part of thishistorical process. In the circumstances the question arises as to how far back in history should onego to determine the identity of “indigenous peoples”? Whatever the nature of determination it is likelyto be extremely arbitrary and controversial. Secondly, tribal and non-tribal peoples have lived in Indiain close proximity for over centuries leading to, as one author puts it ‘much acculturation and evenassimilation into the larger Hindu Society.’ Thirdly, in the case of India some tribes are no longer tribesbut have become, as the eminent sociologist Andre Betteile puts it, ‘castes or something else’. Fourthly,tribal peoples in many cases may have settled in India long after some non-tribal peoples in otherparts of India. Finally, attention has been drawn to the serious national sovereignty issues involvedrevolving around question of “self-determination” and ownership of lands.” Justice Sabharwal furthersaid, “It may not be fair to say that the claim of some countries like that of India are not correct. Indiais indicted, unjustifiably though, at times on the ground that it is resisting to accept the existence ofindigenous peoples in its society. When one looks at it from the standpoint of a person other thanIndian, it may appear that India’s stand is not correct. But one who is familiar with the Indian scenariomay agree with the Indian perception. India has a history of cultural assimilation even while we agreeto some communities maintain their distinct identity within the nation. India always presented a unityin diversity and diverse cultural identity is no insignia of the existence of indigenous group. “Indeed,India accepts the existence of different tribes within its larger system again not different from the mainculture in terms of the core values. True to its tradition of cultural assimilation and spirit ofaccommodation the Indian constitution presents the picture of the larger system of permitting thesmaller political systems of tribal populations to be part of the system to remain distinct culturally butto be part of the larger system politically with sufficient autonomy wherever necessary and possible.Schedules V and VI of the Constitution of India specifically make provision for safeguarding the interestsof the tribal people in India located in what is called tribal areas.”

While controversy still exists over the very notion of the scheduling of certain tribal groups, the criteriafollowed for such selective scheduling, and national sovereignty issues around the question of self-determination and the ownership of lands, are at the crux of India taking a position in complete contrastto the United Nation Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) within the country.The majority of tribal groups and communities have long demanded political autonomy over decision-making and governance on issues related to them and in their areas, and recognition of their traditionaland customary rights over their ancestral land and habitats. Strong public mobilization, tribal movementsand electoral politics resulted in the enactment of a separate Provisions of the Panchayat

14 (Extension

to the Scheduled Areas15

) Act (PESA) in 1996 which provides:

Autonomy over customary law, social and religious practices and traditional management practicesof community resourcesA village community to manage its affairs in accordance with traditions and customs.A Gram Sabha to safeguard and preserve the traditions and customs of the people, their culturalidentity, community resources and the customary mode of dispute resolution.That the Gram Sabha should approve of the plans, programs and projects for social and economicdevelopment before they are taken up for implementation by the Panchayat at the village levelThat the Gram Sabha or the Panchayats at the appropriate level shall be consulted before making

49

the acquisition of land in the Scheduled Areas for development projects and before re-settling orrehabilitating persons affected by such projectsFor the recommendations of the Gram Sabha or the Panchayats at the appropriate level to bemade mandatory prior to the granting of prospecting licenses or mining leases or concessions.

Panchayats at the appropriate level and the Gram Sabha are also specifically endowed with:The power to enforce prohibition or to regulate or restrict the sale and consumption of any intoxicantThe ownership of minor forest produceThe power to prevent alienation of land in the Scheduled Areas and to take appropriate action torestore any unlawfully alienated land of a Scheduled Tribe.

While the PESA Act did devolve some powers to the tribal village communities and councils inScheduled Areas, the same Act does not expressly recognize the sole rights of the tribal villagecouncil or their traditional self governance institutions: it thus allows the ‘Panchayats at appropriatelevel’ to usurp these powers. Also PESA, the Land Acquisition Act, the Rehabilitation & ResettlementPolicy, environmental decision-making processes and clearances for development projects inScheduled Areas do not reflect the spirit of ‘free and prior informed consent’ as enshrined in UNDRIP.Moreover, provisions of PESA are restricted only to the communities living within Scheduled Areas.

Furthermore, the draft National Tribal Policy only addresses India’s Scheduled Tribes: it does notrepresent other tribal and Indigenous communities or all adivasis in India.

The draft Tribal Policy says that, “There is a very strong symbiotic relationship between the STs andthe forests and they have been at the forefront of the conservation regime. Due to faulty processes ofdeclaring forests in the past, the rights of the tribals over their traditional land holdings in the forestshave gradually been extinguished. Insecurity of tenure and fear of eviction from these lands has ledthe tribal communities to feel emotionally as well as physically alienated from forests and forest lands.”

16

Nevertheless, though the draft policy talks of mandatory consultation with the Gram Sabha and theTribal Advisory Council, it is conspicuously silent on the issue of consent of the communities and thesafeguard and protection of ancestral lands and sacred groves of the tribal population.

On the implementation of the PESA, the draft policy states “PESA requires the State Governments tochange their existing laws, wherever these are inconsistent with the central legislation. In reality,however, in the decade since its passage, very little has happened. Many State Governments havepassed laws or amended existing ones, but not fully in conformity with the Central law. Theimplementation of the law has been severely hampered by the reluctance of most State Governmentsto make laws and rules that conform to the spirit of the law. The non-empowerment of tribal communitiesremains one of the most critical factors responsible for the less than desired outcomes in all theinterventions, monetary or otherwise meant for their development.”

India and the Convention on Biological DiversityIndia’s Fourth Report on the Convention on Biological Diversity was officially released in June 2009.

In what seems to be a new initiative ‘Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs)’ have been established in theWestern Ghats. The report states that, “India is committed to contributing towards achieving threeobjectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the 2010 target and the Strategic Plan.Strategies and plans for conservation and sustainable use of biological resources based on localknowledge systems and practices are ingrained in Indian ethos and are enshrined in the Constitutionof India (Article 48A and Article 51 A(g)) in the form of environmental protection. In recent times, themajor building blocks of policy frameworks, legislations and action plans that drive the country inachieving all the three objectives of the CBD include, among others, Biological Diversity Act (BDA),2002, National Wildlife Action Plan (NWAP) (2002-2016), National Environment Policy (NEP) 2006,National Biodiversity Action Plan (NBAP), 2008 and National Action Plan on Climate Change(NAPCC), 2008.

17

REDD in India

50


The policies, legislations and action plans cited above, are, however, not without controversies andsevere criticisms.

While the Biological Diversity Act (2002) faced severe criticism from the communities and relatedNGOs, the processes resulting in NEP 2006 and NAPCC 2008 were also accused of being non-participatory and non-transparent. The MoEF also rejected the National Biodiversity State ActionPlans developed and formulated by the rural communities, tribal groups and forest people in 2002,and no action was taken to implement the recommended action plans. In addition, the NationalAgriculture Policy (2000), National Seeds Policy (2002) and National Wildlife Action Plan, alsomentioned in the Fourth Report, were drafted and finalized unilaterally without any meaningful andproper consultation with or the participation of stakeholder communities.

The Government of India claims the enactment of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional ForestDwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act (2006), the establishment of the Wildlife Control Bureau,the integration of biological diversity concerns into the Environment Impact Assessment Notification(EIA, 2006), the draft Coastal Management Zone Notification (2008) and the National Tiger ConservationAuthority are all measures taken to strengthen implementation mechanisms in policy, legislative andadministrative measures targeted at biodiversity conservation and management.

In reality, even after the Indian Parliament passed the Forest Rights Act in 2006 December, it took theGovernment one full year to notify the Act, primarily due to the opposition of the wildlife lobby, asection of MoEF bureaucrats and the strong Forest Department lobby.

Furthermore, there is nothing to indicate that legitimate biodiversity concerns have been integrated intothe EIA Notification 2006. On the other hand, the NGOs, tribal groups and adivasi communities haveaccused the MoEF of diluting the earlier notification of 1994 to pave an easy way for the project developersto get their projects cleared. These groups have demanded scrapping of the EIA Notification 2006.

The draft Coastal Management Zone Notification is another government folly. This draft wassurreptitiously introduced in an attempt to replace the earlier Coastal Zone Regulation Notification, atthe behest of the strong real estate, tourism and infrastructure lobby, who want to free India’s vastcoastline of the fishing and other coastal communities, even though this would deprive them of theirlivelihood and traditional habitat. Amidst consistent protest from the fishing communities, theGovernment was forced to let the draft Notification lapse by the end of July 2009.

There is really nothing to indicate that the Indian Government is genuinely keen to protect and conserveits rich forest biodiversity, except the steps and instruments that it has put on paper – which remain onpaper only.

Consider the biodiversity rich states of Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Uttarakhand and Himachal. Morethan 300 mega hydro projects, oil exploration, cement plants, chemical plants and extensive miningactivities are proposed in these states, even though Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh are part of theIndo-Myanmar Biodiversity Hotspot with hundreds and thousands of rare and endangered plant andanimal species. Thousands of hectares of pristine forests are diverted for non-forest activities anddestroyed, much subsequently replaced by monoculture plantations in the name of afforestation.Similarly, the forests and habitats of tribal communities are cleared and given to global mining andsteel giants in the central Indian states of Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Orissa and Andhra Pradesh.

India and REDDIndia has championed the concept of ‘Compensated Conservation’ since negotiations in Nairobi, in2006 (in particular through a workshop in Cairns,

18 and a Subsidiary Body for Scientific and

Technological Advice (SBSTA) meeting in Bonn.19

At the 13th

meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP-13) to the UN Framework Convention onClimate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations in Bali, in December 2007, the Indian delegation claimed abreakthrough in putting forth India’s concern with forest conservation as central to negotiations on

51

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD). The Indian proposal onforest conservation and the sustainable management of forests, and incremental increases in forestcover, put forward as a policy approach to enhance carbon stocks, found place not only in the preamblebut also in the operative part (paragraphs 3 and 7) of the COP’s decision on REDD. Similarly, theCOP decision on the Bali Action Plan contains references, inter-alia, to policy approaches and positiveincentives relating to the role of conservation, the sustainable management of forests and theenhancement of forest carbon stocks.

India’s focus on the importance of including the conservation of forests and sustainable forestmanagement, and improvements in forest cover, in REDD received the usual support from CostaRica, China, Panama, Malaysia, Gabon, Ghana and African countries amongst others. Collectively,they demanded:

The inclusion of forest degradation, the conservation of forest and/or increase in forest cover in theREDD draft textThat REDD projects should be accounted for and conducted at the national and/or sub-nationallevel.

India’s two main approaches to REDD are ‘compensated reduction’ and ‘compensated conservation’where it says that carbon is saved from reducing deforestation and degradation, and carbon is addedthrough conservation, the sustainable management of forests and increases in forest cover(afforestation and reforestation). Both have to be compensated equally.

India’s arguments rest heavily on the claim that India is a low deforestation country. This is contentious.The forest groups in India have said all along that the loss of dense to moderately dense forests withinthe recorded forest area is being hidden under the garb of increasing forest and tree cover. The firstenumeration of forest and tree cover in India was covered by the State of Forest Report 2001. Accordingto this report, forest cover has been taken as comprising all lands more than one hectare in area, witha canopy density of more than 10 per cent, irrespective of land use and ownership. All perennialwoody vegetation (including bamboos, palms, coconut, apple, mango, neem, peepal, etc.) has beentreated as tree in the report. Thus, all lands with tree crops, such as agro forestry plantations, fruitorchards, tea and coffee estates with trees, etc. have been included as forest cover since 2001.

The 2003 assessment reveals an overall increase of 2,795 km2 or 0.41% in forest cover across thecountry. But there is a decrease in dense forest cover to the tune of 26,245 km2 (6.30%) and theopen forest cover has increased by 29,040 km2 (11.22 %). Moreover, because satellite data is stilltreated as ‘classified’ in the country, and ‘ground-truthing’ (if any) is carried out in a similarlyclandestine manner, it is difficult if not impossible to verify exactly how much natural forest is vanishingevery year, and where from. However, from the State of Forests reports, it can be seen that

Figure 2: Plantations on Forest Land Along the Highway - ChhattisgarhPhoto - Souparna Lahiri

REDD in India

52


degradation of forests is not confined to any particular province or region, but is happening, almostuniformly, throughout the country.

