Article 14 of the "Tourism Law of the People's Republic of China (Draft)" (hereinafter referred to as the Draft) stipulates: "(Tourism rescue) When the personal safety or property of tourists is in danger, they have the right to request timely rescue from tourism service providers, local governments, and other relevant social institutions." Accordingly, once in danger, tourists have the right to request assistance from tourism operators, local governments, embassies and consulates abroad, among others, and it will be the legal obligation of these entities to carry out the rescue. At the same time, according to Paragraph 3 of Article 17 of the Draft: "Tourists who receive rescue from the state or public organizations shall pay the expenses that should be borne by themselves." It is clear that receiving tourism rescue is not free, and tourists should pay reasonable costs.
It is an international practice that tourists need to pay for tourism rescue. Many countries have public welfare rescue organizations and for-profit rescue organizations specifically engaged in emergency rescue (including tourism rescue). The Draft’s provision for paid rescue aligns with market principles for protecting tourists' rights. However, how is the standard for rescue fees calculated? Should a mandatory insurance system for tourism rescue be established? The Draft does not specify.
With the continuous development and improvement of China's social, economic, and cultural standards, the public's demand for tourism is growing. Traditional group tours, with their tight schedules and fixed itineraries, struggle to meet people’s diverse travel needs. As a result, self-guided tour options offered by travel agencies are increasingly favored by tourists. Moreover, many "travel enthusiasts" (or "travel buddies") spontaneously organize hiking, mountaineering, and exploration activities, leading to a rising frequency of tourists encountering danger. Public security and fire departments at tourist destinations, as well as public welfare organizations involved in rescue operations, sometimes incur high rescue costs and substantial resource expenditure when aiding endangered tourists, many of whom are at fault for the dangerous situations they face. According to the "Interim Measures for the Protection of Tourism Resources," conducting non-profit activities such as scientific research, sports, or exploration in undeveloped tourism resources or areas requires prior reporting and registration with the local tourism administrative department. This includes details such as the purpose of the activity, number of participants, duration of stay, contact information, and proposed protective measures for tourism resources. However, in reality, most spontaneously organized exploration activities are not registered, and no administrative penalties are imposed for failing to do so even if dangers arise.
In recent years, incidents of "travel buddies" being trapped during exploration have placed a heavy burden on tourism rescue efforts. In 2010, several Fudan University students on an exploration trip were stranded, resulting in the death of a rescue police officer who fell off a cliff. In 2011, 39 "travel buddies" were in danger on Ma’er Mountain in Zhoukoudian, Fangshan, Beijing; and 17 travelers got lost and called for help in the wild mountains of Xilongmen, Mentougou, Beijing. Public security and fire departments deployed significant manpower and resources for the rescues, even utilizing helicopters. During this year’s National Day holiday, a team of 14 people illegally crossed the core area of the Wolong National Nature Reserve, leading to the drowning death of one female traveler and stranding six others. According to China’s "Regulations on Nature Reserves," nature reserves can be divided into core zones, buffer zones, and experimental zones. Among them, entry into the core zone is prohibited for any individual or organization. Who should bear the cost when high rescue fees arise due to dangers caused by tourists’ own faults? What proportion of the rescue costs should be paid by the tourists themselves, and how should major faults on their part influence the payment ratio? The Draft does not specify these, leaving gaps in practical implementation.
The author suggests that the Draft mandate tourists, especially those on self-guided tours, to purchase compulsory tourism rescue insurance. By combining basic compulsory tourism rescue insurance with commercial tourism rescue insurance, the risks of tourism rescue and the associated high costs can be shared. This would not only protect the legitimate rights and interests of tourists but also reduce the burden on public welfare rescue efforts and prevent waste of public resources. It must be emphasized that tourists who incur rescue costs due to their own faults (such as illegally crossing nature reserves) should bear a high proportion of the expenses and receive corresponding administrative penalties, thereby deterring illegal travel behavior. Therefore, a fourth paragraph should be added to Article 17 of the Draft, stipulating: "Before setting out, self-guided tourists should purchase tourism rescue insurance. Rescue costs arising from major faults of tourists shall not be covered by tourism rescue insurance and shall be borne by the tourists themselves, or their personal contribution should account for no less than 50% of the total cost." Of course, the aforementioned tourism rescue insurance refers only to the legally mandated compulsory tourism rescue insurance. Commercial rescue insurance shall be compensated according to insurance contract agreements and is not restricted by this clause.