Questions about Gandaki's pride: Half a billion has gone in the name of homestay

Encouraged by the success of Panchmool Sirubari in Syangja and Ghalegaon Homestay in Lamjung, the Gandaki government started this homestay program in all 11 districts of the state. But the story of the homestay is not like the slogan of Gandaki's pride. The results of the homestays that were opened due to noise, excitement and the lure of subsidies are not pleasant . Some of the homestays have been closed without even seeing the faces of the tourists, even though domestic tourists have arrived in some of them.

Gandaki state government initially estimated the cost of 55 crore rupees to run the homestay program with the target of completing it within five years . In the beginning, the budget was scheduled to be spent in five stages. Since then, the homestay program has been conducted by the Ministry of Industry, Tourism, Forest and Environment of the provincial government and the Department of Industry, Tourism and Forestry and Environment under it. Every year the program conducted by one department has been owned by another department.

In the first phase of homestays, 287 crore 87 lakh 42 thousand grants were distributed to 274 homestays through the Division Forest Office under the Department of Forest and Environment. This refers to the financial year 2075/76. In the second phase, the homestay expansion program could not be conducted in the year 2076/77 due to covid. In the financial year 2077/78, a homestay expansion program was conducted through the Office of Household and Small Industries, under which a grant of Rs. 127.3 million was distributed. In the third phase, under the strengthening of homestays, through the Tourism Office, Pokhara, 32 million 23 lakhs were given again in the fiscal year 2078/79. The fourth phase of the program was completed in the fiscal year 2079/80 by the Directorate of Industry, Commerce and Consumer Protection, Pokhara. Under this, one crore rupees was distributed under the name of Homestay capacity enhancement, empowerment and infrastructure development program.

In this way, the state government has spent 458.3 million 51 thousand rupees for homestay from the year 2075/76 to 2079/80. In the current financial year 2080/81, the Directorate of Industry, Commerce and Consumer Protection, Pokhara, is conducting the fifth phase of 'One Provincial Constituency At Least One Model Homestay Program', in which the target is to spend more than 40 million rupees . In this way, the province's investment in homestay reaches 498.3 million 51 thousand rupees. Moreover, during this period, various municipalities of the province have also spent 25 million rupees in the name of homestay. This calculation has been made by adding the data of which agency mentioned in Community Homestay Mart 076, how much amount of investment is done by the district of the local level. In this way, the Gandaki province and municipalities have received nearly 52 million rupees from the state in the name of homestays. Irony! The results of this investment are shameful .

The department that conducts the homestay program has changed every year, but the ministry remains the same . But what is strange is that with the transfer of the homestay program from one department to another, the old records are also disappearing . After the program conducted by one goes to another, there is a situation where the new one does not even have some of the old details . Therefore, the provincial government does not even have the records of homestays registered within the province. "Initially, the Division Forest Offices kept records, but according to the existing law, homestay registration and renewal are done at the local level, so we do not have any records," says Amar Nepali, Information Officer of the Directorate of Industry, Commerce and Consumer Protection, which is running the homestay program. yes . We don't have the details of how much other agencies have spent before.' Searching for standards after giving

subsidy

The fact that the homestay subsidy has been misused has been confirmed in recent years. For example: In the current fiscal year, the Directorate of Industry, Commerce and Consumer Protection, Pokhara, issued a notification regarding the submission of proposals under the tourism infrastructure development program for at least one homestay in the state constituency, but not a single homestay application was received from the state constituency (1) of Myagdi . Jhanripani Community Homestay from Constituency (2) was asked to submit an application. This homestay was also disqualified in the on-site monitoring . Head of Tourism and Industry Office, Myagdi, Poshanath Sharma says, 'After no one's application came, it came to know that the homestays were registered in the ward but not registered in PAN/VAT and not even renewed Riga Community Homestay in Galkot Municipality-11 Riga has also been taking subsidies in the past without monitoring and regulating access. This homestay took the proposal to repair the community building to get the subsidy this time too . When the relevant agency was monitored, the secret was revealed, the building called community homestay was actually a public house.

