Following the recent order of the Supreme Court regarding use of Forest Rest Houses (FRHs) and inspection bungalows (IBs) in forests, those involved in community based tourism initiatives in Uttarakhand opine that the State should file a review petition in the Supreme Court. Those affected by these orders opine that the Apex court’s orders would negatively affect community based eco-tourism activities which are especially important in a mountainous state like Uttarakhand with more than half of its geographical area under forest cover where eco-tourism activities benefit both the locals and the department concerned.
Hearing on a petition regarding misuse of FRHs and IBs located inside forests last month, the SC had issued notice in the application and after due consultation between the Union of India, Central Empowered Committee (CEC) and the applicant, guidelines were framed by the CEC for control and maintenance of FRHs/IBs located inside the forests.
The SC stated that FRHs and IBs located within the forest area including the Protected Areas shall not be transferred to private and commercial entities in the name of public private partnership or by whatever name such an arrangement is called, for promotion of any form of tourism including ecotourism. “We expect these guidelines to prevent the misuse of FRHs/IBs, particularly since they have the approval of the Union of India as well. Accordingly, we accept the guidelines and make them an order of this Court,” the SC stated.
However, not all are happy with the turn of events. Sunil Kainthola, the director of community based tourism initiative Mountain Shepherds Initiative (MSI) said that most of these FRHs were constructed during the tail end of 19th century and early 20th century.
In the present scenario, with development of roads, the FRHs are surplus infrastructure for forest officers’ usage. “Nobody at division level follows the practice of staying 120 days outside the divisional headquarter and mandatory 90 days stay in FRH.
On the other hand, we had entered a memorandum of understanding with the forest department under which we took over the housekeeping, catering and marketing of the FRH at Satyanarayan.
Under this arrangement there has been a 545 per cent increase in revenue during 2017-18 in addition to 46 per cent increase in departmental usage. We have employed two persons here while the control of the facility is still with the department. What is wrong with such a model wherein the control remains with the department even as local community members are provided employment in a manner that benefits both the department and the localsij
I am not advocating PPP but there are other models wherein such facilities are generating revenue for the state, creating services for the department and the tourists while creating jobs and conservation awareness too. I request the State Government to file a review appeal in the supreme court.”