SLOWLY but surely, a consensus is forming in Thailand about the meaning of eco-tourism: The first priority should be to leave the natural destinations pristine for future visitors.

It is not just environmentalists who are calling for limits to the ravages of tourism. Tourists themselves have shown increasing concern about the behaviour of some of their fellow visitors around scenic sites, and eco-tourism firms know better than anyone that a lack of proper regulation is causing damage to their businesses.

Unfortunately, the message does not seem to have sunk in where it matters most, with the government agencies that are supposed to serve as regulators, in particular with the Royal Forestry Department (RFD).

The Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT) has tried many times now to take control of eco-tourism away from the RFD, but without success. That is probably a good thing. The TAT is a promotional agency for the tourism industry, and so would make a lousy regulator. Indeed, the squalor of Pattaya and Patong serve as testament to its poor record.

The officers in the National Parks Division and other conservation agencies also have more knowledge about how to protect natural eco-systems. But so far, they have been either unwilling or unable to put proper eco-tourism regulations into effect, and as the high season hits full swing, the wear on Thailand's natural wonders is beginning to show.

All along the Andaman coast, for instance, there are ominous signs that the coral reefs are dying. National park officials tend to blame this on bad practices by fishermen, but while that may have been true in the past, it is now tourism which seems to be causing the most damage.

Even once remote diving destinations such as the Surin and Similan Islands are now besieged by tour boats, and some of the tour guides show shockingly little concern for the source of their livelihood. Not content with merely observing fish, dive-masters have been seen taking out their spearguns to shoot dinner. Incredibly, they do not seem to find any contradiction in these actions, and stroll brazenly past park officials with their catch.

Even more seriously, many tour boats leak oil and simply dump their waste water into the sea. Pollution may now be the most serious problem facing marine parks because it causes algae to grow on the reefs, killing off the coral, which will not grow back as long as the algae remains. At the Surin Islands National Park, a whole reef seems to have died off as a result of pollution from the park headquarters itself.

Unregulated growth is also hurting the sea canoe and river rafting tours. Traffic jams have formed in the caves of Phang Nga Bay as companies shuttle tourists in and out on sea canoes. Meanwhile, along some rivers huge stands of bamboo have been cut down to make rafts for sightseers. Both trades also suffer from noisy and even drunken revellers, as some firms fail to advise their customers on proper eco-tourism etiquette.

Not only will this lax attitude give Thai eco-tourism a bad name, it could lead to disaster. It won't be too long before some irresponsible sea-canoeist gets trapped in a cave by rising tides, or some tipsy rafter tips over and drowns. What will be the impact on the tourism trade then?

It would be far better to begin placing proper restrictions on these activities today. Ideally, tour companies should agree on their own regulations, but rivalries often prevent this. So the RFD will have to step in if calamity is to be averted.

Park chiefs have so far been reluctant to restrict the number of visitors in parks, perhaps because of the revenue generated, so the initiative will probably have to come from the head office. Strict guidelines have to be set up for eco-tourism firms, and those companies which fail to honour them should have their licences revoked. If money is really the issue here, then it would be better to reduce the number of visitors while raising park fees.

Whatever the solution, the RFD or some other government agency must do something soon. Otherwise, Thailand will strangle yet another golden egg-laying goose.

EDITORIAL