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)