The incremental increase in forest and tree cover is also due to industrial plantations both on degradedforests and non-forest land, and compensatory afforestation programmes to compensate diversion ofrecorded forest land for development projects. According to the information collected from the Ministryof Environment and Forests by an NGO Kalpavriksh (through the Right to Information Act) between1980 and 2007, 1,140,177 ha of forest land were diverted for non-forest purposes. Out of this awhopping 311,220 ha were cleared recently between 2003 and 2007.

According to the National Forest Commission in 2006, about 41% of the country’s forest cover hasalready been degraded and dense forests are losing their crown density and productivity continuously.At present, 70% of forests have no natural regeneration and 55% are prone to fire.

India’s conservation regime as it is implemented through a set of Protected Areas (PAs) has alsobeen extremely controversial, displacing and violating the basic human rights of the forest people.There is little basic data of the number of forest dwellers being displaced by the PAs or practicallyimprisoned in them without basic amenities and rights over NTFP, fuel wood or fodder. The NationalForest Commission (2006) indicates that an estimate of around 4 million are imprisoned within theIndian PAs.

Large scale displacement of forest people and loss of usufruct rights have been reported in the NationalParks of Tawa, Nagarhole, Pench, Kanha, Buxa, Palamau, Rajaji, and Tadoba and scores of Wildlifesanctuaries during the last 35 years. The GEF funded India Eco-Development Project, whichemphasized conservation by reducing dependence of forest communities on forests, itself contributedto the displacement of more than 200 villages in the NPs of Nagarhole, Pench, Kanha and Buxa.

20

India is therefore, claiming financial incentives for a forest management regime that displaces andviolates the rights of forest people, continues to divert large tracts of forests, often dense to moderatelydense, and then replaces it with industrial, monoculture plantations.

Conclusions and RecommendationsThe REDD text agreed in COP-13 in Bali did not include the rights of the indigenous people who areliving in the forests in the tribal and hill districts. These forests include unclassed forests, communityconservation areas managed and controlled by the communities. It is the forest communities whohave continued to conserve and preserve the pristine forests of the north east, Khutkatti areas ofJharkhand, forests under Van Panchayats in Uttarakhand or the community conserved forests ofOrissa. The forest departments have no role. Yet, when it comes to claiming the incentives, REDD willprovide financial incentives only to the national government. The REDD text does not include anymechanism whereby the incentives could be shared by the forest communities or benefit them.

Considering the legacy of the forest bureaucracy in this country, the absolute power that they enjoyover forests and its resources, the landlord-like attitude that is reflected in its relationship with theforest people, it is difficult to imagine that the incentive from REDD will be passed on to the forestcommunities.

Take for example the afforestation funds collected from industry for the diversion of forest lands andthe Net Present Value (NPV) levied per ha of forest land diverted, as directed by the Supreme Courtsince 2003-2004. The Compensatory Afforestation Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA)was created to deal with funds collected through both NPV and compensatory afforestation schemes.Today this fund has risen to a whopping Rs.112000 million and remains unused. The MoEF hasdecided to disburse this amount to States for greening India – to increase tree and forest cover ratherthan forest regeneration. In July 2009, the government decided to release Rs.50000 million to theStates for the next five years for afforestation and increase of tree and forest cover. There is nomention of any mechanism to compensate the forest communities whose land have been diverted or

53

acquired, from this fund. This huge sum under CAMPA was primarily collected from the heavily forestedregions of Orissa, Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and the north eastern part of thecountry where sizable tracts of forest land are traditionally owned by the communities and individuals.

Things have become more complex with the enactment of the Forest Rights Act, 2006. Large tracts offorests in India will legally come under community governance. How will REDD recognize the legallybinding rights of the forest communities, and their contribution to conservation and sustainablemanagement of forests and biodiversity? Who can then claim the incentives for reducing deforestationand degradation? Will REDD undermine the community conservation efforts and rights of the forestcommunities and strengthen a centralized form of forest governance practiced by countries like India,eroding the recent gains that forest communities have snatched at a great cost? Will REDD be thenemesis for the Forest Rights Act, 2006 in India?

In all likelihood it seems that REDD and other forest-related funds will only promote an artificial greeningof the country, whilst increasing the financial clout of the forest bureaucracy and thereby underminingthe rights and entitlements of the forest people. The way things are currently moving in the forestsector in India, market or fund-based financial mechanisms like REDD may tend to act as a disincentivetowards the decentralization of forest governance. The majority of the forest people in India havealready shifted to areas which are of less intrinsic value and considered uneconomic. REDD could bethe final straw for forest dependent communities, if both the state and private sector actors are thentempted to stake their claims to these ‘uneconomic’ areas.

Figure 3: Dense, Community Controlled and Governed Forest in Dibang Valley of Arunachal Pradesh,North East India.

Photo -Souparna Lahiri.

1 India’s Fourth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Governmentof India, 2009.

2 State of Forest Report 2005, Ministry of Environment and Forests, India, 2005, http://www.fsi.nic.in/sfr_2005.htm3 ibid.

Endnotes

REDD in India

It seems that the emergence of a REDD fund in India is unlikely to lead to the conservation of naturalold growth forests, or regeneration of forests, or improvements for the life and livelihood of the forestpeople. The commodification of India’s forests may well be completed, at the cost of its protectors –the forest people and forest communities.

54


4 Report of the National Commission on Agriculture: Forestry, Volume IX, New Delhi, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation,Government of India, 1976.

5 available at http://moef.nic.in/index.php6 India’s Forests, Forest Research Institute, Government of India, Dehradun, 1984.7 available at http://moef.nic.in/index.php8 available at http://moef.nic.in/index,php9 Village Forest Protection Committees in Madhya Pradesh: an update and critical evaluation, Emily Caruso, Anurag Modi,

Forest Peoples Programme, 2004.10 A summary of the Joint Mission’s findings can be found in the document cited above in footnote 9.11 Available at http://tribal.gov.in12 Gram Sabha is a traditional village council/assembly, where the council is constituted of every adult villager with equal

voting rights including women.13 The Concept of Indigenous Peoples, background paper prepared by the Secretariat of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous

Issue, New York, 2004.14 A Panchayat is a constitutionally recognized elected body of self-governance at the lowest tier of the three tier self

governance system in India. Panchayats enjoy some form of autonomy as per the 73rd and 74th Constitutional amendments.15 Scheduled Areas are constitutionally recognized scheduled tribes’ majority areas with various forms of autonomy and

formally categorized as Schedule V and Schedule VI areas.16 Available at http://tribal.gov.in17 India’s Fourth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government

of India, 2009, available at http://moef.nic.in/index,php18 Views from ICFRE, Dehradun, India (an Observer organization) to UN FCCC on REDD, India’s Submission to Cairns

SBSTA, 2007, www.icfre.gov.in19 REDD Negotiations: Case for HFLD Countries, Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education, 2009. This is a

comprehensive document explaining Indian Government’s approach to REDD from Montreal COP to Bonn, available atwww.icfre.gov.in

20 Data compiled by the author from various sources.

55

Tourism is a highly resource centric and resource heavy industry that banks on the availability of land,water and natural resources for providing the tourist experience. Unregulated tourism and diversionof natural resources for meeting tourism demands has caused negative impacts on the environment.Inevitably, local communities that are dependent for their livelihoods on commonly shared naturalresources also experience hardships from depletion of the commons. The case of the Himalayan SkiVillage Resort in Kullu district of Himachal Pradesh gives a glimpse into the nature of communities’struggles against tourism led privatisation of commons.

The $300 million Himalayan Ski Village project financed by Alfred Ford, the great-grandson of the USautomaker, Henry Ford was stopped by local communities and Him Niti Campaign, a local group. TheHimalayan Ski Village (HSV) project included the construction of hotels, restaurants, cafes,entertainment and shopping areas, as well as apartments and villas in Kullu district of HimachalPradesh. Initially the project’s built up area was spread over 133 acres and required 6000 acres ofpristine forests and mountain areas for skiing activities, making a storage house and support base(for heli pad and gas station) near Beas River (the area has not reduced as per the report of the Highpowered committee –it is at 93.1 ha or 223 acres). The developers had proposed to divert 14.7 Ha offorest land for the project. Local communities’ organizations and NGOs opposed the project due tothe following reasons. Its requirements for large scale deforestation and increased risk of floods andsiltation in dams and farms downstream; impact on flow of natural resources like medicinal herbs,fodder, fuel wood to the villages located down the slopes, disrupt rights and livelihoods of nomadiccommunities by taking away their grazing rights in high altitude pastures, pollution of water sourcesand decreased water availability in rivers, streams due to artificial snow making. These rivers andstreams are the primary source of water for drinking and irrigation for local communities and pollutionwould render them unusable for agriculture and drinking purposes.

In June 2007, Jan Jagran Evam Vikas Samiti (JJVS) and a local hotelier filed a Public Interest Litigation(PIL) in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. In April 2008, the High Court disposed off the PILssaying that they were satisfied with the state government’s action of constituting a six-member HighPowered Committee under the Chairmanship of Secretary (Tourism) to look into various aspectsrelating to setting up of Himalayan Ski Village1. The High Powered Committee report recommendsthat the State government can terminate the MoU with HSV as local communities did not support theproject, as their wellbeing and livelihoods depends on the environment. The Government can alsoterminate the signed deal as HSV had not fulfilled the conditions of the interim agreement signed withGovernment by not submitting the EIA report for environmental clearance, and therefore. Howeverthe very same Committee recommends opening Pandora’s box all over again by inviting global tendersfor a ski village project2.

The above example shows how tourism is increasingly encroaching on public commons in the guiseof development. Moreover the State, a mere trustee of these public resources, is found to facilitateacquisition of common property resources for private use and profit. Tourism depends on variety ofeconomic, social, physical resources, often in competition with needs of local communities.Communities’ resources for sustenance like agricultural land, common property resources (CPR) are

March 2010

Ecological Commons,People and Tourism

56


diverted for exclusive use of tourism. Common property resources - beaches, natural streams &water bodies, forests, bugiyals (grazing lands) in the mountain valleys, which were once accessible tolocal communities, are increasingly getting converted into private spaces. Hence communities loosetheir power of ownership, regulation and control over common property resources.

Water is diverted to meet commercial needs of tourism enterprises like hotels, resorts, amusementand water parks, golf courses etc. The demand for water by the tourism industry in most instanceshas meant less water for nearby farmers, villages and households. For example, in Goa:

The local population of villages of Cansaulim – Arossim – Cuelim’s monthly consumption of waterwas 19440 cu.m. of water. In comparison, Hotel Heritage consumed 5012.70 cu.m. while Park Hyattconsumed 36217 cu.m. almost double the requirement of the three villages3. The development oftourist facilities like golf courses has resulted in pollution and depletion of ground water resources forsurrounding communities. An average 18-hole golf course requires at least 525,000 gallons of watera day - enough to supply the irrigation needs of a 100 farmers4.

Due to land acquisition and displacement of local communities for construction of big hotel projects,communities have lost access to natural resources and therefore their livelihoods. Massive investmentinto tourism, takes over common property resources that are used for sustenance and livelihoods bylocal communities, at times through benami transactions5. In the case of the Himalayan Ski Villageproject, the State Government of Himachal Pradesh led by the Planning Commission changed itsland policy under Section 118, Himachal Pradesh Land Reforms Act to attract private investments intourism sector6. Section 118 restricts purchase and sale of property by non-Himachalis (non residentsof the state). HSV enjoyed an exemption from the provisions of Section 118.

Ecotourism is the new magic mantra endorsed by the tourism industry giants, travel - trade associationsand governments. Ecotourism’s promotion as a market-based conservation mechanism has seenareas rich in biodiversity including protected areas and national parks being opened for tourism.

