GANGTOK:6.aug 2009
The Singapore based Subarna International Consultancy Pte Ltd has projected tourism footfalls of at least 8 lakhs annually in Sikkim by 2015 making the Himalayan State as a major tourism attraction.
Out of these 8 lakhs tourists projected, the consultancy firm has put the numbers of international tourists to around thirty four thousands.
East Sikkim being the gateway to major tourism hotspots will be attracting more than 5 lakhs tourists annually by 2015, said the consultancy firm representatives while presenting the ‘developmental guide plans of Gangtok, Namchi, Geyzing and Mangan’, the district headquarters of the four districts of Sikkim.
The presentation for the stakeholders was made here today at Chintan Bhavan, Gangtok which was attended by Chief Minister Pawan Chamling, Speaker KT Gyalsten, cabinet minister, MLAs and a host of senior civil authorities.
The firm had been engaged by the State government to prepare a master plan for development of the urban centres of the State. The firm has also been engaged to separately prepare a master plan for developing Sikkim as a major tourism destination in the world.
Presenting the tourism component of the urban renewal plan, the representatives said that while the figures of tourists coming to Sikkim will reach around 8 lakhs annually by 2015, there is a requirement of an additional 8753 rooms to cater to the visiting tourists.
The tourism component has been prepared for Gangtok (East Sikkim), Namchi (South Sikkim), Mangan (North Sikkim) and Geyzing (West Sikkim).
The tourism traffic in East Sikkim will remain high and as per the urban master plan for Gangtok, there is an urgent need to have larger and better managed hotels and to curb unlicensed hotels. There is also a lack of quality eateries in Gangtok, the study noted.
The consultancy firm has also called for developing religious, eco-tourism and natural attractions, reviving the handicrafts and handlooms products and decentralization of permit system to decongest Gangtok.
The firm has proposed setting up a cultural and nature zone in southern and northern areas of Gangtok. The cultural zone in southern Gangtok should be ready by 2015 with a museum, performing arts centre, exhibition and convention centre, the firm suggested.
It has also recommended demarcating the northern zone of Gangtok as a nature zone by upgrading the Himalayan Zoological Park and setting up spas.
The company also forecasted two more casinos in Gangtok. All these aspects will be highlighted in the Tourism Master Plan report for Sikkim later this year, the consultancy firm said.
Regarding Namchi, the firm said that the South district is strong on religious and cultural activities. The limitations of tourism facilities in South should be upgraded, the firm suggested.
The firm also highlighted the need for more tourism facilities and infrastructures in North and West districts.
Thursday 6 August 2009
Sunday 2 August 2009
SIKKIM: CAG REPORTS – TOURISM DEPARTMENT PART-I Highlights
Posted by barunroy on August 2, 2009
FROM SIKKIM EXPRESS
• The State Tourism policy was not framed on the lines of the National Tourism policy and the benefit of planned development, as reflected in the National Tourism policy was not derived.
• Leasing out of assets was characterised by a conspicuous absence of any modality. Neither wide publicity was given nor revenue sharing’ model explored, leading to the assets located at prominent tourist destinations earning a meager return of less than 0.5 per cent on the cost employed.
• Due to the absence of a comprehensive plan for development of innovative tourism in the State, coupled with the absence of a well laid down marketing strategy, full potential of various types of tourism i.e. eco-tourism, adventure-tourism, health-tourism, etc. was not harnessed.
The Union Ministry of Tourism (2002) formulated the National Tourism Policy – 2002 with the objective of positioning tourism as a major engine of economic growth. The Policy envisaged provision of a legislative framework to regulate tourism related trade and industry, ensure safety and security of the tourists and create basic infrastructure and health care facilities for harnessing the full tourism potential in the State.
- The State Government failed to provide a legislative framework to tourism related activities, as a State specific Tourism Policy was not formulated in li.ne with the National Tourism policy. The Department informed (September 2008) that the State Tourism Policy is under preparation and would be completed by 2009-10.
- Safety and of the tourists was also not accorded due priority as evidenced from the fact that (i) Tourist Police were not appointed to help the tourists for hassle free trips to various tourist destinations; (ii) separate mobile unit (including ambulances) with sufficient staff to attend the tourists during emergency was not deployed despite eleven cases of accidents involving death of 22 tourists during 2003-08; and (iii) adequate safety measures were not adopted by way of formation of State Level Committees for safety and rescue of tourists by the State Government, especially for adventure sports.
- The State Government failed to enact the Trade Rules and also failed to create adequate tourist infrastructure.
