• Sahara India Pariwar is proposing an 'ecotourism' project in the ecologically fragile mangrove swamps of the Sundarbans in East India.
• EIA does not believe that Sahara's proposals meet with an acceptable definition of ecotourism.
• Based on the available information from Sahara's website, EIA has serious concerns about the environmental and social implications of this project.
• EIA calls upon:
• The Government of West Bengal to reject the proposal as it is currently presented.
• The Government of India to review and amend tourism policy, to ensure that, in the interests of transparency, good governance and corporate accountability, multi-stakeholder forums are established to guarantee that tourism is conducted in a responsible and environmentally sustainable manner.

"Environmentally responsible travel and visitation to relatively undisturbed areas, in order to enjoy, study and appreciate nature (and any accompanying cultural features - both past and present) that promotes conservation, has low visitor impact, and provides for beneficially active socio-economic involvement of local populations"

Sahara's Proposals

Why Sahara's Proposal is Not Ecotourism

• Ecotourism: contributes to conservation through: the direct improvement of local habitat e.g. rehabilitation work; donating to environmental or conservation organisations; ensuring that merchandise for sale does not come from rare or threatened species.
• Sahara: There is no indication of support for direct conservation of the mangrove forest or for conservation organisations, e.g. Project Tiger. Outside of strictly controlled scientific programmes designed to maintain genetic diversity, there is no conservation benefit to be gained from captive breeding of tigers: 1) there is no need to augment India's substantial captive bred population; 2) they cannot be reintroduced into the wild and 3) there is widespread concern that many captive breeding facilities, some of which have recently been raided in Thailand, are contributing to the illegal trade in tiger parts.

• Ecotourism: employs practices which do not degrade the environment in terms of an appropriate location, construction materials, site disturbance, visual impacts, lighting, water conservation, treatment of effluent, noise, air quality, waste minimisation, energy efficiency and minimal disturbance to wildlife.
• Sahara: The development of waterways could threaten the fragile ecology of the mangrove swamps and facilitate poachers' entry into the forest. Increased waterway traffic could increase pollution, whilst floatels could involve higher noise levels and the unnatural use of floodlights, which could disturb wildlife, possibly altering natural breeding behaviour. Increased tourist flow may increase conflict with tigers and encroach on their habitat. Beach development is likely to include the removal of vegetation, reducing the buffering effect against the sea.
• EIA is aware of opposition to this project on environmental and conservation grounds from Sanctuary Asia₄.

• Ecotourism: provides ongoing contributions to the local community through purchase of local products/services, employment of local guides, etc.
• Sahara: The proposal is for a largescale project with huge investment in expensive construction work rather than for socially useful development or conservation. The focus on high technology employs relatively fewer workers. There is no indication that local guides and other workers will be employed or that the project will diversify the local economy.
• EIA is aware that there has been opposition to the project from the National Fishworkers Forum₁₂.

• Ecotourism: embraces the cultural aspects of the area, consulting with local people to allow presentation of authentic cultural values, providing guides with knowledge of local heritage/people, advising ecotourists on appropriate behaviour, etc.
• Sahara: The type of construction proposed is not in keeping with the local way of life. There is no indication that the local communities are being properly consulted by Sahara. Far from engendering respect for local people, there are reports that fishworkers are being relocated from the island of Jambudwip to make way for foreign tourists, with a bureaucrat of the West Bengal government reportedly stating that it was "to get rid of these eyesores"₁₃.

Recommendations

• EIA does not believe that Sahara's proposals meet with an acceptable definition of ecotourism, and therefore calls upon the Government of West Bengal to reject the proposal as it is currently presented.
• EIA also calls upon the Government of India to review and amend tourism policy, to ensure that, in the interests of transparency, good governance and corporate accountability, multistakeholder forums are established to guarantee that tourism is conducted in a responsible and environmentally sustainable manner.