In the name of ecotourism, mainstream tourism that is devoid of environmental sustainability, equityin benefit-sharing with indigenous and local communities is being pushed into various eco-fragileareas. The potential of ecotourism to conserve biodiversity has been contested. These areas havebeen conserved by indigenous and local communities who have inhabited them for centuries are nowbeing displaced in the name of conservation. Increasingly tourism is being allowed a backdoor entryinto the very regions that were set aside by laws of conservation, without significant concern of itsconflicts with conservation goals and impacts on ecology and communities dependent on these naturalresources for sustenance. The tourism industry is allowed to operate with subsidies and incentives inprotected and other ecologically sensitive areas without adhering to stringent environmental or socialimpact assessments.

A number of resorts are coming up outside the boundary of national parks. To promote ecotourism,the Chhattisgarh Forest Department has constructed a luxurious ‘eco-resort’ in a forest adjacent tothe Barnawapara Wildlife Sanctuary, Chhattisgarh.

The Mohda eco-resort is located on forest land and on the banks of a lake, both being commonproperty resources. The land belongs to the Chhattisgarh Forest Development Corporation but theresort has been handed over to Chhattisgarh Tourism Board (CTB) for running and management. Theproject can be legally challenged for the diversion of forest land for commercial purposes underForest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and for its transfer to private parties. TheCTB is considering theproperty for privatisation. Using PPP (public-private partnership) the CTB will create infrastructureand hand them over to private players to operate. The private players will accrue benefits and theState will be benefitted from the collection of taxes. The common property resources of forest andwater-source, which could have been used by the local people, have now been segregated for theexclusive use and enjoyment of tourists. The resort also violates the recommendations of IndianBoard for Wildlife in 2002 for declaration of land falling within the 10 km of boundaries of nationalparks and wildlife sanctuaries as eco-fragile zone under section 3 (v) of Environment Protection Act.

57

The development of tourism establishments on periphery also hinders movement of wildlife for food &water. The wildlife in turn starts entering human habitations which increases the possibility of human-animal conflict7.

These conflicts have led to damage to property and loss to human and animal lives. The lack ofconsultation with local Panchayats when tourism projects are prepared by governments violates theConstitutional provisions of the 73rd Amendment Act, 1972. Panchayats as institutions of local selfgovernment have the power to decide the kind of development they would like in their regions and toplan and implement schemes for socio-economic development. The role of the Panchayats is thusreduced to a mere formality as they are only consulted after all clearances have been granted and ano objection certificate is required. At this stage, the Panchayats do not refuse, since all other clearancesare granted.

Privatisation of the Coasts and LakesPrivatisation of common areas and natural resources has also been witnessed in coastal areas. Localcommunities are denied access to beaches as portions of it are fenced by resorts for the exclusiveuse of their guests, even though beaches are CPRs that support traditional livelihoods of many coastalcommunities. A few examples are discussed below.

Goa, a popular place visited by many tourists is also the place where communities have been protestingfor many years against privatisation of commons by tourism. A Writ Petition was filed in the Goa HighCourt against the developers of Heritage Village Club Resort on Arossim beach in Cansaulim forundertaking permanent construction, restricting public access to the beach, putting up barbed wirefences, flattening of sand dunes for construction, discharge of solid wastes and effluent directly intothe sea without treatment. The construction violates the CRZ Notification, 1991 that prohibits anypermanent constructions in the No Development Zone (upto 200 metres). The Heritage Village ClubResort had constructed beyond and within 200 metres of the high tide line. The resort has not leftadequate space for access to the beach as prescribed in the CRZ notification. Contrary to the prescribed20 metres only 10 metres has been left for public access to the beach8.

The local fisherfolk of Velaghar-Shiroda in Sindhudurg, Maharashtra evoked the Coastal RegulationZone notification, 1991 to protest against tourism development. The Sindhudurg district was marked fortourism development by the Sharad Pawar government. The local community is against the landacquisition and eviction notices served by the Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation on behalfof the Taj group of hotels, which plans to build a five star hotel and beach resort with aqua sports9.

On 4th November 2008, the Karnataka High Court questioned the practise of conversion of lakeswhich are public commons for private use. The Lake Development Authority (LDA) of Bangalore,constituted in 2002 for protection of the lakes, leased out three lakes in Bangalore (Agaram lake,Nagawara and Hebbal Lake) to private companies for developing and maintaining them for a periodof 15 years. The Hebbal lake was leased out to M/s East India Hotels (EIH) Ltd, the parent companyof Oberoi Group of Hotels. Media reports have highlighted that the Oberoi’s had proposed to fencethe lake and charge an entry fee of Rs. 20, construct a floating restaurant, cafeteria and hotel infront of the Hebbal lake10 thus blocking public access and curtailing traditional and customary rightsof communities. A show cause notice issued by the Forest Department observed that the EIH hadremoved the entire water and aquatic vegetation unscientifically in June 2007, destroying the habitatof aquatic birds and wildlife in violation of Section 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act 197211. Theconstruction of amusement parks and other recreational facilities on the water body violates thepurpose of conservation and preservation12. This commercialisation of a public resource in thename of conservation was opposed by local groups as the privatisation was likely to have detrimentalsocio-economic and ecological impacts. The interim order of Karnataka High Court on 4th November2008 restricted lake privatisation and directed that efforts be made protect these lakes and madeaccessible to the common man13.

Ecological Commons, People and Tourism

58


1 Him Niti Campaign, Himachal Pradesh, JJVS, EQUATIONS (2008), ‘Impacts of the proposed Himalayan Ski-VillageProject in Kullu, Himachal Pradesh’.

2 High Powered Committee constituted by State Government on directions of High Court Himachal Pradesh, ‘Report onreview/ examination of the Project Himalayan Ski Village in Kullu District, Himachal Pradesh’ . Received in response toRTI Application filed on 5 January 2010 by Dr. Pushpalchand Thakur, General Secretary JJVS.

3 Council for Social Justice and Peace and EQUATIONS, ‘The Challenge and Prospects of Tourism in Goa Today’ (2009),pg 24.

4 Ibid, pg 10.

5 Not in any specific name, false transactions.

6 The Planning Commission of India in 2005 brought out the Himachal Pradesh Development Report, which carried acritical analysis of the tourism sector in the state. It states that the Himachal Tourism Department is pursuing a tourismpolicy sans action and overselling the already saturated Shimla-Kullu-Manali circuit. The concern for pressures oninfrastructure was not so much about the stress on local resources but more for the fact that the State was not tapping intoother potential tourism spots to increase tourism’s contribution to the State’s economy. One of the recommendations inthe Report was to achieve this objective through reform of the tourism sector by changing the Land Policy HimachalPradesh’ to attract private investments; particularly section 118 of the HP Land Reforms Act.

7 EQUATIONS (2009), ‘Nature, Markets, Tourism - Exploring Tourism’s claims to Conservation in India’.

8 EQUATIONS (2008), ‘Coastal regulation in India –Why do we need a new notification?’, Pg 12.

9 EQUATIONS (2008), ‘Coastal regulation in India –Why do we need a new notification?’, Pg 11.

10 Gandhi Divya and Shivanand Swathi, ‘A farewell to Hebbal lake?’, The Hindu, 25 July 2007, < http://www.hindu.com/2007/07/25/stories/2007072558510100.htm >, [accessed 9 April 2010].

11 Gandhi Divya, ‘Forest Department Serves notice on Oberoi Hotels’, the Hindu, 10 October 2007 < http://www.hindu.com/2007/10/10/stories/2007101050310100.htm >, [accessed 9 April 2010].

12 Mahanti Gitanjali (2008), ‘Article on PIL against Lake Privatisation’, ESG, < http://www.esgindia.org/campaigns/lakes/current.html>, [accessed 9 April 2010].

13 ESG (2008), ‘The High Court passed an interim order (zip file - 164 KB) restricting lake privatisation on 4 November2008’, <http://www.esgindia.org/campaigns/lakes/current.html >, [accessed 9 April 2010].

Endnotes

ConclusionThroughout the world tourism is being promoted for achieving development and India is no exception.But the question arises, for who is this development and who does it benefit and at what cost? Astourism is pushed into various spaces for poverty alleviation, conservation and sustainabledevelopment, rarely has tourism been able to achieve these. On the contrary tourism has alienatedpeople from their rights over common property resources and has thus caused conflicts.

Tourism’s claims of conservation and benefits to local communities have not materialised. Instead theroute charted by tourism follows a privatisation of public and common property resources. Prioritisingtourism development at the cost of people’s rights is unacceptable and unjustified.

59

India is home over 375 million children, comprising nearly 40% of its population. Unfortunately it alsohas the largest number of sexually abused children in the world. A National Study on Child Abuse(April 2007), covering 13 states in India and a sample size of 12,446 children, commissioned by theMinistry of Woman and Child Development, Government of India revealed that over half the surveyedchildren (53%) were sexually abused. Forms of sexual abuse included photographing a child nudeand exposing a child to pornographic materials.

Child pornography is a growing concern within India. Through still and video cameras, sexually abusiveimages of children are produced. These images are accessed via the internet and increasingly nowover mobile phones. The internet provides anonymity to paedophiles who access the virtual spaces ofnewsgroups, chat rooms, e-mail and websites. The internet has enabled massive expansion in materialsavailable and made access relatively easy and inexpensive. These technologies also facilitate organisedsexual abuse and violence against children by networks of commercial buyers, sex tourists, paedophilesand traffickers. It is linked with several actors across borders and has direct links to tourism. Onecountry can be a place where production takes place, the child used for the pornographic productioncould be from a second country, and the final pornographic product could be or end up in a third country.

Exploiting Children’s VulnerabilityChildren get tricked / coerced into engaging in sexual acts for the production of pornography. Imagesmay be made in the process of sexually exploiting a child without their knowledge. These images arethen sold for a price or traded as voluntary exchange. Those who consume and/or possess pornographicdepictions of children tend to continue to exploit these children resulting in a vicious cycle.

Legal Framework in IndiaThe issue of child pornography received scant attention in the Indian legal system until recently. TheIndian Penal Code 1860, Indian Post Office Act 1898 and Indecent Representation of Women(Prohibition) Act 1986 have been applied to prosecute offenders for offences related to the use ofobscene materials. But these legislations are limited to visual representations, leaving out audiomaterials and simulated images, which are covered under international law. In 2000, the InformationTechnology Act came into force which transmitting obscene materials in electronic form punishablebut failed to specifically mention child pornography. In 2009, the Information Technology (Amendment)Act 2008 came into force and it incorporated Section 67 (B) which prohibits and punishes the offenderfrom publishing or transmitting material depicting children in a sexually explicit manner online or inelectronic content. This amendment takes into consideration the international child protection standards

Child Pornography & Tourism

March 2010

A Pressing Concern

60


set forth in the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its Optional Protocol on the sale of children,child prostitution and child pornography 2000. Furthermore it specifically addresses computer-relatedcrimes against children.

Another important legislation is the Goa Children’s Act (2003), applicable to the state of Goa. It wasthe first Act in the country which recognised that tourism is a contributor to child exploitation. This Actpunishes any form of soliciting, publicizing or providing of children to any adult or even other childrenfor purposes of commercial exploitation. This includes hosting websites, taking suggestive or obscenephotographs, providing materials, soliciting costumers, guiding tourists and other clients, appointingtouts, using agents, or any other form which may lead to abuse of a child.

In 1996, the Freddy Peats case (Freddy Peats vs India, 1996, Session Case No. 24 of 1992) firstcreated public awareness on child abuse and pornography. Freddy Peats a foreigner of unknownorigin, was convicted in India for sexually abusing children, prostituting boys under the guise of runninga shelter and in possession of 2305 child pornographic photos, 135 strips of negatives, as well asmedication and narcotic substances. This was the first conviction for running an organised paedophiliaracket in India. This case should have alerted the existence of an organised system but it was dismissedby officials and the tourism industry as an aberration. Subsequently many such cases on child abusehave been unearthed, many of them with direct links to tourism, however the record of convictions onthese cases have been abysmal.

