| Last
week I wrote about the tourism miracle that is Phuket, Thailand.
How Phuket succeeded in attracting more than 5 million visitors
and tourists for last year alone is indeed a miracle. That is
of course with the help of the Tourism Authority of Thailand
(TAT). We mean by miracle here of course is a superb example
as distinguished from miracle as an intervention by God. Even
during the Theocratic age, God did not intervene in things that
were well within the capability of man to do.
Phuket
is definitely made by man, but superbly, that is. So can Bohol
be made by the Boholanos a superb tourism destination? To
the extent that they want it to be, yes. But I don't know
if they want it to be another Phuket. One thing is sure. There
are a lot of lessons, the good and the bad, that can be learned
from Phujket. And that will guide Boholanos up to what extent
they will model Phuket.
As
I have written last week, Bohol has all, even more, ingredients
that made up Phuket. So am I suggesting we follow the footsteps
of Phuket? In many ways, yes but only to the extent that we
want to become.
Right
now I can think of these: environmental protection, good planning,
product and service development and standards, advertising
and promotion, strong advocacy of what they believe in, clear
cut policies, a strong public-private partnership in tourism
undertaking, community participation, economic and social
costs, and many others.
No
tourism program can be successfully sustained unless it is
anchored on environment protection and conservation. Especially
if the program is eco-tourism like Bohol is developing its
tourism.
Garbage
is something everybody makes but does not want to be responsible
for its disposal. Solid and liquid waste if not adequately
managed, even without tourism development, is s a sure way
to a locality's downfall.
In
Phuket, to show that the local government is serious about
waste management, they converted a large portion of their
forest land into a solid and liquid waste treatment plant.
They set up an incinerator plan that is capable of converting
250 metric tons a day of solid waste into ash that in turn
is made into building or construction materials.
The
solid waste plant is servicing 19 municipalities while the
liquid waste treatment plant is only servicing the city. The
liquid treatment plant has a capacity of 25,000 cubic meters
of liquid waste daily. Segregated solid waste at source is
collected twice daily, one in the morning and another in the
afternoon.
Policies
on easements and heights of building are strictly enforced
to protect the environment. Their salvage zone where no construction
of whatsoever can be constructed on the beach is 50 meters
from the highest tide. Only then can a building be constructed
but not more than five meters high. At 200 meters from the
salvage zone, buildings of 12 meters high may be constructed
and at 240 meters from the easement, construction can go as
high as 23 meters only. Deeper inland even on highland constructions
should not be higher than 80 meters above sea level.
Penalty
for violators? Immediate demolition of the building.
Are
we doing it here? In Panglao, development guidelines are already
in place. There are many violators but w3 have yet to see
demolition of their illegally constructed buildings.
As
to solid and liquid waste management? Here is where we are
a "century" late. There are attempts but unless
the leaders and the people agree these are immediate problem,
the solution will also be a "century hence." In
Tagbilaran we segregate garbage at source but they all go
to the same place for disposal. Liquid waste and even just
water run off have no where to go.
Under
these two factors alone, no miracle is foreseen to happen.
By happen we mean the end result of a public-private collaboration.
Unless both see the same solution for the same problem, let's
not think of miracle taking place yet.
|
