The Resort Proposal Beside the Elephant Corridor
A community tourism committee in a village near Manas National Park has 18 homestay rooms across 9 households. Last Bihu season, 40–50 day visitors arrived each weekend; jeeps queued on the village lane, plastic bottles and wrappers were dumped near the stream, and two tourists drove off the track to photograph a herd, causing the animals to scatter. The committee has received a proposal from an outside investor: build a 30-room concrete resort on 2 bighas of community land beside the buffer, with a swimming pool and a DJ floor, promising 25 local jobs and ₹3 lakh annual lease. Some members want immediate income; others fear water shortage and forest disturbance. The village has one hand pump and no solid-waste collection; the forest department has flagged the site as an elephant corridor.
1. Assess the resort proposal against environmental, social, and economic criteria. What is your recommendation and why?
Read the worked answer
The proposal should not be accepted as submitted. Environmentally, a 30-room concrete resort with a pool and DJ floor beside a buffer in a flagged elephant corridor is a high-risk use: it blocks movement, creates noise and light disturbance, and adds sewage and water demand to a village with one hand pump and no waste collection. Socially, the lease of community land for 25 jobs may look attractive, but the jobs are likely to be low-paid and seasonal, while the village loses control of the land and the stream. Economically, ₹3 lakh a year is small compared with the water, waste, and reputational costs, and the promise of 25 jobs is not a binding benefit-sharing plan. A better recommendation is to reject the current scale and location, ask the forest department and gram sabha for written views, and explore a smaller eco-lodge or homestay cluster on already disturbed land, with solar power, rainwater harvesting, waste segregation, and a written community benefit share. The committee should compare this with upgrading the existing 18 homestay rooms, which keeps income in local hands.
2. Design a low-cost visitor management plan for the coming season, with specific actions and responsibilities.
Read the worked answer
The committee can start with a daily cap of 30 visitors and pre-registration through the homestay committee. Jeeps should park at the village edge, not on the lane, and a local guide should accompany every group on foot or in a vehicle, with a clear rule that no one leaves the track. A 'no-go' map should be painted on a board at the entry, showing the elephant corridor and the stream buffer. Waste can be handled with a refundable bottle deposit, two segregated bins at the entry, and a weekly collection arrangement with a nearby recycler; a village youth group can be given the monitoring role. Signage should be in Assamese and English. A small conservation fee of ₹50 per visitor can pay the guides and the waste collection. The committee should record visitor numbers, complaints, and wildlife sightings weekly, so the cap can be adjusted with evidence rather than guesswork.
3. How should the committee handle the investor and the community disagreement transparently?
Read the worked answer
The committee should call a gram sabha with at least seven days' notice, circulate the investor's proposal in writing, and read out the key terms: lease amount, duration, land area, water use, waste plan, jobs, and exit conditions. Members should be allowed to speak without pressure, and the forest department's written opinion should be tabled. A secret ballot or a show of hands with minutes recorded is better than a voice vote dominated by a few families. The committee should ask the investor to submit a revised proposal if the village wants to continue discussions, and should set a deadline. If the proposal is rejected, the reasons should be recorded and communicated in writing. Any future agreement should include a benefit-sharing clause, a grievance mechanism, and a probation period. Transparency does not guarantee agreement, but it prevents the dispute from becoming a claim that a few people secretly sold community land.