Master Plan
The Master Plan for tourism development in Sikkim, approved (February 1998) with a perspective of 15 years (1997-2011) recommended a district-wise tourism development strategy as shown below:
Districts
East (i) Upgradation of attractions;
(ii) Imposing entry charges for all attractions;
(iii) Upgrading hotels through incentives and regulations;
(iv) Improvement in transport and other infrastructure;
(v) Improvement in the skills of the people engaged in tourism industry,
(vi) Use of taxes collected from hotels, restaurants and the transport sector for promotion of Sikkim.
West (i) Master plan of Pelling including land zoning for residential, market and evening activity;
(ii) Motivating establishment of hotels;
(iii) Improvement in transport services;
(iv) Improvement in attractions supported by appropriate marketing.
North (i) Setting up minimum permanent structures in North Sikkim to protect environment;
(ii) Physical planning of Lachung, Chunthang and Lachen areas and development of campsites in line with environment guidelines.
South (i) Developing South District as a halting point for tourists.
Audit scrutiny, however, revealed that the Department did not frame a district¬ wise tourism development strategy. The annual plans submitted to Planning & Development Department for availing plan funds, were not dovetailed with the strategy recommended in the Master Plan for various districts. As a result, while the expenditure and effort invested towards preparation of Master Plan failed to yield the desired result, the activities envisaged in the Master Plan were yet to be achieved, as evidenced from the following:
- In respect of East District, upgradation of attractions consisting of tourist circuit development, tourist destinations, Buddhist circuits, tourist pilgrimage centers, wayside amenities, trekking routes etc. was not undertaken by the Department. Developmental programmes such as identifying circuits for places of special interest and sightseeing were taken up by the Department but without carrying out any survey for proper identification of such tourist places with potential for increased tourist inflow, availability of transport, communication and accommodation facilities, etc.
- In the West District, developmental works such as land zoning for residential, market and evening activities, restoration of Rabdentse palace, ropeway from Rabdentse palace to Pemayangtse monastery etc. were not undertaken.
- In South District, development of tourist shopping area and Science Museum at Namchi, river rafting base etc. were not carried out.
- Selection of infrastructure development projects, viz; tourist circuits, pilgrim centres, wayside amenities and trekking routes etc. was based on public demand, followed by the recommendations of the MLAs/Ministers overlooking the Master Plan, rather than survey and analysis of the actual need. As a result, while infrastructure worth Rs. 56.17 crore remained idle as brought out in paragraph 3.2.9.3, adequate infrastructure for quality accommodation for -.Jurists in prime locations such as South (Ravangla and Namchi) and West districts could not be created.
- The Master Plan was not reviewed during the last 11 years to bring it in tandem with the National Tourism Policy 2002 and the Perspective Plan (November 2002) for Sikkim, for effective implementation and convergence. In fact, the Master Plan was not sent to the other line departments to elicit their views, suggestions for improvement and for achievement of targeted goals/objectives in a coordinated manner. This was all the more important in view of the rapid growth achieved by the tourism sector at national and international levels. The Department stated (September 2008) that the actual achievement of Sikkim Tourism was higher than what was documented in the Master Plan on its socio¬economic objectives, employment generation and marketing of tourism products and that, there was also a need for review of Master Plan. While the Department’s view that there was a need for review of Master Plan is welcome, their contention that the actual achievement was higher than what was documented in the Master Plan is not tenable as neither the developmental works were undertaken according to the Master Plan nor was Master Plan ever referred to. Besides, the Department could also not substantiate its contention with documentary evidence or any baseline data regarding employment generation.
(To be continued)
Posted by barunroy on August 2, 2009
FROM SIKKIM EXPRESS
• The State Tourism policy was not framed on the lines of the National Tourism policy and the benefit of planned development, as reflected in the National Tourism policy was not derived.
• Leasing out of assets was characterised by a conspicuous absence of any modality. Neither wide publicity was given nor revenue sharing’ model explored, leading to the assets located at prominent tourist destinations earning a meager return of less than 0.5 per cent on the cost employed.
• Due to the absence of a comprehensive plan for development of innovative tourism in the State, coupled with the absence of a well laid down marketing strategy, full potential of various types of tourism i.e. eco-tourism, adventure-tourism, health-tourism, etc. was not harnessed.
The Union Ministry of Tourism (2002) formulated the National Tourism Policy – 2002 with the objective of positioning tourism as a major engine of economic growth. The Policy envisaged provision of a legislative framework to regulate tourism related trade and industry, ensure safety and security of the tourists and create basic infrastructure and health care facilities for harnessing the full tourism potential in the State.