The Interpol, in workshops organised by civil society organisations, has indicated that there seems tobe a growing trend of child pornography material linked to India, but that the issue does not seem tobe on the radar of enforcement officials in the country. In a very recent development, child pornographyhas come under the scanner specifically when in November 2009, for the first time a case was registeredagainst an offender under the Section 67 (B) of the Information Technology Act (2008). WilhelmusWeijdeveld (56), a Dutch national was arrested on 7th November 2009 by the cyber crime wing of thepolice, after being alerted by the Interpol that he was uploading pornographic material of children. On10th February 2010 he was released on bail as the Central Crime Branch (CCB) failed to file therequired charge sheet against him within 60 days from the date of his arrest. Yet another indication ofthe lack of seriousness and apathy of Indian officials towards protecting children.

The World Congress III against the Sexual Exploitation of Children and Adolescents 2008 in the Riode Janeiro Declaration called upon the national and state policy and legislature, the tourism, travel,and hospitality industry and other stakeholders to:

Criminalize production, distribution, receipt and possession of child pornography, including virtualimages and the sexually exploitative representation of children, as well as the consumption, accessand viewing of such materials where there has been no physical contact, extending legal liability toentities such as corporations and companies in case of responsibility for or involvement in theproduction and/or dissemination of such materials.Undertake specific and targeted actions to prevent and stop child pornography and the use of theinternet and new technologies for the grooming of children into online and off-line abuse and forthe production and dissemination of child pornography and other materials. Victim identificationand support and care by specialized staff should be made a high priority;Take necessary legislative measures to require Internet service providers, mobile phone companies,search engines and other relevant actors to report and remove child pornography websites andchild sexual abuse images, and develop indicators to monitor results and enhance efforts.Set up a common list of websites, under the auspices of Interpol, containing sexual abuse images,based on uniform standards, whose access will be blocked; the list has to be continuously updated,exchanged on international level, and be used by the provider to perform the access blocking

Child pornography in tourism is an organised and serious crime and is growing. It demands committedand concerted action. Governments, international bodies and tourism industry must approach thiswith a sense of urgency and outrage. They must play proactive, decisive and demonstrated roles inprotection of children and promise that tourism will be ethical, humane and non exploitative. Capacitybuilding of the police, government departments, immigration, airport authorities, hotel and travel industry,and local NGOs to address child pornography and child abuse issues is critical.

61

Section II

WorkingPaper Series2009–2010

CAMPAIGN STATEMENTS

Equations

62


Working Paper Series 2009–2010 Section II

1. Campaign Statement - Our Culture is not for Sale! 63on World Tourism Day, 27 September 2009

2. Letter to Smt. J. Geeta Reddy, Tourism Minister, Andhra 66Pradesh on Concerns about the proposed Sea Cruisefrom Vizag to Andaman, 26 June 2009

3. Letter to Shri. Jairam Ramesh, Minister of State, 70Ministry of Environment & Forests for improvingavailability of information on environmental clearanceLetters on the MoEF Website, 30 September 2009.

4. Letter to Smt. Mamata Banerjee, Minister of Railways 73Against Railway’s plan on exclusive coaches for foreigners,2 November 2009

5. Letter to Editor, Times of India Against “Railways Plan 75Exclusive Coaches for Foreigners”, 4 November 2009

6. Letter to Shri. Devendra Pandey, Chairperson, Experts 76Committee on Environmental Impacts of SSP, ISP andOSP on Environmental Impacts of the Proposed andInitiated Tourism Developments at the Sardar SarovarDam, 20 January 2010

7. Comments to MoEF on Draft Summary Report of the 78World Bank Assisted Integrated Coastal ZoneManagement Project, 28 December 2009

8. Press Release: Child Labour: An Ugly Face of Tourism - 82Exploitation of Children Through Labour in Tourism,11 June 2009

63

on World Tourism Day27 September 2009

Campaign Statement -Our Culture is not for Sale!

On World Tourism Day 2009, we call upon global tourism institutions like the UNWTO, National andState Tourism Boards and the Industry to comprehend and accept the existence of the negativeimpacts of tourism on host cultures. We urge bodies like the UNWTO not to so quickly celebratetourism’s role as protector of culture…tourism has some serious soul searching to do before it awardsitself that accolade!

World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) is “Celebrating Diversity” on World Tourism Day, 27 September2009. They proclaim, “This year’s theme focuses on the world’s cultural wealth and the importantrole sustainable tourism plays in revitalizing local traditions and making them flourish as they crossother cultures...”1

In contrast, we quote John Urry who writes about the complex phenomenon of the tourist gaze says“The tourist pay(s) for their freedom; the right to disregard native concerns and feelings, the right tospin their own web of meanings… The world is the tourist’s oyster… to be lived pleasurably – andthus given meaning”2

The impact of mass tourism on local communities’ ecology, economy and culture has been immense.Local communities in Goa, Kerala, Rajasthan and many other highly visited tourist destinations inIndia believe the costs that local people have borne are too high and impacts on culture and societyirreversible.

The UNWTO should know that the percentage of tourism projects that are ‘sustainable’ or pursue‘sustainability’ is extremely small. Tourism that profits from the commercialization of culture rarelyoriginates from the economic or cultural necessity of the “host” communities but is usually promotedby the profit motive of the tourism industry.

Tourism has Always Involved Spectacle!Tourism has often led to cultural commodification and twisting culture out of its context, meaning andfunctions. The tourist sees what is promoted and not how communities see themselves through theircultural practices. A scrutiny of the attractive tourist brochures and websites of central and statetourism departments, including the “Incredible India Campaign” by Ministry of Tourism, Governmentof India, provides ample evidence for this.

The word ‘culture’ derives from the Roman word “colere – to cultivate, to dwell, to take care, to tendand preserve” – and it relates primarily to the interaction of people with nature in the sense of cultivatingand tending nature until it becomes fit for human habitation. As such, it indicates an attitude of lovingcare and stands in sharp contrast to all efforts to subject nature to the domination of human beings.Culture cannot be manufactured, it is part of people’s life. It evolves with the natural evolution ofcommunities and their ways of living. Commodification of culture stops that evolution and makes it astatic object that is packaged and sold for consumption of others.

64


Tourism has promoted the “museumisation” of culture – taking it out of living spaces into something tobe viewed and consumed from a distance and not experienced and be moved or changed by. Mostoften the wealth of plurality of culture is not documented and also there is an effort to monopoliseculture. It therefore minimises the possibility of generating genuine learning and respect of othercultures through authentic cultural interchange.

An adivasi woman from Chhattisgarh, central India, referring to statues of their deities made fromtraditional bell metal, spoke of her fear of entering any room in which they were kept! She said shecould not face them inside a room as their Gods were meant to be kept outside the village to protectthem from harm. In making a “popular product” out of their sacred deities, no one asked the adivasiwhat they thought and how they felt3. Private spaces of people are dragged into the public domains.

Fulmani, a young adivasi girl from Jharkhand, another central Indian State, said, “We are called bythe district administration to dance before strangers, when ever people come to visit the officers. Whyshould we dance before these strangers? Our dance is part of our expression of happiness, way ofshowing our reverence to the almighty. We feel disgraced.”4 Peoples’ identities are now being shapedby what tourism promotes and not what they actually are.

The Carnival in Goa and the Hornbill Festival in Nagaland, as many other cultural celebrations inother parts of the country, is reduced to a farce or spectacle put on for tourists, far removed from itsoriginal role.

A Call for Some Soul SearchingOften the cultural hype associated with tourism, using public funds, is not reviewed, even undersituations of human misery. Currently India is reeling under a severe drought with half the countryofficially declared as drought-affected5. The Karnataka government, a southern state, has decided todeclare 84 of the state’s 176 talukas (districts) drought hit and will approach the central governmentfor funds for relief work6. Nevertheless, the same Government is going ahead with a grand celebrationof the Dasara Festival in Mysore7. Even the most ardent supporters of this traditional festival agreethat today it is a government sponsored cultural event that is just another ‘show piece’ for touristattraction.8 This year the State Government has released Rs 8 crore for the cultural extravaganzawhile more than half of its people face hunger and drought9.

There can be sensitive ways of conducting tourism but the cases are few and far between. In some ofthe projects aiming at rural tourism initiatives, local communities at Chougan, in the central Indianstate of Madhya Pradesh, spoke of a sense of renewed pride in their local culture and traditions whentourism was introduced. Tourism has also been a means of keeping local art, culture and handicraftsalive by assuring a market for them, However, with increasing demand there is pressure on the artisansto produce more of what will sell in the market, what the tourist will buy and what the tourist will eat.This leads to shortcuts like the use of chemical dyes and fabric colours instead of the time consumingtraditional colours10. It also leads to seeing tourist destinations in Goa and Hampi, popular withbackpacking Israeli tourists having no local dishes and the entire menu card in Hebrew!

We accept that the intricacies and complexities of the impacts of tourism on culture cannot be coveredin one statement. However, we urge bodies like the UNWTO not to so quickly celebrate tourism’s role asprotector of culture…. tourism has some serious soul searching to do before it awards itself that accolade!

On World Tourism Day 2009, We Call Upon Global Tourism InstitutionsLike the UNWTO, National and State Tourism Boards and the Industry,

To comprehend and accept the existence of the negative impacts of tourism on host cultures.

To use their position and sensitise their sphere of influence to prioritise local community’s perceptionsof their cultures rather than to distorts the cultural image & promote culture as commodity that is

65

attractive and sellable. Only then will cultural authenticity and sensitivity be possible between thetourist and local communities.

To mitigate the negative impacts of tourism on culture by emphasising policies that prioritise localcommunities basic needs over that of tourist luxuries when tourism is developed.

To educate tourists on the cultural dynamics and values of the local communities and enhancerespect for their cultural sensitivities.

Statement Endorsed ByTourism investigation & monitoring team(tim-team), Bangkok/ThailandEcumenical Coalition on Tourism (ECOT).

1 http://www.unwto.org/wtd/2009/en/wtd09.php - as on 11 September 2009.

2 Bauman, Z (1993), Postmodern Ethics, London: Routledge, Quote taken from John Urry, The Tourist Gaze, SecondEdition (1990, reprinted in 2006).

3 This is Our Homeland, A collection of essays on the betrayal of adivasi rights in India, EQUATIONS, July 2007.

4 View received during EQUATIONS interaction with the people who had gathered for the Annual convention of the JharkhandJangal Bachao Andolan- a Movement to Save the Forests of Jharkhand.

5 Drought, Recession and Relief, Business Line, Sep 18, 2009, http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2009/09/18/stories/2009091850180900.htm

6 Nearly Half of Karnataka is Drought Hit, says minister, Thaindian News August 22nd, 2008, http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/nearly-half-of-karnataka-is-drought-hit-says-minister_10087518.html

7 A Hindu religious festival that has it’s roots to the rulers of the former princely state of Mysore, Karnataka, India.

8 People’s Festival No More, Sundar Vattan, Spectrum, Deccan Herald, 15 September 09.

9 Mysore gets ready for historic Dasara, By Team Mangalorean Mysore, Mysore Sept 18,2009, http://mangalorean.com/news.php?newstype=local&newsid=146284

10 Sustainability In Tourism, A Rural Tourism Model, Review Report, September 2008, EQUATIONS.

Endnotes

Campaign Statement - Our Culture is not for Sale!

66


To,

Smt. J.Geeta ReddyFDC & Tourism MinisterDepartment of Tourism, I & PR,Government of Andhra Pradesh,Hyderabad

Dear Ms. Reddy

Sub: Sea cruise from Vizag to Andaman

EQUATIONS is a research, advocacy, and campaigning organisation working since 1985 on theimpacts of tourism, particularly in terms of rights and benefits to local communities. We envisiontourism that is non-exploitative, sustainable, where decision-making is democratised and access toand benefits of tourism are equitably distributed.