The homestay has been running for a while. Now asking for a grant means adding a floor to the public building of the village, but if the homestay does not have the necessary parts for its building, Kamala Pun, a member of the Riga Community Homestay, says, "There is no information about the first grant." It is said that the subsidy has been taken . But it is not mentioned which year and how much was taken . Kamala Pun has said that she is not aware of the grant. In the current year, at least one homestay in the province's constituency called for a proposal to submit a proposal under the tourism infrastructure development program. While talking on the phone, Kamala Pun said that she was not an official and that she was not fully aware of how much money had come from which agency in the past.

The statement of Poshanath Sharma, head of Tourism and Industry Office, Myagdi, is enough to confirm the fact that arbitrary subsidies have been distributed in the past. He says, "The subsidy amount of homestays distributed through the Division Forest Office is based on political access without identifying the plan, selection basis and benefit-cost analysis."

Grant distribution has to be done in 2068 to understand how much it was done with the purpose of getting the appropriated amount . According to the records of the then National Sanitation and Hygiene Coordinating Committee Secretariat Kathmandu, Kaski district was declared an open defecation-free district for the first time in Nepal on 10 June 2068. Similarly, Tanahun was in the third, Myagdi in the fourth, Parbat in the sixth, Mustang in the eleventh, Baglung in the thirteenth, Gorkha in the twentieth and Lamjung in the twenty-third. Similarly, Parasi in the twenty-eighth, Syangja in the thirty-fourth and Manang as the forty-first district on 17 June 2074 were declared open defecation-free districts.

The announcement is not unusual as every house has a toilet. But out of the subsidy distributed by the Gandaki state government to the homestay, a large amount has been spent on the construction of toilets in Tamse's house to operate the homestay to keep guests/tourists . As mentioned in the 'Community Homestay Darpan 2076' published by the Gandaki Provincial Government, 7 out of 10 Chilaunekhark Homestays in Pokhara Metropolitan City-21 of Kaski have spent the subsidy of the Homestay on the construction of toilets. How much grant was spent? It cannot be separated . It is seen in the records that most of the homestay subsidy recipients in all 11 districts of the province have barely built toilets.

In this way, even in homes that have already been declared open defecation-free and have toilets, it is bad to show that toilets are being built on the homestay budget.

Let's see another example of how the subsidy for homestay has been misused. The Gandaki Province 'Homestay Operation Procedure 2075' has classified the homestay into three categories, referring to the homestay standards, registration process and facilities to be provided to the guests. According to which, it is mentioned that 'A' category homestay should host at least 1 thousand 800, 'B' category 1 thousand and 'C' category 500 more guests in the homestay. However, most of them do not meet the criteria set by this procedure . According to the information provided by the Directorate of Industry, Commerce and Consumer Protection, all 332 homestays registered in Gandaki province are not classified according to government standards. Also, homestays who have not even completed PAN registration before being shortlisted for government subsidy have received subsidy . Most of the 11 homestays in Myagdi have not renewed registration and even PAN. However, he has been given a subsidy. "The homestay does not seem to have done anything to renew, update the tax payment," says Krishna Prasad Subedi, information officer of Raghuganga Rural Municipality, "In some private homestays, domestic tourists seem to be rather stupid." But those who took the subsidy have disappeared!'

Here, can it be revealed that this homestay received so much subsidy this year? Can be . In the records of the Division Forest Office, there is a record of which homestays in the district received how much subsidy in the first year.

Tourist destination on one side, homestay on the other

Gandaki state government announced to celebrate 2019 as domestic tourism year, 2020 as tourism year of neighboring countries and 2022 as international tourism year . Likewise, the provincial government had announced 10 tourist destinations in each district of the province with the goal of bringing in 1.5 million tourists in 2022. Gharbas (homestay) program has been brought into operation with the main purpose of taking the tourists who came in the year of the

visit to the declared destination, managing the stay of the tourists since there is no tourism infrastructure in the new destination. But contrary to the purpose, the homestay subsidy has been distributed in different areas than the tourist destination . For example: Galeshwardham, Swargashram, Jagannath Temple and Dholdhana and Singa Tatopani in Beni municipality of Myagdi have been designated as tourist destinations by the provincial government. But no homestay has been selected within Beni Municipality. Famous tourist destinations like Ghorepani and Punhill are not included in the program of the state government. Instead, subsidies have been poured into Jhankripani of Mangala Rural Municipality, Mauvaphant of Raghuganga and Ranipauwa Homestay, which are not even on the tourist destination route.

