Can NGOs freely accuse any business of wrong doing, without substantiated research and evidence?
No one; whether individual, company, NGO or otherwise need accuse another unjustifiably. I’m surprised Survival International would publish such a defamatory letter without substantiated evidence.

While I have no objection to Survival International’s campaign to as such, I do resent the unsubstantiated accusation toward the Barefoot Group. Drumming up images of genocide is purely sensationalist. It reeks of a desperate attempt to get attention and deviates from the complexity of the Jawawa issue.

Nor can you place the responsibility of an entire indigenous communities future in the hands of one resort. There are multiple stakeholders involved who all need to be constructively engaged. There is nothing ethical in trampling another’s reputation for ones own gain.

Aren't NGOs accountable for their words and actions?
Absolutely! I am interested to know Survival International’s counter-response to Barefoot and to this forum.

Doesn't responsibility apply to NGOs as well, or is this confined only to private business and governments?
It is somehow inherent that NGO’s are responsible bodies. Regrettably this is not always the case. I could list numerous examples (both International and National NGO’s) that re-write the rules to serve their own interests. This accusation strikes me as another case in point.

I stand by the Barefoot Group as a reputed travel company and valued business partner. Their commitment to responsible travel is evident from their tangible efforts to maintain the biodiversity of the island. It is clear from the supporting documents provided by them that Survival International’s claims are grossly overstated.

I urge Survival International to examine the evidence provided before making further nocuous statements.

Hello, this is Miriam from Survival International. Please find below the text of the email sent today by Survival's director Stephen Corry to Samit Sawhny if Barefoot.
....

Dear Mr Sawhny,

Thank you for your emails. We are surprised that you claim high ethical standards when you can be in no doubt that development close to the reserve will damage the Jarawa’s wellbeing. This tribal people has made it abundantly clear for generations that they do not seek integration with the outside world. The fact that natural curiosity leads some, particularly younger people, to occasional interaction with outsiders does not alter this. The Jarawa remain at extreme risk from contagious diseases against which they have no adequate protection.

The fact that there is encroachment in or close to the reserve elsewhere does not affect the case against your development. Any developments close to the reserve increase the threat to the Jarawa.

We have been reliably informed that Jarawa visit nearby. These visits are not monitored but we are reliably informed that the last visit was made quite recently. The precise date of this visit is not relevant to the concerns we have expressed.

The principal point in your email seems to be the distance between the proposed resort and the edge of the reserve. We have this as 500 metres (which is an approximation); you claim it as 3,200 metres. Even if you were correct, it would still constitute only about a half hour’s walk for a fit Jarawa and would be much too close for comfort.

We do not believe that you are correct about the distance, however, for the following reasons:

1) Reliable sources have told us that the distance is about 500 metres.

2) We have visited the site and had the edge of the reserve pointed out by individuals who have a close knowledge of these matters. Although the distance was not paced out (for obvious reasons), it was estimated to be about 500ms away and certainly much less than 3.2kms.

3) You provide a map which claims that the ‘nearest point’ of the reserve to the resort is indicated by a line which you have drawn. We do not believe that this is in fact the nearest point. The reserve covers the whole of the peninsula to the north of your point and then extends around to the east.

4) Even if you were right about the ‘nearest point’, the reserve includes an area 5kms seaward from the shoreline.

5) Even if this were not the case, we believe that the line on your map represents a distance shorter than 3kms.

If you wish to pursue this, please show us where you believe the reserve’s relevant boundaries are and most importantly let us know on what information you base this. Once we have it, and have checked with the relevant authorities, should we find the distance to be materially different from the approximately 500 meters we have cited, we would be happy to issue a correction.

In the meantime, we will not be adjusting our figure and will continue to urge you not to proceed with your project.

We reserve the right to publish this communication and those we have received or receive from you.



Yours sincerely,

Stephen Corry

Director

The response from Samit Sawhny http://rtnetworking.org/ngo/bfresponse.htm clearly shows the factual inaccuracies in the press release from Survivor International (SI) . However, rather than addressing the response and concerns raised by Samit Sawhny and engaging in a productive discussion, Survivor International (as Raj mentioned above) is not keen on providing clarity to their own press release.

One reason why Traveltocare.com and The Blue Yonder contacted Barefoot for their response was because of the seriousness of the allegation against one of its member hotels. But more importantly, since one of Traveltocare.com's directors, Ashish Gupta (who looks after research and operations) is also a minority shareholder in Barefoot, we were all the more determined to be objective and determine the truth to the widely publicized accusation by Survivor International. Having read the detailed response from Samit and the ambiguous reply from Survivor International (without touching any of the issues raised by Samit) gives us more reason to doubt the integrity of the Survivor International press campaign.