The Business Standard dated 16th June 2009 reported in the article ‘AP proposes sea cruise fromVizag to Andaman’, the plans of the Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation to promotecruise tourism to the fragile Andaman Islands. Please find enclosed the article in the Business standard.

We are quite concerned about this development as research the world over has shown that cruisetourism brings along with it many more problems than benefits. We have enclosed a note detailingthem. Cruise tourism – needs a more careful scrutiny in terms of its:-

Contribution to the local economy –Even though cruise tourism has the potential to attract a large number of tourists at atime, most of these tourists tend to spend more onboard the cruise liners; as a result thelocal communities are not benefitted.

Environmental implications -Cruise tourism requires heavy infrastructure development. The appropriateness of this as atourism product needs to be questioned given the limited availability of resources be it landor raw material for construction etc, particularly on the fragile islands.

High volume of tourists who come for a short duration increases the demands for energy, waterconsumption. Carrying capacity of the islands is also an issue here.

Solid and liquid waste is a serious threat to the ecosystem of the Islands, given thedischarge of waste and sewage by ships directly into the marine waters and the absenceof adequate waste management practises.

Air and water pollution due to ships docking at multiple points on the ports also needsto be dealt with adequate caution to prevent pollution of coastal areas and waters. The exhaustemissions and ballast water from ships are a significant cause of air and water pollution.

Letter to Smt. J. Geeta Reddy, TourismMinister, Andhra Pradesh on Concernsabout the proposed Sea Cruise fromVizag to Andaman26 June 2009

67

Letter to Smt. J. Geeta Reddy, Tourism Minister, Andhra Pradesh on Concerns about the proposed Sea Cruise from Vizag to Andaman

Promoting increased connectivity to the islands without attention to climate change impacts onthe Islands is a short sighted strategy.

In a joint research study in 2008 (in collaboration with INTACH, Society for Andaman and NicobarEcology, Kalpavriksh, Tata Institute of Social Sciences and, Action Aid) on the impacts of tourismon the ecologically and geologically sensitive Islands, highlighted many concerns related to unplannedtourism. The research ‘Rethink Tourism in the Andamans – Towards Building a Base for SustainableTourism’ shows how current ways of developing tourism has failed to take into consideration theaspirations of the local communities and is causing environmental problems on the islands. There is anurgent need to ensure environmentally sound practises for the preservation of Andaman’s ecology.

We urge you to read this report that is enclosed along with this letter.

The IP & T department is quite aware of the study. We also have copied in this letter Shri. Bishnu PadaRay, MP from Andaman & Nicobar Islands as we are very glad to note he has raised very pertinentquestions on the nature of tourism in the Islands in the first session of the Parliament in June 2009.

We therefore think it is essential that the promotion of cruise tourism be reconsidered owing to itsnegative environmental and economic impacts on the Andaman and Nicobar islands in light of theproblems already existing on the Islands.

Sincerely,Rosemary ViswanathChief Functionary

EnclosedAP proposes sea cruise from Vizag to Andaman’, Business Standard, 16 June 2009, 1 copyRethink Tourism in the Andamans –Towards Building a Base for Sustainable Tourism, 1 CDNote on Cruise Tourism.

CC ToShri. Bishnu Pada Ray, MP, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, New Delhi.Shri. Binay Bhushan, Director, IP & T (Tourism Division), Andaman and Nicobar IslandsShri. G. G. Saxena, Secretary, IP & T (Tourism Division), Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

Enclosure 1Source <http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/ap-proposes-sea-cruisevizag-to-andaman/361153/>

AP proposes sea cruise from Vizag to Andaman

BS Reporter / Chennai/ Hyderabad June 16, 2009, 0:24 IST

The Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation (APTDC) is exploring the possibility ofintroducing a cruise from Visakhapatnam to Andaman and Nicobar islands to attract more tourists,according to tourism minister J Geeta Reddy.

APTDC would buy a cruise ship that could accommodate about 100 tourists. Though the project wasproposed last year, it made no progress.

Geeta Reddy said the newly approved Cruise Tourism Policy had opened up huge potential for cruisetourism. APTDC would be the first tourism body to introduce a luxury sea cruise liner.

Enclosure 2Note on Cruise TourismWe are reproducing herein some of the findings and recommendations from our study of tourism andits impacts in the Andamans Islands and our analysis of cruise tourism based on experiences ofcruise tourism industry in the Caribbean islands.

68


Part 1: Study of Tourism in the Andaman IslandsSerious consideration is being given to the development of the Andaman Islands as a cruisetourism destination. In order to step up infrastructure facilities at Port Blair and create adequatespace and facilities for docking of large cruise liners, the Port Management Board is operationalisinga proposal of revamping the Port Blair Harbour and jetty.

It has been reported that exhaust emissions from ships are a significant source of air pollution.“Seagoing vessels are responsible for an estimated 14 percent of emissions of nitrogen from fossilfuels and 16 percent of the emissions of sulphur from petroleum uses into the atmosphere. E.g. inEurope ships make up a large percentage of sources of sulphur in the air, “…as much sulphur asall the cars, lorries and factories in Europe put together “By 2010, up to 40% of air pollution overland could come from ships.”

The boats that ferry tourists to various tourist locations in the Andamans invariably end up spilling oiland diesel into the sea. This is especially noticed near jetties where the boats are docked. While theproblem may not be very serious today, increased number of boats would have an adverse impacton the marine ecosystems mainly from leakage of oil, grease and dumping of sewage

For long term sustainability of tourism in Andamans, the A&NI Administration and tourism industrywill have to focus on small-scale ecologically sensitive, nature-based, low-volume tourism and sayno to infrastructure-heavy, high-volume tourism. Increased airports, cruise ships, more roads, moreboats, helicopters, amusement parks, permanent constructions and large capacity hotels are thekind of trends that the islands must clearly refrain from. Current infrastructure requirements of thetourism sector need to be accurately ascertained and future requirements outlaid based onconsiderations of their impacts rather than mere allocations of infrastructure projects and schemes.The sewage uses up dissolved oxygen in water and thus makes less of it available to the marineorganisms. The ballast water also has lot of oil and grease which will affect the ecosystems asmentioned above.

Another impact of boats is the damage to coral reefs by dropping of anchors.

The plans of making the islands a part of a cruise tourism circuit in the country need to bereconsidered from economic, environmental and social aspects. Experiences from the world’smost popular cruise destinations such as the Caribbean Islands point to the paltry gains thatcruise tourism brings to local communities as all expenditure is made on board and there is little“trickling down” to them. In addition, cruise ships bring large numbers of tourists for a short duration,which will have implications on the carrying capacity of the location.

Part 2: Experience From Cruise Tourism in the Caribbean’sWe would like to caution the government of the need to carefully monitor and regulate cruisetourism activities in the light of experiences of some of the world’s most popular cruise destinations inthe Caribbean. The experience with cruise tourism of international destinations like the Caribbeanreveals that

Revenue spent on cruises often does not translate into local economy benefit.

Cruise vessels make significant demands of port infrastructure. All ports need not be subjected tothis sort of intense physical infrastructure construction without certainty of whether it will prove atthe minimum economically viable or will simply distribute the traffic across different ports. Theecological impacts of large cruise vessels docking at multiple points in the coast and the relatedwater and air pollution are also factors to be considered. Also, while it is accepted that water is thecheapest mode of transport, there needs to be a clear distinction made between cruise tourismand the use of internal water resources for inland navigation. The use of inland water bodies needsto privilege needs of local communities for navigation and other purposes and like, use of coastalbeach stretches need to ensure access of local fishing communities to the sea.

69

Cruise Tourism directly competes with local land-based tourism establishments, often to thedetriment of the latter. This is due to

Direct benefits that cruise tourism brings to the local economies is lesser than land-basedtourism as cruise ships use local resources and employ local people to a lesser degree thanland based activities do.Cruises usually operate as package tours which provide the entire tourism experience of thedestination on board the ship itself including shopping for local handicrafts and souvenirs,tasting the local cuisine and experiencing the local art and culture. This severely constrainstourists from touring the actual destination physically and through this limits theirfinancial contribution to the local economy. Even if the ship docks and tourists are allowed toexplore the area, this is usually limited to the port area only.Their economic power has also enabled cruise ships to benefit from perpetrating false mythsamong passengers about the safety of the destination and thereby encouraging them to continuestaying aboard. Some authors elucidate the point by highlighting that the major revenue-earnerfor cruise ships is on-board revenues that approximate US $ 300 per passenger per day. In orderto increase the same, cruise ships were allowed to open bars, casinos and shops while theyremained docked. Caribbean Cruise companies also provide unique products to theircustomers by taking them to ‘fantasy islands’, which are off limits for everybody but theirpassengers and crew. The oligopolistic structure of the industry has also limited the ability ofsmall local entrepreneurs to make inroads into the mammoth billion-dollar industry and gainmeaningfully from it. Three giants – Royal Caribbean, Carnival Corporation and Princess had acombined revenue figure of US $ 11.5 million in 2002 indicating the extent of monopoly profitsmade. Additionally, cruise ships also result in large expenses for the government exchequer toprovide adequate port infrastructure.

There is also now growing evidence to support the fact that alongside the Caribbean’s growingcruise ship industry is the problem of unsightly and hazardous pollution mounting on seafloors, in harbours and in coastal areas. Most pollution occurs because of the legal or illegaldumping of waste by ships into ocean waters, which are then carried by strong winds tothe shores of islands. In a smaller portion but equally harmful is the pollution that ships cause atharbours and coastal areas while docked. International cruise ship pollution is governed by theMARPOL (Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and other Matter) Protocol while oceandumping of waste is controlled by the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution byDumping of Wastes and other Materials that permits ships to dump shredded glass and tinand treat food waste into the oceans. But although most cruises are registered in countriesthat are signatories to these international conventions, few ships actually have installed technologyto treat their wastes aboard before dumping them into the sea.

Another interesting point to note is that even though governments are aware of the magnitude of theproblem, most Caribbean countries themselves are not signatories to these conventions. This isbecause, the attempt to clean up the ocean, has also put extra strain on land-based facilitiesof islands and countries are aware that signing MARPOL would oblige them to set up waste disposalmechanisms on land to treat the wastes brought in by ships. In parallel, Cruise ships can mitigatethe problem by following a ‘Zero Discharge’ policy, but most are hesitant to execute this as this wouldinvolve losing out valuable room space on board the ship to install treatment plants. The cruise shipindustry is also clear that even if it might make financial contributions towards waste disposal mechanismson shore, there would be no commitment for the inevitable transportation to and management oflandfills, or technical support to deal with other waste management concerns.

Regulating cruise ship pollution is further impeded by the ambiguity concerning theregistration of many liners. This complicates matters as many cruise ships choose toregister or flag their ships outside their country of origin in order to take advantage of taxincentives and cheaper labour for their crew. Such ambiguity over registration makes penalisationdifficult in cases where the law has held the ships guilty of polluting waters. Against this context,the government needs to re-think its cruise tourism strategy and ensure the environmentaland economic sustainability of it as a model for local development through tourism.

Letter to Smt. J. Geeta Reddy, Tourism Minister, Andhra Pradesh on Concerns about the proposed Sea Cruise from Vizag to Andaman

70


Letter for improving availability ofinformation on environmental clearanceLetters on the MoEF Website

30 September 2009

This is our letter to Shri. Jairam Ramesh, Minister of State, Ministry of Environment & Forests,demanding transparency and public access in environment clearance process. Media reports thatthe MoEF revamped its website in July 2009 to improve transparency in the environment clearanceprocess. Reasons raised are: unavailability of environmental clearance letters of projects cleared bythe Ministry, data deficiency on ‘new construction projects and industrial estates’ project category onMoEF’s revamped website as on July 2009, no data on projects denied environmental clearance andinaccurate listing of projects cleared.

Shri. Jairam Ramesh,Minister of State,Ministry of Environment & Forests,Paryavaran Bhawan,C.G.O Complex, Lodhi Road,New Delhi – 110003.