According to the Ministry of Tourism, Industry, Commerce and Supply of Gandaki, 44 homestays in Syangja district have received subsidies from the state government. How much grant did you get? It is mentioned in the report of the tourism office for the year 079/080 that how much was received in the first year at Homestay Mart . District and municipal accounts are not connected. Among them, there are 17 in Galyang alone. While the provincial government has not declared any place in Syangja as a tourist destination. But there is no reason other than access behind such a large number of homestays at the same local level.

Even in Baglung, government subsidies have been misused by opening homestays in places that are not declared tourist destinations. Apart from Pumdikot, Kaskikot and Kahundanda in Kaski, which is the state capital, the homestays also do not touch the declared tourist destination. But subsidies have been distributed in those places too. On the other hand, the grant of all the homestays except Parvatko Mahashila, Paiyunkot, Panchase has also been poured beyond the purpose . The plight of Gorkha, Lamjung, Syangja, Tanahun and other districts is no different from this.

Not only the state, but also the federal government, in 2020, 17 places in Gandaki including Mauza in Kaski, Sarangkot, Pumdikot, Sikless Homestay, Dulung in Parbat, Satochandikalika and Alamdev in Syangja, Bhukunde in Baglung, Dah in Gaza and Daune in Nawalpur, Ghorepani in Myagdi and Ruise-Dhawagiri Icefall. It was announced as a tourist destination. However, there are no homestays in these destinations except for one.

Tourism holiday with allowances for employees

Grants were distributed arbitrarily, the Gandaki government also spent a separate amount to promote homestays. In the year 2075/76, the office of the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers distributed 59 lakh 37 thousand rupees for 'tourism leave' to 161 employees under the ministry with an allowance equal to 1-1 month's salary to support tourism by staying at a homestay.

The then chief minister Prithvisubba Gurung formed a monitoring committee and sent it for an on-site study after the subsidy funds of the homestay program were misused and questions were raised about the achievements. The monitoring committee submitted a report that the homestay investment was not satisfactory, the subsidy was misused and the program failed. But instead of implementing the report, the Congress-Maoist, UML-Maoist governments have continued this program started by UML.

distortion is distortion

After announcing the tourist year, the Gandaki state government launched a subsidized homestay program under the state pride project in the budget of the financial year 2075/76. But most of the homestays operated with subsidies have not been able to do any tourism activities. In particular, this program of the state government has proved to be a means of obtaining government funding by poaching the workers, close people and those with access to the ruling party rather than developing the economy through tourism. How is that? Let's look at some examples of misuse of subsidies:

10 lakh goods on the road: 10 lakh rupees grant was received to operate a homestay in 19 houses of Kusma municipality-14, Arthur village of Parbat with the grant of Gandaki province government . All homestays in the village are affiliated to the Panchkoshi Community Homestay Board of Directors. According to the decision to purchase two cots, plastic tables, blankets, etc. for the homestays affiliated to the committee, Amrit Gurung, Chairman of Panchkoshi Community Homestay Management Committee, reached Kathmandu and bought the goods. He brought the goods from Kathmandu in June 075/076. But when the goods were found to be of poor quality, the homestay operators refused to accept those goods.

38 couches and tables brought for homestay were covered with tripal in a local's house after a dispute. Other goods were stored in the bindi of the local's house. The dispute between the homestay operators was resolved after a few months with a political agreement, but the homestays remained stuck . This is an example of how government investment in homestays has been arbitrary.

Expenditure for private purposes: Valthum Community Homestay of Galyang Municipality-6 in Syangja also got a grant of Rs. 15 lakhs from the provincial government. Valthum homestay has been put into operation in FY 075/076 with 5 houses of Valthum through the forest office with 1.5 lakhs from the state government, 3 lakhs from the local government and the community for 1.8 lakhs. But the standards set by the homestay operating procedures were not met. In the homestay, which was operated by five houses, a round house was built on the individual's land, and toilets were built from house to house with the remaining amount. Gopal Thapa, one of the homestay operators, says that the Golghar, built on private land, should be named after the community homestay.

