"…entry to Bhutan was limited to around 3,000 well-off tourists, preferably in pre-organized groups, each year. The fees paid up front are set at $200 a day –for which someone could survive for a month in India or Nepal. But it is precisely to discourage mass tourism or low-spending backpackers that the Royal Bhutanese government has adopted this policy of controlled tourism.
The rationale of this highly controlled approach was explained to me later in the capital, Thimphu. Look at what’s happened in Nepal. We don’t want to sell out to tourism and ruin the country, as they have, without drawing any benefits.
A fair enough point; but this control syndrome…"
As I was reading a book by Jonathan Gregson on 'Kingdoms belong the clouds', I came across this very important piece of information laid by the author on the tourism sector of Bhutan. I was amazed but at the same time intrigued by the fact of one-sided tourism manning. With such an extraordinary Royal Vision for the industry we've somehow failed to promote our local tourism. Knowingly we've dug our own graveyard for such unprecedented times.
With "high value, low impact" or "control tourism" policy, knowing the impact and the limited space to roll out we're horrible misguided by the fact that one day our domestic tourism would ultimately benefit the industry like no other backpackers.
However, this pandemic has sunk the tourism industry globally, but not like ours, countries with strongly held local tourism in place may not have felt the pain and the risk. Besides the important role-played by local tourism, it is sustainable and reliable.
Should we have stronghold based domestic tourism in the country, we may not have faced this kind of acute breakdown of revenue and jobs.
Comments
Post a Comment