Sub: Regarding availability of information on environmental clearance letters on the Ministry ofEnvironment & Forests website.

Dear Shri. Ramesh,

EQUATIONS is a research, advocacy, and campaigning organisation working since 1985 on theimpacts of tourism, particularly in terms of rights and benefits to local communities. We work towardstourism that is non-exploitative, sustainable, where decision-making is democratised and access toand benefits of tourism are equitably distributed.

It was reported in the article titled ‘Environmental clearance process made more transparent’, BusinessLine, dated 21st July 2009, that the Ministry was taking steps to increase transparency in theenvironmental clearance process (enclosed). This included making available the environmentalclearance letters on the Ministry’s website. In addition, your answer to Mr. Mahendra Mohan’s questionin the Rajya Sabha, dated 20th July 2009, on ensuring transparency in environment clearance process,points to the public and the Members of Parliament that information on the status of pending projectsand environmental clearance letters have been made available on the Ministry’s website (enclosed).

However, till date on accessing the Ministry’s website <http://www.envfor.nic.in/>, the environmentalclearance letters are unavailable for a large number of projects that have been cleared by the Ministry.The revamped website continues to be data deficient, especially in the case of ‘new constructionprojects and industrial estates’ project category. The environment clearance letters are unavailablefor atleast 70 projects under the same category. On accessing the environment clearance letters of

Letter to Shri. Jairam Ramesh, Minister of State,Ministry of Environment & Forests

71

these projects all that is displayed are one-line statements such as, ‘this project has been approved’or ‘null’ or ‘project cleared’ or ‘there is no letter’.

On accessing all project categories, the year wise listing of the projects is inaccurate and not accordingto the year in which clearances were applied for or granted. Also, much of the data prior to the year2004 is missing.

The website does not provide any listing of projects that were denied environmental clearance. Thisinformation was available on the Ministry’s website before it was revamped in July 2009. For ensuringtransparency, it is equally important to provide information on projects that were denied a clearanceby the Ministry and to put their letters stating the reasons for denial on the website.

Due to all the above problems in the website it is extremely difficult to find any appropriate data. Werequest you to look into these problems and ensure the promised transparency.

Sincerely,Shweta NarayanProgramme Associate

Enclosed1. Business Line, Environmental clearance process made more transparent, 21 July 2009.2. Response to Question number 1682, Rajya Sabha, 20th July 2009.

Copy to1. Shri. Vijai Sharma, Secretary, MoEF

Enclosure no. 1Environmental Clearance Process Made More Transparent

Business Line, Business Daily from THE HINDU group of publicationsTuesday, Jul 21, 2009Our Bureau

New Delhi, July 20 The Ministry of Environment and Forests has decided to put information regardingthe clearance process on its Web site to increase transparency of the process.

Information relating to status of pending projects, schedule and agenda of the meeting of Expert AppraisalCommittees (EAC), minutes of the EAC meeting, environmental clearance letters, and circulars andguidelines relating to Environmental Clearance would be available on the Ministry Web site.

The Minister of Environment and Forests, Mr Jairam Ramesh, also told Parliament that the LowerPainganga Project in Maharashtra was accorded the environmental and in-principle forest clearancein May 2007 and February 2009 respectively.

He added that two Special Economic Zone (SEZ) projects are awaiting environment clearance fromGujarat. For the “PhaEZ Park” SEZ project requisite information had been received and proposalwould be included in the Expert Appraisal Committee for New Construction Projects and IndustrialEstates meeting scheduled to be held in August 2009. The SEZ project at Dahej is yet to submit thesite map, including areas falling under the Coastal Regulation Zone.

Source:Business Line, ‘Environmental clearance process made more transparent’,<http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2009/07/21/stories/2009072151741500.htm>, 21st July 2009.

Letter for Improving Availability of Information on Environmental Clearance Letters on the MoEF Website

72


Enclosure no. 2Government of IndiaMinistry of Environment and ForestsRajya SabhaQuestion no 1682Answered on 20.07.2009

Violation of Rules in Environmental Clearances1682 Shri Mahendra MohanWill the Minister of Environment and Forests be pleased to satate:

(a) whether several NGOs have urged Government to look into the violation of rules while givingenvironmental clearances;

(b) if so, the details thereof;(c) whether Government proposes to ensure transparency in the environmental clearance process;

and(d) if so, the details thereof?

AnswerMinister Of State (Independent Charge) For Environment & Forests

(Shri Jai Ram Ramesh)

(a) & (b) Ministry in the past, received some communications from NGOs complaining about theviolation of rules regarding matters such as non-implementation of conditions stipulated in theenvironment clearance letter, non adherence to the prescribed standards, change in scope of theproject and change of project location. The complaints regarding violations are duly examined andwherever necessary, site inspections are got conducted through the Regional Offices of this Ministryas also the Central / State / Union Territory Pollution Control Boards. Inputs from the respective StateGovernments are also obtained whenever required. The matters like those relating to change ofscope of the project or change of location, any complaints received before the grant of EnvironmentClearance (EC) are referred to the Expert Appraisal Committees for obtaining their recommendationsbefore taking a decision.

(c) & (d) In order to increase transparency in the clearance process, the information has been put inpublic domain, through the website of the Ministry, relating to

(i) status of pending projects,(ii) schedule and agenda of the meeting of Expert Appraisal Committees (EACs),(iii) minutes of the EAC meeting,(iv) Environmental Clearance letters and(v) circulars, guidelines, instructions relating to Environmental Clearance.

Source: <http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/>

73

The Economic Times, dated 27.10.09 and Times of India, Bangalore edition, dated 29.10.09 reportedthat the Ministry of Railways plans to add exclusive coaches for foreign tourists in normal trains. Theidea of ‘exclusive’ coaches for foreigners, in our opinion, is deep rooted in imperialism, racism andcasteism. We do not object to better facilities in general, but object to exclusive facilities on the basisof nationality and citizenship.

Kumari Mamata BanerjeeMinister of RailwaysRail Bhavan,1 Raisina RoadNew Delhi- 110001

Sub: Railway’s plan on exclusive coaches for foreigners

Ref: “To earn more revenue, railways plan exclusive coaches for foreigners”, Economic Times 27.10.09and Times of India dated 29.10.09

Dear Madam,

We learn from media reports in Economic Times, dated 27.10.09 and Times of India, Bangaloreedition, dated 29.10.09 that the Ministry of Railways plans to add exclusive coaches for foreign touristsin normal trains (news article enclosed with this letter). According to the news report ShriShuvaprasanna, Chairman Public Amenities Committee, Ministry of Railways, Government of India,is quoted as saying “the railway ministry was very positive to the committee’s recommendation”.

Madam, we are deeply shocked at this proposal.

To introduce ourselves, EQUATIONS, is a research, advocacy, and campaigning organisation workingsince 1985 on the impacts of tourism, particularly in terms of rights and benefits to local communities.We envision tourism that is non-exploitative, sustainable, where decision-making is democratisedand access to and benefits of tourism are equitably distributed. www.equitabletourism.org

The idea of ‘exclusive’ coaches for foreigners, in our opinion, is deep rooted in imperialism, racismand casteism. Is the present government and your Ministry taking our country back to the colonial-erawhen such exclusive spaces for the British ruling class had boards like ‘No Indians and Dogs allowed’.The Ministry of Railways seems to have forgotten about how the ‘Father of the Nation’, MahatmaGandhi had decided to fight the colonial forces on experiencing similar discrimination on a train inSouth Africa. In 1893, Gandhiji booked a first-class train ticket to Johannesburg – and was thrown outof the coach because he was black. Today, when the country still struggles to ensure that millions ofits citizens have protection against various forms of discrimination still prevalent in large measure inthe country – the most prominent basis being caste, religion, gender and minority status - this step bythe Ministry of Railways is retrograde and shameful. We are not objecting to better facilities in general,we are objecting to exclusive facilities on the basis of nationality and citizenship. We believe that sucha move can even be challenged constitutionally.

Letter to Smt. Mamata Banerjee, Ministerof Railways Against Railway’s plan on

exclusive coaches for foreigners2 November 2009

74


If foreign tourists wish to experience India, we think they should experience the real India – not spacesthat are “sanitised from reality” and where the citizens of the country have no access! What kind ofvision of Incredible India is this?

We urge the Ministry to reverse this move with immediate effect.

Sincerely,Rosemary ViswanathChief FunctionaryEQUATIONS

Copied toKumari Selja , Minister of TourismShri Mukul Balkrishna Wasnik, Minister of Social Justice and Empowerment

To Earn More Revenue, Rlys Plan Exclusive Coaches for Foreignershttp://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/5166782.cms27 Oct 2009

Mahendra Kumar Singh, NEW DELHI

Soon, a smart well-dressed girl will welcome foreign travellers in coaches exclusively reserved forthem in trains passing through tourist destinations.

The railways seems to be bullish on the prospects of attracting foreign tourists as the ministry isconsidering a proposal to add exclusive coaches for foreign travellers with better facilities to attracttourists and earn money.

As luxury trains have added a new dimension to the country’s tourism landscape, railways now wantsto promote tourism through normal trains by adding designer coaches with better facilities. The ambitiousplan to earn forex aims to develop tour packages connecting tourist places with trains and luxuriousbuses keeping foreign tourists in mind for whom money is not a constraint.

To attract foreign travellers, these coaches will be designed to have more leg space, ergonomicallydesigned seats and toilets, wider sleeping berths and aesthetic interiors.

“The railway ministry was very positive to the committee’s recommendation,” said Shuvaprasanna,chairman, public amenities committee (PAC) and close associate of railway minister Mamata Banerjee.

“We want bigger window panes in these coaches like most foreign trains so that travellers can enjoythe country’s natural landscape,” Shuvaprasanna said. As of now, tourists can enjoy such lavishfacilities only in luxury tourist trains — Palace On Wheels, Deccan Odyssey, Royal Rajasthan onWheels, Fairy Queen and The Golden Chariot . Now, the plan is to extend it to other trains too.

The proposal envisages having well dressed attendants — young girls and boys — to make tourists’journey more pleasant. The new coaches will also have mobile charging facilities in each cabin andpoints to connect laptops.

The high profile committee has also suggested having call-bell facilities in toilets to assist elderly andsick passengers.

There are also plans to promote tourism through rail in foreign countries by making literature, leafletsand brochures available in major cities in Europe, US and South-East Asia, the places of hightourist inflow. “We want domestic tourism to be managed in a more professional way,” the PACchairman said.

75

4 November 2009

Letter to Editor Times of IndiaAgainst “Railways Plan Exclusive

Coaches for Foreigners”

The Editor,Times of India40/1, S&B TowersMG Road (Near Barton Centre)Bangalore 560 001

Sub: Letter to Minister of Railways against “Railways plan exclusive coaches for Foreigners” as wasreported in your news paper, Times of India, Bangalore Edition, Dated 28th October 09, Page 13.

Dear Madam/Sir,

This is to bring to your notice that we have sent a protest letter to Kumari Mamata Banerjee, Ministerof Railways, Government of India against the proposed plan of the Ministry of Railway to addexclusive coaches for foreigners in normal trains. This was based on the news article “Railwaysplan exclusive coaches for Foreigners” as was reported in your news paper, Times of India, BangaloreEdition, Dated 28th October 09, Page 13. The letter (a Xerox copy of the same) is attached herewithfor our perusal.

EQUATIONS, is a research, advocacy, and campaigning organisation working since 1985 on theimpacts of tourism, particularly in terms of rights and benefits to local communities. We envisiontourism that is non-exploitative, sustainable, where decision-making is democratised and access toand benefits of tourism are equitably distributed. www.equitabletourism.org

The Ministry of Railways should reverse this move with immediate effect. We hope Times of IndiaGroup will take firm stand against the proposal and build public opinion against any such move by theMinistry of Railways.

Sincerely,

Ananya DasguptaProgramme CoordinatorGovernance, Law and Tourism ProgrammeEQUATIONS

Enclosed: The Letter to Kumari Mamata Banerjee, Minister of Railways, Government of India, dated02.11.09.

