By Benjamin Lyngdoh
Meghalaya keeps on talking about its goal to have high-end tourism. On the contrary, in recent years it has completely turned into a mass tourism destination. The tourist inflow was around 9 lakh in 2019. In 2024 the number increased to around 16 lakh. High-end tourism is synonymous with ‘alternative forms of tourism’ (meaning tourism types which are opposite to mass tourism) such as ecotourism, wildlife tourism, adventure, culture, cuisine, wellness, etc. What makes ‘high-end’ is the travel plan of the tourist to come in small groups, be willing to pay a high price for quality services, stay at the destination for a few days, learn and experience the local products and services to the fullest and ultimately have a fulfilling tourism encounter. At the core of high-end tourism is the element of sustainable development and sustainability of the natural resources and the environment.
But, high-end tourism in Meghalaya is a misnomer. The accurate term which the Government of Meghalaya should be looking at is ‘honey pot tourism’. It is the only way to protect and preserve the remaining untouched natural resources from unchecked destruction due to poor tourism destination management.
Honey pot tourism is an approach to development whereby a few selected attractions of a destination is promoted as a mass tourism space. What happens then is that the tourist inflow into Meghalaya is concentrated into these selected attractions only (like bees around honey). Such honey pot attractions would be over-crowded. The advantage is that the tourism service providers would generate quick and high revenue, increased profits, generate employment opportunities, etc. The disadvantage is the destruction of the attraction due to overflow of tourist thereby making the attraction unsustainable.
The positive outcome of honey pot tourism is that the other beautiful attractions will be protected from the unwanted mass tourist inflows. These ‘other beautiful attractions’ can then be developed and marketed as an alternative form of tourism with a focus on high-end tourism. In such attractions, the price can be marked-up for the service quality of food, accommodation, experience, engagement, entertainment, etc provided to the tourist. The high-end tourist will be capable and willing to pay for such services as they are exposed to a fulfilling tourism encounter. The tourism marketing of Meghalaya would then be both for the mass tourist and high-end tourist segments. This is how honey pot tourism works.
In due course of time, those currently operating as mass tourism destinations can gradually transform into high-end tourism too. This is how Meghalaya can really benefit from tourism. The share of tourism to the state GDP can climb up from the current 7.5% (approx) to higher levels. Proper strategies can also lead to a share of 15% over the next five years. This will ensure a better livelihood to the people who are engaged in tourism activities and a more economically sustainable future.
Some examples of honey pot tourism attractions in Meghalaya are Sohra, Mawlynnong, Dawki and adjoining areas, Wari Chora in South Garo Hills, etc.
In order to derive benefits from honey pot tourism, the other attractions operating under alternative forms of tourism need to be developed with trained personnel. ‘People’ are the most important inputs for tourism development. If the people are not trained and ready to practice tourism, then any forced starting of tourism is bound to fail. Meghalaya has seen enough of natural resource-based attractions which today have been destroyed and turned into an eyesore. The major and only reason for this is that tourism started at the place when the people were not trained to operate it.
For instance, imagine an attraction with breathtaking waterfalls and landscape. The village decides to promote tourism and starts to advertise and market it through digital media. The result is that tourists start coming in. The village is unprepared – there are no food outlets, no accommodation available, no plan on how to run tourism, etc. Basically, it is a case of ‘absence’ of tourism management. What happens ultimately is that the attraction is wasted and the only revenue stream for the village is parking tickets and the sales of tea and chips. In return, the waterfalls and landscape get damaged due to over-tourism. A cost-benefit analysis will tell us that the initiation of tourism in the village was a disaster. The crux of the matter is that unless the village community is prepared with trained personnel, provision of basic services, a tourism development strategy and most importantly a blueprint of tourism management; tourism must not be started at any nature-based attraction.
Further, it is imperative for the village community to be united while practicing tourism. The intra-village and inter-village tourism rivalry has to be mitigated for high-end tourism to start in Meghalaya. Intra-village rivalry can be seen in terms of a village claiming to practice community-based tourism (CBT) when in fact only a few households from the village benefit. This is what primarily happens in villages who claim to practice CBT. According to the underlying principle of CBT, unless the majority of the village benefits from tourism activities, such an operation cannot be termed as CBT. If this is not controlled then high-end tourism will only bring increased disunity amongst the rural folk.
Inter-village rivalry can be seen in terms of villages unwilling to share tourists despite shortcomings of accommodation. In a ‘cooperative tourism model’ it is a must for villages to share tourists if they run out of space, food and basic amenities. For example, if a village has 20 beds and 30 tourists turn up, then it is appropriate to share the 10 excess tourists for accommodation to nearby villages. But, this does not happen. These are the elementary but complex issues that face Meghalaya if it is really serious about high-end tourism.
The solution lies in a cooperative tourism model spearheaded by village leaders who have a vision of equitable tourism promotion and development so that all the rural stakeholders benefit from tourism activities. CBT has to be applied in its truest form. Empathy and ethics in tourism development is critical in a rural and nature-based destination like Meghalaya. The success of honey pot tourism depends on it.
(The views are those of the writer. He can be reached at benjamin@nehu.ac.in)