Closed after covid: The Jaigaon community homestay of Modi Rural Municipality of Parbat, which was opened with a grant, is currently closed. It is said that this homestay has built a water tank to provide clean drinking water to the tourists with a grant of 1 million from the state government, but the tank is standing still as the source of water is not guaranteed. Bishnu Prasad Pokharel, owner of Jaigaon Community Homestay, says, "Initially it was going well, but after the drop in the number of tourists after the Covid-19, the income could not be sustained, and the manpower fled, and then the homestay had to be closed."

Existence is in crisis: There are records of 11 homestays in Raghuganga Rural Municipality of Myagdi. Four of them have received grants from the Gandaki state government. However, Ekta Community Homestay in Mauvaphant and Ranipauwa Community Homestay in Ranipauwa, which were opened with government subsidy, are now limited to sign boards only. Although it is called a community homestay, the government subsidy has been spent on construction of private toilets, cots and cottages. 5 of us have built a community homestay. At the beginning, by bringing grants, some of us built toilets in the house, some made beds for guests, I built a cottage in the yard of the house. Since there is no team work, there is no attachment, now the homestay is in shambles,'' adds Mukund Sharma, President of Ekta Homestay, "There are two beds in my house that have been kept for the homestay, some guests can come and sleep, but I can't cook and feed them." The situation is like this.'

The Ranipauwa community homestay of Raghuganga-3 is no longer in existence. This homestay was opened by forming a family team to receive the grant money under the leadership of Prem Bahadur Karki, a lawyer from the headquarters of Beni. The homestay itself disappeared after the internet zone was added to the house with the grant money. Chairman of Raghuganga rural municipality Bhava Bahadur Bhandari admits that state resources are not being utilized in the homestay. "It is a program of the province, the municipality has supported us rather than running the homestay together with the community," says Bhandari.

Ranipauwa Community Homestay has been operational in the year 075/076 of the Government of Gandaki Province with an investment of 10 lakhs, local Raghuganga Rural Municipality 1 lakh and community 333 thousand. Although a building has been built on the land of the person, and beds have been placed, this homestay is currently not in operation because the guests are not coming.

Mangala rural municipality-4 Jhanripani community homestay of Myagdi has shown the expenditure on the already built community building with grants of 1 million and 1.5 million for two years . In addition, he has also shown that the municipality has invested in the view tower that has already been built. Todke community homestay of Mangla Rural Municipality-1 Purnagaon, which received 2.5 million subsidy in two years in the name of developing homestay tourism infrastructure, is also closed now. Homestay has been open in Purna village since 1973. But in the year 075/076, after the state government gave a subsidy, it is said that 10 families will build a 'community' homestay and run it in their own homes. After Corona, the guests didn't come so they didn't go. The subsidy that came to the homestay opened in the name of the community has been spent on building the structures of private houses of the operators. Baburam Acharya of Todke Homestay says, "To keep the tourists coming to the nearby view point Todke, I added a little subsidy and built a homestay by maintaining and managing the house, but the guests did not come." '

Gandaki Provincial Government is on the list of homestays receiving subsidy, Narchang Bensigaon Community Homestay in Annapurna Rural Municipality-4 Narchang, Myagdi. But the name of this homestay is not in the details of the rural municipality which is responsible for homestay registration and renewal. There is no community building with its name written anywhere. According to the municipal records, only two private homestays are operating in Narchang. Gaikhark homestay of Malika rural municipality-5 Devisthan is also not found in Abikhel of the municipality. Most of the 11 government-subsidized community homestays in Myagdi are in a dilapidated condition. According to Malika rural municipality chairman Wegprasad Garvuja, I heard that there was investment in homestays, but they disappeared just like that.

Closed after grant: Sigdi community homestay of Bareng rural municipality of Baglung district, which received a grant of 10 lakh rupees from the state government, is also closed now. After the corona disaster, this homestay is usually closed as the guests stopped coming to the village . According to Hira Bahadur Pun, chairman of the homestay management committee, although the grant money was spent on the homestay infrastructure, the homestay is now closed because the young people working in the homestay have gone abroad. He says that the homestay had to be closed because tourists did not come after the Covid epidemic.