Copied to: Editor, Economic Times with reference to the news item “To earn more revenue, rlys planexclusive coaches for foreigners” in Economic Times, dated 27th October 09, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/5166782.cms.

76


Shri. Devendra Pandey,ChairpersonExperts Committee on Environmental Impacts of SSP, ISP and OSP

Sub: Environmental impacts of the proposed and initiated tourism developments at theSardar Sarovar Dam

Dear Shri. Pandey,

We have learnt that the Environmental Experts Committee is undertaking the important task ofunderstanding and reviewing the environmental impacts of the Sardar Sarovar and Indrasagar projectand coming out with its Interim Report. We write to place before the Committee some serious concernsrelated to tourism which we hope you will consider as an input to the Committee’s report.

To introduce ourselves, EQUATIONS is a research, advocacy, and campaigning organisation workingsince 1985 on the impacts of tourism, particularly in terms of rights and benefits to local communities.We envision tourism that is non-exploitative, sustainable, where decision-making is democratisedand access to and benefits of tourism are equitably distributed.

We are concerned about the tourism development proposed and initiated in the periphery of theSardar Sarovar Dam. In 1961, the Government of Gujarat acquired 1,600 acres of land from 950families of the six villages of Kevadia, Waghodia, Kothi, Limdi, Navagam and Gora, under “publicpurpose”. Of this 1400 acres remain unused. Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited (SSNNL) andthe newly constituted Kevadia Area development Authority (KADA), is now proposing a tourism projecton the adivasi land in an attempt to ‘present the dam site in its pristine and natural glory, with natureparks, planned gardens, woodlots, nature trails, an eco-museum and a panoramic view of the hillswhich will captivate the tourist and hold him in awe of the benefits provided by the project’. Towardsthis SSNNL had proposed to undertake massive tourism development. Initially these included hotels,cottages, water-park, golf course, convention centre, water sports activities and cruises in the 150 kmstretch of dam reservoir. In Phase 1 restaurant and food-court, low-cost accommodation, rose-garden,landscaping, souvenir and vendor stalls, 50 room hotels rooms and camping, adventure sports seemto be planned. However it is not clear if resource and infrastructure heavy facilities such as waterparks, golf courses, convention centres will come up in Phase 2 or are not on the plans any longer.Information about this is not available in the public domain. Neither is there any mention of assessingthe environmental impacts of these facilities.

Tourism rests heavily on availability of pristine natural resources. Unregulated tourism developmentis known to have negative environmental impacts caused by pollution, waste generation, dischargeof untreated waste into water bodies, large energy and water consumption requirements and tendto deplete ground water. This in turn puts at risk livelihoods of local communities who depend onthe natural resources for sustenance. As tourism grows the competition between tourism industry

Letter on Environmental Impacts of theProposed and Initiated TourismDevelopments at the Sardar Sarovar Dam

20 January 2010

Letter to Shri. Devendra Pandey, Chairperson, Experts Committee onEnvironmental Impacts of SSP, ISP and OSP

77

and local community for access to and use of natural resources increases. As the industry is biggerand more powerful it is usually vulnerable local communities that bear the ‘costs’ of such‘development’.

Tourism projects like golf courses, water parks are known to be infrastructure and resource useheavy. These are known to cause significant ground water depletion and pollution of water tables.Leisure and recreational activities such as those promoted in this area are also known to causeenvironmental damage, noise pollution, huge amounts of non-degradable waste when tourist numbersexceed carrying capacity of the sites. This sadly is a common enough feature of almost every populartourism site in our country. Therefore unless waterfront resorts, island restaurants, water sports,houseboats, cruises and adventure activities in the reservoir are regulated they can have significantnegative impacts on the ecology.

Thus our concerns are several:

1. Tourism is being planned and implemented without taking into account the rights, livelihood anddisplacement of local communities.

2. The nature of tourism products planned are infrastructure and resource heavy and do not seem toconsider their significant adverse environmental impacts. There is no evidence of prior assessmentof such impacts.

3. There is no evidence of studying and understanding the carrying capacity / limits of acceptablechange in terms of number of tourists visiting the region.

4. The concentration / density of the various tourism products offered within a small area will alsoadd to the negative environmental impacts.

Many of our concerns and suggestions come from our work on tourism impacts in different parts ofthe country. However in particular we would like to draw your attention to research Public Purposewhich is enclosed. While we have highlighted in this letter to you some of the concerns related toenvironmental issues our research covers many critical areas of human rights, participation of localcommunity and the role of panchayats. This report is also available in Gujarati and Hindi (available onour website www.equitabletourism.org).

We do hope that you will consider our inputs. We would be happy to respond to any queries /clarifications.

Sincerely,

Aditi ChanchaniCoordinator Programmes

Enclosed1. EQUATIONS (2008), ‘Public Purpose?’2. EQUATIONS (2009), Public Purpose? Update – March 2009

Letter on Environmental Impacts of the Proposed and Initiated Tourism Developments at the Sardar Sarovar Dam

78


Comments to MoEF on Draft SummaryReport of the World Bank Assisted IntegratedCoastal Zone Management Project28 December 2009

This is our letter to Shri. Senthil Vel, Additional Director, Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF),demanding that proceedings on Integrated Coastal Zone Management Project (ICZM) should stopuntil the public consultations on Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification are completed. Thepublic consultations were started by the MoEF to strengthen the CRZ Notification following the lapseof the draft Coastal Management Zone (CMZ) Notification, 2008. The MoEF had invited publiccomments on the Draft Summary Report of (ICZM) Project to be piloted in three states of Gujarat,Orissa and West Bengal.The backdoor entry of the ICZM is unethical.

Dr. A. Senthil Vel,Additional Director,Ministry of Environment & Forests,Paryavaran Bhavan, New Delhi.

Sub: Comments on the Draft Summary Report of the World Bank Assisted Integrated Coastal ZoneManagement Project Environment & Social Assessment

Dear Dr. Senthil,

Greetings from EQUATIONS!

We are deeply concerned on the move by the Ministry of Environment & Forests to go ahead inbuilding national capacity for implementation of the new integrated management approach for India’scoastal zones and piloting the Integrated Coastal Zone Management ICZM) approach in three statesof Gujarat, Orissa and West Bengal.

The very concept of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) was pushed in the terms of referencegiven to Dr. Swaminathan Committee which was constituted by MoEF in July 2004 to review thereports of various committees appointed by the MoEF on coastal zone management, internationalpractises and suggest the scientific principles for an integrated coastal zone management best suitedfor the country. Based on this Dr. Swaminathan Committee recommended for the integrated coastalzone management approach in February 2005. The draft Coastal Management Zone (CMZ) Notification,2008 which again mooted the idea of ICZM was then widely critiqued by associations, movement andnetworks of coastal community and civil society organisations, fish workers forum, academicorganisations and UN agencies on its claims of being scientific and trying to infuse scientific aspectsin coastal protection with integrated coastal zone management processes.

After the Ministry lapsing the draft CMZ notification on 22nd July 2009 and holding consultations forstrengthening the existing CRZ notification, the push for the implementation of ICZM projects throughback door is unethical. We understand from the World Bank website that the idea of this project wasinitiated in 2007 itself.

We are enclosing our comments on the Draft Summary Report of the World Bank Assisted IntegratedCoastal Zone Management Project Environment & Social Assessment while we urge you to stop anyproceedings on this project until the consultations on CRZ to strengthen it are through.

Sincerely,

Saroop Roy B.R.EQUATIONS

79

Comments to the Draft Summary Report of the World Bank Assisted Integrated CoastalZone Management Project Environment & Social Assessment28.12.2009

This brief paper is our comments to the Ministry of Environment and Forests on the Draft SummaryReport of the World Bank Assisted Integrated Coastal Zone Management Project’ Environment andSocial Assessment.

The Central government move to build national capacity for implementation of the new integratedmanagement approach for India’s coastal zones and piloting the Integrated Coastal Zone Management(ICZM) approach in the three states of Gujarat, Orissa and West Bengal is dubious with the draftCoastal Management Zone (CMZ) Notification lapsing in 2009. The concept of Integrated CoastalZone Management Plan was mooted in the draft CMZ Notification. Civil society groups have raisedconcerns on the CMZ notification and the need to strengthen the existing CRZ notification. Point no.8 of the draft summary of the World Bank assisted ICZM says the ‘GoI has already initiated stepsto operationalize one part of the agenda, which is to create a suitable policy environment forintegrated management of coastal and marine area’. Allowing commercial activities in the coast andthen manage them is in sharp conflict to the philosophy of CRZ Notification, conservation of the coast.Although the MoEF has allowed the lapse of the proposed CMZ notification, the process to strengthenthe existing CRZ notification by taking in the concerns of the coastal communities, initiated by theMoEF is yet to be completed in all the proposed 10 states. Then the need for ICZM projects in pilotstates for replication at national level is contradictory.

Project Description

Mapping, delineation and demarcation of hazard line: The hazard line proposed here is to be determinedon the basis of vulnerability of the coast to sea level rise, coastal erosion and flooding, and thus bearssimilarity to the setback line proposed in the draft CMZ Notification. Therefore it is not definite and willvary from place to place even within Panchayat limits. ‘Multi stakeholder opinions on setback linesraised in various consultations on CMZ should also be addressed by the MoEF, before demarcation ofthe hazard lines’. In the stakeholder meetings conducted by CEE (9th August 2008) on behalf ofMoEF in Tamil Nadu, concerns of setback line overtaking rights of local Panchayats were raised. It isimportant to address these concerns to prevent violation of 73rd and 74th Amendment and usurpationof rights bestowed on Local Self Governing Institutions. In Kerala Meeting 13 August 2008, Dr. N. R.Menon had said “setback line, which is to be based on data of about 100 years, it should be noted thatthe temperature in the tropics 100 years back was 4 degrees less. It is likely to increase by at least 4degrees in another 100 years. Hence it will have to be reviewed periodically in view of the climatechange phenomenon and cannot be fixed permanently.” Over all the consultations have a commondemand, for taking into consideration the concerns of the local communities while deciding the setbackline. Moreover the Ministry of Agriculture has said that the definition of setback line is ambiguous andtherefore could easily be misinterpreted1 .

Mapping, delineation and demarcation, as required, of the ESAs: The report says that contiguousareas containing ESAs within the coastal management zone will be designated as CRZ-I and MoEFwill assume the management responsibilities of the area. With the MoEF taking full control of theplanning, decision making and implementation of projects in the region, in the case of ESAs in forestareas, the rights of the Grama Sabha passing resolution recommending whose rights to which resourcesshould be recognised granted through Forest Rights Act is apprehended.

Piloting ICZM approaches in Gujarat, West Bengal & OrissaThe pilot areas proposed for World Bank aided implementation of ICZM are in states of Gujarat,Orissa and West Bengal. Interestingly these are also the states which are pushing for investmentled development by effecting changes to make investor friendly reforms and has already takenfinancial aid from World Bank for different projects. The ICZM project seeks to use tourism also as

Comments to MoEF On Draft Summary Report of the World Bank Assisted Integrated Coastal Zone Management Project

80


tool to create livelihood opportunities for local communities. Interestingly, in West Bengal the stategovernment in this year has already commissioned the World Bank to undertake an ecotourism andsustainable tourism potential assessment of Sundarbans National Park and surrounding areas todevelop an implementable tourism development plan within the World Bank’s social and environmentsafeguards framework.

The pilot sites in the chosen states are not only eco-sensitive but also witnessing massive tourismgrowth. For example Chilika in Orissa, Sunderbans in West Bengal. Therefore the question of choosingthese states and sites appears to be more investment oriented than of conservation. The map showingICZM Project India indicates that one of the targeted areas is in the border areas adjoining Orissa andWest Bengal. That is the area where Mandarmani is located - a coastal village that is experiencing asurge in tourism investment since last few years. Rampant exploitation of the coast by the tourismindustry is evident from reports in the state and the state government have completely failed in stoppingany of these violations.

