University of Aarhus ECOTOURISM AS A WAY TO PROTECT ...
University of Aarhus ECOTOURISM AS A WAY TO PROTECT ...
University of Aarhus ECOTOURISM AS A WAY TO PROTECT ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Aarhus</strong><br />
Environmental Studies, Spring 2002<br />
<strong>ECO<strong>TO</strong>URISM</strong> <strong>AS</strong> A <strong>WAY</strong> <strong>TO</strong> <strong>PROTECT</strong> NATURE<br />
(© 2002, World Ecotourism Summit — Québec 2002)<br />
Stine Bruun Sørensen (Biology student, Denmark)<br />
Anna Isabel Baraza (Geography student, Spain)<br />
Ondrej Mirovsky (Environmental protection student, Czech Republic)<br />
Cong Nguyen Van (Environmental Science, Vietnam)<br />
Supervisor: Svend Erik Jeppesen
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
<strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Aarhus</strong><br />
Environmental Studies, Spring 2002<br />
<strong>ECO<strong>TO</strong>URISM</strong> <strong>AS</strong> A <strong>WAY</strong> <strong>TO</strong> <strong>PROTECT</strong> NATURE<br />
Stine Bruun Sørensen (Biology student, Denmark)<br />
Anna Isabel Baraza (Geography student, Spain)<br />
Ondrej Mirovsky (Environmental protection student, Czech Republic)<br />
Cong Nguyen Van (Environmental Science, Vietnam)<br />
Supervisor: Svend Erik Jeppesen<br />
1
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
AFDELING FOR<br />
MILJØSTUDIER<br />
AARHUS UNIVERSITET<br />
Finlandsgade 12-14<br />
8200 Århus N<br />
Phone: +45 8942 4424<br />
Fax: +45 8942 4426<br />
CENTER FOR<br />
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES<br />
UNIVERSITY OF AARHUS<br />
FINLANDSGADE 12-14<br />
DK-8200 AARHUS N<br />
DENMARK<br />
E-mail: miljolare@au.dk<br />
Web site: www.miljolare.au.dk<br />
Publisher: Environmental Studies 2002-06-06<br />
Printed by Fysisk institut<br />
ISBN 87-7785-137-4<br />
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS<br />
1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................... 5<br />
1.2. Structure and limitation ............................................................................... 7<br />
2. <strong>ECO<strong>TO</strong>URISM</strong> ............................................................................................... 9<br />
2.1. Definition <strong>of</strong> Ecotourism............................................................................. 9<br />
2.1.1. Branches <strong>of</strong> tourism............................................................................... 9<br />
2.1.2. Different kinds <strong>of</strong> tourism ................................................................... 10<br />
2.2. Ecotourism definition................................................................................ 11<br />
2.2.1. Ecotourism as a sustainable development concept ............................. 12<br />
2.2.2. Ecotourism as a market segment ......................................................... 14<br />
2.2.3. Other definitions.................................................................................. 14<br />
2.2.4. Ecotourism - is there a final concept……………………………… 16<br />
2.3. Is Ecotourism really sustainable.............................................................. 16<br />
2.3.1. Conditions for successful ecotourism................................................. 16<br />
2.3.2. How many tourists are ecotourists.................................................... 16<br />
2.4. Economic aspects <strong>of</strong> ecotourism ............................................................... 17<br />
2.5. Certification <strong>of</strong> ecotourism........................................................................ 21<br />
2.5.1 Green Globe 21..................................................................................... 23<br />
2.5.2. National Ecotourism Accreditation Program <strong>of</strong> Australia .................. 24<br />
2.5.3. Other Tourism Ecolabels..................................................................... 25<br />
2.5.4. Structural framework <strong>of</strong> ecolabel schemes ......................................... 27<br />
2.5.5. Ecolabels as a future for ecotourism regulation .................................. 27<br />
2.6. Different roles <strong>of</strong> ecotourism .................................................................... 28<br />
2.6.1. Generating economic benefits for different stakeholders……………30<br />
2.6.2. Ecotourism benefit to local education……………………………… 31<br />
2.6.3. Ecotourism benefit to promote conservation ...................................... 33<br />
2.7. Monitoring ecotourism activities and mitigating negative impacts……...36<br />
2.7.1. Negative impacts from ecotourism...................................................... 36<br />
2.7.2. Indicators for monitoring and mitigating negative impacts <strong>of</strong><br />
ecotourism...................................................................................................... 37<br />
3. C<strong>AS</strong>E STUDIES ............................................................................................ 39<br />