MP's private farm grant: Tarakhola Multi-Purpose Rambo Fish Farm opened with the investment of Dilmayan (Deepa) Roka, the then Provincial Proportional Member of the Maoist Center in Baglung, Tarakhola Rural Municipality, 4 Chhamtu, was given 10 lakhs by the provincial government and the local level under the name of 'Tarakhola Multi-Purpose Community Homestay'. 1 lakh 30 thousand have invested (granted). In this private farm, which was also owned by the then state MP Roka, subsidies were given against the homestay procedure. His Rambo Trout Homestay is now almost closed. Not only the homestay but also the fishery has slowed down as Rambo Trout fish business has not flourished.

Betini community homestay building of Shaheed Lakhan Rural Municipality of Gorkha has been built on the private land of an individual. Lil Bahadur Rana, Chairman of Betini Community Homestay, says that the land for the community building could not be brought in the name of the community due to the suspension of land acquisition. His statement is: "Community homestay building has been built on my land". I will pass it in the name of the community. Although the plot of land has been opened, the bank is in the process of releasing the mortgage, soon it will be transferred to the name of the community . How much subsidy did this homestay receive? This homestay received a subsidy of 10 lakhs in the first year . This homestay has also been given a government subsidy, while the Rainas Community Homestay in Lamjung has also been given a subsidy twice. While according to the homestay procedure, the building of the community homestay should be on the community land . However, even if the grant money brought by the provincial government to operate the community homestay is spent on the construction and maintenance of the individual's private house, they are free from the scope of taking and giving the grant.

Misuse found, review suggested

The Auditor General's office has been continuously raising questions about the homestay program under the Gaurav project started by the Gandaki government in the last five financial years . The General Account has determined that the province's homestay subsidy is not distributed in accordance with the standards, misused and scattered in places that have nothing to do with tourism due to political access. The Auditor General's Annual Report 2077, Gandaki Province states...contrary to the standard, Division Forest Office Parbat paid 942,000 to 2 homestays of Modi Rural Municipality to buy cots, sirak, dasna, table, sirak cover, 12 lakh 78 thousand to connect internet to 9 other homestays and A homestay has been given a grant of 1 lakh 97 thousand to buy plastic chairs. Similarly, Division Forest Office Myagdi has distributed 5 lakh rupees to connect internet to 3 homestays and 6 lakh rupees to Lamjung to connect internet to 6 homestays and 3 million rupees per homestay to buy separate furniture. Also, it is mentioned in the report that even those that are commercially registered and profit-making (hotels, restaurants that have already run) have taken homestay subsidies.

The annual report of the General Accounting Office 2078 also includes a functional audit (on-site study) report on Gharbas (Homestay). From pages 40 to 47 of the report, points No. 13 to 25 have given detailed information about the irregularities and misuse in the distribution of homestay subsidy.

In points No. 13 and 14 of the executive report, it is written how the homestay subsidy has been misused. While choosing Gaurav's project, it has been stated that the basis of selection is not clear, and benefit analysis has not been done. Similarly, it is mentioned that 288.7 million 42 thousand was spent through the division office to promote homestays, the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives has given an additional 1 million 35 million 2 thousand to the 25 homestays in Syangja and Tanahun that have received subsidies to feed organic food to the tourists coming to the homestays. In the same year, the Office of the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers also questioned the spending of `5937,000 on ``tourism leave'' for 161 employees under the ministry to support tourism by staying in homestays, including an allowance equal to one month's salary.

In the last 25th point of the operational audit (on-site study) report on homestays, it is said - 'There has been no supervision, monitoring and evaluation according to the procedure by the ministry and implementing agencies.' In the absence of supervision and monitoring, there is no assurance that the grants provided have been used for the intended purpose. Since that situation seems to have an impact on the success of the program announced as state pride, there should be a system for regular supervision, monitoring and evaluation.'

In the annual report of Gandaki province, it is said on page 37- 'The impact on tourism promotion has not been evaluated after the start of the homestay program until the year 2077/78.' It is further stated in 39- 'Since the subsidy is given to benefit only certain individuals and groups, it cannot be said that the subsidy for homestay has been used properly, it should be controlled.' 43,000 has been spent, since the homestay subsidy has been spent on private land to build structures, it has been spent for private purposes, and the paperwork process has been completed to get the subsidy, so the program should be reviewed after assessing the impact of the subsidy on tourism promotion The name of its name has not been stopped even if the name of its name has not been stopped, but not for the grant abuse also, but NBSP;.

(Disgraign Journalism Prepared & Nbsp ;.)