Through the ICZM project the government proposes to use ecotourism and tourism for providinglivelihood security to fisher communities. The proposal acknowledges (Point nos. 3 & 5), the detrimentalimpacts of tourism and unplanned growth of tourism infrastructure on the coastal ecology such asdegradation of the coasts, conflicts amongst stakeholders and increase pressure on coastal areas.However it again adopts tourism (small scale or ecotourism) to provide livelihood security to coastalcommunities who are most vulnerable to not only developmental activities but also to effects of climatechange. Tourism is seasonal and vulnerable to external and internal impacts like disasters (tsunami,earthquake) health epidemics like SARS or chikungunya, political tensions (riots and terror threats)etc. In such circumstances, often it is the tourism initiatives by local people who are the first affectedeither by a loss of employment or steep income reductions. In that case the role of the government willbe to put in efforts towards strengthening primary sources of income like fisheries and not promotingtourism as a secured livelihood option. More over tourism is an industry that requires specialisedskills in marketing and its promotion and opening up sectors like tourism for the coastal communitiesunder the circumstances is not advisable.

There is also lack of clarity in the agency implementing livelihood security of the local communities inWest Bengal. There exists no such Corporation as “Sunderbans Development Corporation” asmentioned in the report who is designated to undertake a pilot work in Shore line protection in southernend of Sagar islands. The project is keen on establishing linkages with Development Corporationsand Development Authorities but not with local self governance institutions, except with JamnagarMunicipal Corporation, at Jamnagar, Gujarat. The model of Development Authorities fits well with theInternational Financial Institutions arguing for a centralised system towards administration of powerand decision making!

It proposes to ‘facilitate investment in financing conservation of the ecologically sensitive areasover the current state of regulatory protection only’. With the statement we assume that thegovernment plans to introduce market driven conservation approach – ecotourism in these areas. It ispositive to note that the project questions the possibility of the ICZM resulting loss of livelihoods andtraditional access to coastal areas and marine resources. The ICZM seeks to secure livelihoods oflocal communities by making planning of the ICZM a participatory process based on wide stakeholderconsultations. Consultations on environmental and social assessments with stakeholders in all 3States have pointed out that ecotourism can lead to conflicts, air, noise and water pollution (oil spillfrom boats) and biodiversity loss if not planned properly. They also highlight on a priority wastemanagement in ecotourism areas. Particularly in West Bengal ‘tourist accommodation and Wastedisposal system during festival periods is not managed properly now creating pollution’. Thequestion thus arise, is ecotourism a tool for conservation and livelihoods or additional pressure oncoastal ecosystems.

81

Environment and Social Assessment ProcessThe Project summary states that the pilot states have prepared detailed project reports containingenvironmental and social impact assessments for the investment areas. These are not availablein the project summary and therefore should be made available to local communities and publicfor wide debate.

The key highlight of the environment and social assessment conducted by Centre for Environmentand Development, Thiruvananthapuram states that, “the major issue of the exposure of thecurrently protected ecologically sensitive areas to exploitation if decentralized planning andmanagement of coastal zones is accepted”. Contrary to this, the demand by fisher folk communitiesfor involvement in activities to check sea erosion, being not consulted by government even thoughthey are worst effected, shows that people are willing to participate in conservation activities if theyare provided the platforms to participate2 .

General commentsOnly the project summary is available on the MoEF website and not the entire report as said in thenotice. For public debate these should be made available on website and at regional governmentoffices for public access.

A good point which is acknowledged by the project is that it supports strengthening of the existingCRZ Notification, 1991.

The Government of India recognising one of the three prime objectives of ICZM plans as to ensurethat livelihood of the coastal communities is secured is commendable.

The project summary has taken into consideration only the consultations conducted by CEE onbehalf of MoEF till 2008 in different states. However other major public’s opposition to the CMZnotification that resulted in the consequent lapse of the CMZ notification is not taken intoconsideration.

The management approach adopted by the ICZM is not in line with the existing regulatory frameworkeffected by the CRZ notification. Therefore the proposal of the MoEF to implement a project that isbased on the parameters of the lapsed CMZ notification is contrary to the MoEF’s decisions andagainst larger opinions of the public.

You may reproduce this paper/publication in whole or in part for educational, advocacy or not-for-profit purposes. We would appreciate acknowledging EQUATIONS as the source and letting usknow of the use.

1 Ministry of Environment and Forests (2009), ‘FINAL FRONTIER, Agenda to protect the ecosystem and habitat of India’scoast for conservation and livelihood security’, Annexure III, Ministry of Environment and Forests, July 16, 2009, NewDelhi, Pg 33,draft Coastal Management Zone (CMZ).<http://www.ceeindia.org/cee/pdf_files/Review%20Committee%20Report%20on%20CMZ.pdf > , data retrieved 23December 2009.

2 http://www.hinduonnet.com/2009/11/19/stories/2009111954350200.htm

Endnotes

Comments to MoEF On Draft Summary Report of the World Bank Assisted Integrated Coastal Zone Management Project

82


11 June 2009

Press Release: Child Labour:An Ugly Face of Tourism Exploitationof Children Through Labour in Tourism

Bangalore, India – India has the distinction of the largest number of working children in the worldtoday. As per International Labour Organization official statistics working children in India is about12.6 million children.

Tourism is one of the fastest growing sectors in India and has received much impetus from thegovernment as it is seen as a major contributor to the economy. But close scrutiny reveals that tourismhas various social, economic, cultural and environmental impacts. Tourism by nature is resourceconsumptive, both natural and human resource. The ban on employment of children in domestic andhospitality sector imposed by the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India in 2006 isan acknowledgement of the fact that tourism as an industry has extensively exploited child labour.Tourism and hospitality sector has been recognised as one of the hazardous sectors where childrenshould not be employed.

It is widespread to see children in the tourism sector working in abysmal conditions in small restaurantsand shacks, selling curios and trinkets in tourism areas and beaches, rag pickers, tourist guides, orbegging rich tourists for money. In hotels, children work as bell-boys, waiters and waitresses, maids,house keeping workers while in catering, many are kitchen helpers or dish-washers or servers. Childrenalso work as masseurs and prostitutes. In the travel business they work as porters and coolies, cleanersand assistants and for carrying loads on treks. Most of these children work in extremely difficultworking conditions. These children do not have protection for their long strained working hours whichis in most cases under unhealthy and dangerous conditions and also most often under intimidation.This results in poor physical and psychological health of the children. Children involved in tourismrelated work run extra risk of being sexually exploited due to constant exposure and involvement withstrangers, many of whom often frequent places with the intention of exploiting children. For instance,children employed in roadside eateries and highway dhabas come in contact with both locals andtourists. In the process they are exposed to sexual abuse and drug abuse and thereby highly vulnerableto sexually transmitted diseases like HIV/AIDS.

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment banned employment of children asworkers in roadside eateries, teashops, restaurants, hotels etc along with other sectors, to be effectivefrom October 2006. The Notification is recognition by the Government that child labour exists in thesesectors and these children are exploited sexually, physically and mentally. In addition to that somestates like Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Maharashtra, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh havecome out with State Action Plans to eliminate child Labour. The question arises – have these plansbeen implemented or they are just paper tigers? To take the example of Karnataka, the Action Plan toEliminate Child Labour in Karnataka 2002-2007 was brought in 2002. In 2008, the government ofKarnataka expressed their inability to implement the plan of action due to resource crunch and havejust extended the implementation period of the same plan to 2008-12. Therefore the question arises isthe government truly committed on this issue. When questioned the authorities both at the centre andthe state level showcases that the commitment of the government is shown from the fact that India is

83

a signatory to three International Conventions related to child labour, namely, ILO Forced LabourConvention (No. 29); ILO Abolition of Forced Labour Convention (No. 105); UN Convention on theRights of the Child (CRC). Just ratification is meaningless unless government comes out with properpolicies to eradicate child labour and also implements it effectively.

It is important to mention that Government has also not ratified two important international conventionson child labour of the International Labour Organisation (ILO). These conventions clearly specifies whatcombating child labour should amount to in practice. These are the “Minimum Age Convention” (No.138)1

and the Convention on the “Worst Forms of Child Labour” (No. 182)2. These Conventions have beenjointly drafted in the ILO by national governments, employer’s associations and trade unions. Thegovernment and industry are both therefore politically and morally obliged to implement them.

Research across the country has shown that keeping the age for child labour as 14 years should bechanged as India is a signatory to the UNCRC were we have agree the age of child to be upto 18years. In India a child is defined differently in various legislations which create hindrance for theimplementation of the protection of children and for the convergence between the various Ministriesand Departments who are responsible to tackle the issue of child labour in the country.

Any move by the Government particularly in the context of the need for stern and defined measuresto stop exploitation of children has always been supported by the Civil Society Organizations in thecountry. With respect to the implementation of this ban once again the government has failed todemonstrate serious intent. In the name of effective implementation of the ban, children are pickedup from the streets, from small hotels, road side eateries and put in rehabilitation and juvenile homes.Given the way these homes are run, they are not protected from abuse and exploitation. This doesnothing but the actual problem is pushed underground. It is important that the government hasimplementable mechanisms where the children can be reunited with communities and families ratherthan institutionalised mechanisms.

In Guruvayoor-Kerala and Tirupati-Andhra Pradesh and Puri-Orissa EQUATIONS research tilted“Unholy Nexus: Male Child Sexual Exploitation in Pilgrim Tourism Sites in India: Andhra Pradesh,Kerala and Orissa research done by EQUATIONS in collaboration with ECPAT INTERNATIONAL,June 2008 published in March 2009” ‘shows that in order to be seen implementing the ban, childrenare picked up from the streets, from small hotels, road side eateries and put them into rehabilitationand juvenile homes. As a result, child abuse cases have become even more hidden and covert.

This ban is being seen as a tool by the government to curb the menace of child labour but does notaddress the issues behind the problem. Inspite of recognizing the factor that poverty in the family inmost cases pushes the children to work, no measures have been taken to address this larger issue.Even if a child is rescued and sent back to the family, actual rehabilitation can never take place unlessand until the poverty and thereby the means of livelihood for the family are not thought about andtaken care. The child is surely to be pushed back into work, in some other location and sector.

Thus, two and half years down the line, post the ban, enormous challenges remain in translating thelaw into practice. The concerns expressed by many child rights activists that the blanket ban withoutunderstanding the root causes of child labour would only push the problems into more dangerousways underground have unfortunately proved true. Available data and estimates indicate that veryfew cases have been registered in the past year on account of this ban. Many children are still beingseen at work in restaurants, hotels, tea stalls, etc. all over the country. While the ban evoked responsesfrom a wide range of actors particularly NGO’s and civil society organisations working on child rights,the Ministry of Tourism and the tourism industry have been silent spectators and kept conspicuouslysilent to various forms of exploitation of children in tourism, including sexual exploitation of childrenand exploitation of children through child labour.

Press Release: Child Labour: An Ugly Face of Tourism Exploitation of Children Through Labour in Tourism

84


Way AheadFollow the Guidelines Issued By National Commission For Protection Of Child Rights On Abolition OfChild Labour in 2008. This guideline states the provisions for Enforcement of law, Provision ofEducation and Rehabilitation, Campaign and Public Awareness and Coordinated Action at allLevels. The time has come that the policies and legislations are not only formulated but implementedin right spirit and effectively. There is a need for all, government, Civil Society actors and the industryto join hands to stop all forms of exploitation of children, including child labour. Unless the process isinitiated immediately, the deprivation and exploitation of the children will continue, resulting in lost ofour tomorrow and their today.

For further information:

S. Vidya, Programme Coordinator, Child & Tourism Programme, EQUATIONS, [email protected] or [email protected], tel +91-80-25457607/25457659.

1 Convention No. 138 has been ratified by over 143 countries.

2 Convention No, 182 has been ratified by over 158 countries.

Endnotes

working paper series 2009-10

Documents