OK this starts getting really interesting. If it is true that Survival International was going to/was filming the indigenous peoples, i would also be interested to find out about the responsibility issues and how they took care of it surrounding the filming.

a. Was the film shot? that itself contradicts the indigeneous peoples' interest in staying away from civilization. Why film someone who is not interested.

b. Were the Jarawa paid for the filming, how was this done... ? isn't this a modern mechanism which is not something they are used to?

c. Who went to contact them about this... ??? how much external contact was required and is there a chance that the ridiculous argument about external "contagious" diseases also possible here?

I am sure that the list of WRONG practices with regard to this will be longer than the resort being built! OK, that is a bit of an overstatement, but it is equally serious in effect!

Samit is a close friend of mine and a man of great integrity. A man who threw up a high paying financial consulting job in the city in London and actually hitch-hiked back to Delhi from London. A man who is so passionate about ecological tourism that he has already given 9 years of his life to barefoot - leading an ascetic existence to create a business that is the pride of Indian tourism. The other side of my work life is Contraband - a band which prodes itself on sensitive original work. Samit authored one of our earliest originals (called The Political Song, 2004). His sympathy and affection for tribes is clearly captured here - you can catch the lyrics and the song at http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=2037902&id=553283162&ref=mf#/pages/Contra-Band/88009138541?ref=ts

That's Samit and Barefoot. And now we have survival international - clearly epitomising the armchair based, attention seeking, unprofessional destroyer of the good image the average NGO carries. An outfit with truth, integrity and intellect representing alien concepts - self aggrandisement appears to be the hallmark of achievement. Survival International - I do suggest there are better ways to survive. Perhaps its time you found them.

Some one goes for a press release when they want things to be discussed in public. The first press release went out from Survival alleging Barefoot resorts of potential genocide etc..

Survival suggested that "The Barefoot resort could introduce diseases to which the Jarawa have no immunity" - really more a statement of fact than a direct accusation of potential genocide, who's being sensationalist here? They are a charity trying to give a voice to an under represented people worldwide, given their motivations I think the whole situation could have been dealt with a little differently. I'm sure a lot of people who wouldn't have even noticed this press release have seen it now.

By cross posting of private information I was referring to publishing letters online and circulating links across the web.

I'm not fighting either corner here just commenting on how coverage of this has evolved.

I just read Samit's comment above, which was made whilst I was writing this and it seems that as is so often the case we have no idea of the press coverage that takes place in another country...not everything in print is accessed online, and I agree that once something is on the web it is often there for a long long time. I'm really sorry to hear that this news has affected your bookings already, and given that information you have every right to be particularly annoyed by all this. It must be extremely frustrating when something like this happens.

In the face of all this I find your calm, dignified and graceful response written above a testament to your no doubt good character and intentions with your work.


Edited by maketravelfair - 21 Jun 2009 at 20:25

Great comments Raj, really interesting read. Tend to agree with what you've said here.

I have been a visitor to the barefoot resport at havelock about a couple of years back. My attention was drawn to this topic by a co-visitor.

Message from Gayaza

Having read all the information and forum discussion to date then here are some extra comments which I hope may be of use.

On the official web site of Survival International (SI)  www.survival-international.org  then by watching Sophie Grigs exclusive interview along with the 3 other video clips then it appears that the Jarawa tribe do not live in isolation....and how can they with a road traversing their habitat?This road should in fact have been closed several years ago but the Andaman Administration do not seem to be dealing with the matter in a positive way. As Sophie Grig appears to be on good terms with the administration then would it not be more appropriate  and constructive for SI to pursue this matter rather than targetting Barefoot?

Returning to the initial query raised by traveltocare.com and theblueyonder.com regarding NGO accountability.SI is in fact accountable to the UK Charity Commission

www.charity-commission.gov.uk  SI ( registered charity number 267444) has an annual income in excess of one million pounds and employs approximately 25 people. SI is legally bound to disclose their financial accounts along with the Board of trustees Annual Report.Can it be assumed that the libelous attack on Barefoot in the SI press release was sent forth with the blessing of the trustees?. If this is the case then it is hard to believe that such an administrative body could find the response of the SI director Stephen Corry to Barefoots informative well balanced and documented report of a standard worthy to be expected from such an organisation.