- The State Government failed to provide a legislative framework to tourism related activities, as a State specific Tourism Policy was not formulated in li.ne with the National Tourism policy. The Department informed (September 2008) that the State Tourism Policy is under preparation and would be completed by 2009-10.
- Safety and of the tourists was also not accorded due priority as evidenced from the fact that (i) Tourist Police were not appointed to help the tourists for hassle free trips to various tourist destinations; (ii) separate mobile unit (including ambulances) with sufficient staff to attend the tourists during emergency was not deployed despite eleven cases of accidents involving death of 22 tourists during 2003-08; and (iii) adequate safety measures were not adopted by way of formation of State Level Committees for safety and rescue of tourists by the State Government, especially for adventure sports.
- The State Government failed to enact the Trade Rules and also failed to create adequate tourist infrastructure.
Master Plan
The Master Plan for tourism development in Sikkim, approved (February 1998) with a perspective of 15 years (1997-2011) recommended a district-wise tourism development strategy as shown below:
Districts
East (i) Upgradation of attractions;
(ii) Imposing entry charges for all attractions;
(iii) Upgrading hotels through incentives and regulations;
(iv) Improvement in transport and other infrastructure;
(v) Improvement in the skills of the people engaged in tourism industry,
(vi) Use of taxes collected from hotels, restaurants and the transport sector for promotion of Sikkim.
West (i) Master plan of Pelling including land zoning for residential, market and evening activity;
(ii) Motivating establishment of hotels;
(iii) Improvement in transport services;
(iv) Improvement in attractions supported by appropriate marketing.
North (i) Setting up minimum permanent structures in North Sikkim to protect environment;
(ii) Physical planning of Lachung, Chunthang and Lachen areas and development of campsites in line with environment guidelines.
South (i) Developing South District as a halting point for tourists.
Audit scrutiny, however, revealed that the Department did not frame a district¬ wise tourism development strategy. The annual plans submitted to Planning & Development Department for availing plan funds, were not dovetailed with the strategy recommended in the Master Plan for various districts. As a result, while the expenditure and effort invested towards preparation of Master Plan failed to yield the desired result, the activities envisaged in the Master Plan were yet to be achieved, as evidenced from the following:
- In respect of East District, upgradation of attractions consisting of tourist circuit development, tourist destinations, Buddhist circuits, tourist pilgrimage centers, wayside amenities, trekking routes etc. was not undertaken by the Department. Developmental programmes such as identifying circuits for places of special interest and sightseeing were taken up by the Department but without carrying out any survey for proper identification of such tourist places with potential for increased tourist inflow, availability of transport, communication and accommodation facilities, etc.
- In the West District, developmental works such as land zoning for residential, market and evening activities, restoration of Rabdentse palace, ropeway from Rabdentse palace to Pemayangtse monastery etc. were not undertaken.
- In South District, development of tourist shopping area and Science Museum at Namchi, river rafting base etc. were not carried out.
- Selection of infrastructure development projects, viz; tourist circuits, pilgrim centres, wayside amenities and trekking routes etc. was based on public demand, followed by the recommendations of the MLAs/Ministers overlooking the Master Plan, rather than survey and analysis of the actual need. As a result, while infrastructure worth Rs. 56.17 crore remained idle as brought out in paragraph 3.2.9.3, adequate infrastructure for quality accommodation for -.Jurists in prime locations such as South (Ravangla and Namchi) and West districts could not be created.
- The Master Plan was not reviewed during the last 11 years to bring it in tandem with the National Tourism Policy 2002 and the Perspective Plan (November 2002) for Sikkim, for effective implementation and convergence. In fact, the Master Plan was not sent to the other line departments to elicit their views, suggestions for improvement and for achievement of targeted goals/objectives in a coordinated manner. This was all the more important in view of the rapid growth achieved by the tourism sector at national and international levels. The Department stated (September 2008) that the actual achievement of Sikkim Tourism was higher than what was documented in the Master Plan on its socio¬economic objectives, employment generation and marketing of tourism products and that, there was also a need for review of Master Plan. While the Department’s view that there was a need for review of Master Plan is welcome, their contention that the actual achievement was higher than what was documented in the Master Plan is not tenable as neither the developmental works were undertaken according to the Master Plan nor was Master Plan ever referred to. Besides, the Department could also not substantiate its contention with documentary evidence or any baseline data regarding employment generation.
(To be continued)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
