Travel Vs. Trekking
WHEN China recognised Nepal as one of its
outbound destinations late last year, tourism entrepreneurs in Nepal, who were not doing
too well because of the general decline in tourism, naturally considered the development
most welcome. Hopes rose that they could play host to some of the 12 million Chinese
visitors who holiday abroad every year in countries China has recognised as outbound
destinations. But there was one thing to be sorted out before Nepal would begin to welcome
Chinese guests. The Nepalese government needed to designate officially-sanctioned handlers
from among the hundreds of travel trade operators. China had designated 67 of its travel
agents to handle Nepal-bound Chinese tourists. Nepal had to reciprocate on that count with
its own selection. On Monday, the deadline for travel agents to apply for the selection to
handle Chinese tourists ended. Along with it has popped up a controversy. The deadline
coincided with officials of Trekking Agents Association of Nepal (TAAN) protesting the
government intention to allow only travel agents, and not trekking agents, as handlers of
Chinese tourists. Trekking agents, who number about 450, have demanded that some of them
too be considered as handling agents so that they can sell trekking packages to Chinese
tourists and also promote their products in the Chinese market. It does not look like a
preposterous demand as presumably many Chinese tourists, when they visit Nepal, would not
like to confine themselves to city limits, where travel agents by law are authorised to
handle tourists. Some of them would certainly like to pace up and down one or two trekking
trails.
What is this? Is the Ministry of Culture,
Tourism and Civil Aviation mishandling the selection process? Regulations clearly
delineate the working areas of travel and trekking agents into city and trekking areas
respectively. When only travel agents, around 70 of them out of the 500 in business, are
selected as handlers for Chinese tourists, how are the trekking agents to do business,
especially as was pointed out at the press meet, the memorandum of understanding signed
between Nepal and China does not allow authorised travel agents to sub-contract trekking
agents to handle Chinese visitors in trekking areas? What happens when a Chinese tourist,
wishing to visit some trekking trails, finds that his travel agent cannot organise that
trip to the Annapurna trail because that agent cannot do the job that is legally set aside
for a trekking agent? It is unbelievable that right at this stage we are getting mired
into all this and sending all the wrong signals to potential Chinese tourists. Excluding
trekking agents is a wrong move. Is it so difficult to come up with a solution whereby
both travel and trekking agents are happy and, most importantly, whereby Chinese visitors
get to relish the tourism products they wish for? It can’t be.
Other Story
|
