Benjamin Lyngdoh
It is better to have Rs. 100 per day continuously forever; rather than having a windfall of Rs. 1000 per day for a limited time. As simple a statement as it might seem, in actuality it has far reaching implications. The implication (at least at the policy level) is sustainability. Fact is, sustainability is a macro-concept which encompasses numerous aspects; some being responsibility, continuity, retention, reclamation and so forth. As such the United Nations (1987) defines sustainability as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. In the specific case of tourism, sustainability in contemporary times is expressed in the context of two applied phrases; ‘over-tourism’ and ‘carrying capacity’. Although both reach to the same end point; conceptually, over-tourism carries a negative connotation whereas carrying capacity elicits positivity. As such, talking of tourism in the context of Meghalaya from the prism of carrying capacity is more appropriate; precisely because our tourism is not yet in the spectrum of ‘all doom and gloom’ currently. Accordingly, carrying capacity is the pivot around which all aspects concerning sustainability revolve. The failure to address it will be detrimental to tourism development with a danger that whatever economic benefits we derive now are all in the nature of a ‘windfall’. Surely, we would like to have Rs. 100 per day continuously forever. Hence, I place the following pointers –
Firstly, as of now we do not know what our tourism carrying capacity is. To this some might say ‘So what! We do not even have a USP (unique selling proposition)’. This is a sad reality which results in our tourism lacking cohesiveness. Point being, carrying capacity and USP go hand-in-hand. We cannot define one without understanding the other. Importantly, carrying capacity maps everything that is right/wrong with a particular tourist destination. If the tourism fits the thresholds of carrying capacity, then it is a case of optimum impacts in line with sustainability; else, it is a disaster. At the heart of it all, World Tourism Organization (1994) defines carrying capacity as ‘the maximum number of people that may visit a tourist destination at the same time, without causing destruction of the physical, economic, socio-cultural environment and an unacceptable decrease in the quality of visitors satisfaction’. The definition says it all. As such, it is imperative that we evaluate our own carrying capacity; both at the macro (Meghalaya as a state) and micro (location-attraction specific) levels. In fact, this is one of the main components of all tourism-related policy and planning.
Secondly and in relation to the definition of carrying capacity, let us take some case-in-points. The first phrase ‘at the same time’ denotes the very essence of carrying capacity. Question, how many tourists leave footfalls in some of our attractions (say, Mawlynnong and Shnongpdeng) at the same time? Here, the methodological point is that ‘carrying capacity is basically calculated on the basis of accommodation available relative to a particular attraction’. That way footfall at Mawlynnong and Shnongpdeng at any given holiday/weekend far exceeds the carrying capacity (because of floating/day tourists). Moreover, carrying capacity is not something that can be carried-forward/traded-off against the days when there are fewer tourists. Hence, this aspect of footfall is a pressing issue.
Now, since footfall is already a problem; one might postulate that the second phrase ‘without causing destruction…..environment’ is in most likelihood defeated. One might argue that ‘development comes at a cost’; but this is not the type of tourism development we need. The last phrase ‘unacceptable decrease…..satisfaction’ is a travesty. Interactions with tourists (foreign and domestic) have highlighted that due to the failures to address carrying capacity; the tourism experience drastically reduces. There are wide gaps between ‘service expected and service encountered’. Even worse, there is less likelihood of such clientele revisiting our destination.
Thirdly, the above case-in-points are of course not reflective of the entire state; however, if we are not careful it might become so in future. This is more so as many pockets of our state are now paying the price of erstwhile mining. Mining has destroyed our very base of tourism; that being nature. To that, add our unsustainable practices and irresponsibleness (both host and tourist) towards the environment; the result is a mix of ‘tardy tourism’ standing on the cliff edge of ‘tourism exhaustion’.
Contemporarily, there is a form of tourism termed as ‘dark tourism’. This is tourism that involves ‘travel to places associated with death and suffering’. What will befall on Meghalaya tourism 50-60 years down the line is anybody’s guess. Be that as it may, a number of locations in our state already depict tell-tale signs of dark tourism. It is on this backdrop that a number of local explorers (with whom I interacted at recently held seminars at Lady Keane College and Shillong Commerce College) refused to divulge information on new and latest discoveries of potential tourism attractions. Their premise was based on the danger that we might resort to the same ‘tardy tourism’ as already experienced elsewhere. Well, when you think of it in that way; then I agree with this discretion and I am sure that many like-minded persons would corroborate too.
Fourthly, tourism should be inclusive. That way tourism in Meghalaya is incomplete without Garo Hills. Granted that for now tourism is lop-sided towards the Khasi-Jaintia Hills and that is wrong and needs correction. In the last few years the argument was the lack of safety and security at Garo Hills. However, now the situation has drastically improved and there is widespread peace and security. As such, if there was any a time to take advantage through tourism then this is the time. In fact, since the Garo Hills will structurally be starting late as far as tourism penetration is concerned, this presents as an opportunity. This is because tourism can be planned and marketed while adhering to the principles of carrying capacity. That way, ecotourism, community-based tourism, adventure tourism and so forth (which are the best forms of tourism suitable for Meghalaya as against mass tourism) can be actively promoted through the strong ‘social capital’ of the Garos. If that be so, in the long run the Garo Hills can become the model of tourism development for the entire state/north-east region.
Lastly, the World Tourism Day (27th September) theme for this year is ‘tourism and the digital transformation’. Digitization has indeed impacted and transformed tourism worldwide and Meghalaya is no exception. This also brings in itself the challenges of tourism carrying capacity as locations and attractions are now quickly and easily marketed through social media. It is a case of taking the better with the bitter. Overall, the issues concerning carrying capacity highlighted here make a clarion call for sensitive and sustainable tourism planning across and involving all stakeholders. Notably, evaluating carrying capacity is not a quick exercise. It involves data and methods and extensive research that may take months if not years. As such, there is no harm in starting now, although late. Critically, this is the crux of it all; if we can define our carrying capacity, then creating a vision, mission, goals, plans and policies for tourism growth and development shall be more structured and cohesive.
(The Author teaches at NEHU)