3.1. Ecotourism in Galapagos Islands .............................................................. 39<br />
3.1.1. Introduction to Galapagos Islands....................................................... 39<br />
3.1.2. Nature .................................................................................................. 40<br />
3.1.3. History ................................................................................................. 43<br />
3.1.4. The National Park................................................................................ 45<br />
3.1.5. The effect <strong>of</strong> ecotourism...................................................................... 49<br />
3.1.6 The New Special Law .......................................................................... 54<br />
3.1.7. Conclusion........................................................................................... 55
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
3.2. Ecotourism and wildlife in Kruger National Park..................................... 57<br />
3.2.1. Introduction ........................................................................................ 57<br />
3.2.2. South African National Parks Management........................................ 60<br />
3.2.3. Tourists and their expectations............................................................ 63<br />
3.2.4. Wildlife in Kruger National Park ....................................................... 64<br />
3.2.5. Human influence on the wildlife ......................................................... 64<br />
3.2.6. Tourism/Mining: An African economic dilemma............................... 66<br />
3.2.7. Conservation/tourism .......................................................................... 67<br />
3.2.8. Social problems ................................................................................... 68<br />
3.2.9. Conclusions ......................................................................................... 69<br />
4. DISCUSSION................................................................................................. 71<br />
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS………………………81<br />
REFERENCE .................................................................................................... 82<br />
APPENDIX ........................................................................................................ 88<br />
4
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
1. INTRODUCTION<br />
Over time, huge areas <strong>of</strong> forest and other nature territories have been<br />
cleared for a number <strong>of</strong> purposes such as resource exploitation, settlement,<br />
industry and agriculture. Once 62,203,000 square kilometres <strong>of</strong> the planet was<br />
covered by forest, now 54% <strong>of</strong> the original forest has been cleared (World<br />
Resources Institute, 2002). Every year at least 16 million additional hectares fall<br />
to axe, torch, bulldozer or chain saw. This is a serious problem, particularly in<br />
the tropics (World Resources Institute, 2002). Many species <strong>of</strong> plants and<br />
(a)<br />
(b)<br />
Figure 1: Formerly (a) and current (b) forest cover. ww.globalforestwatch.org<br />
animals are now endangered or even extinct. It is important to protect and<br />
conserve biodiversity.<br />
5
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
With global growth in the tourist industry, ecotourism could be an<br />
important tool to protect biodiversity. Ecotourism has existed for 30 years, and<br />
the concept is frequently used to refer to “responsible”, “sustainable”,<br />
“conservation” or “low-impact” tourism. The idea <strong>of</strong> ecotourism has been<br />
widely used recently all around the world. This is the case because tourism<br />
forms important part <strong>of</strong> the world's economy. In the twentieth century, world<br />
trade steadily gave way to a system increasingly dominated by services,<br />
telecommunications and financial transactions. Travelling and tourism are now<br />
the most important parts <strong>of</strong> the service industry (Mercer, 1996). At the same<br />
time tourism is a major source <strong>of</strong> foreign exchange earnings for many<br />
developing countries (UNEP, 2002). The number <strong>of</strong> travellers increases year by<br />
year, and within the tourism industry ecotourism is the fastest growing segment.<br />
Because <strong>of</strong> the increasing importance <strong>of</strong> ecotourism worldwide, the<br />
United Nations has declared the year 2002 the INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF<br />
<strong>ECO<strong>TO</strong>URISM</strong>. One <strong>of</strong> today's major environmental challenges is the<br />
protection <strong>of</strong> the biodiversity, and ecotourism could well play a very important<br />
role in the protection <strong>of</strong> biodiversity. Moreover, ecotourism could fulfil needs <strong>of</strong><br />
people living in the places which attract tourists. In this report we will discuss<br />
the above statements.<br />
May 2002, the World Ecotourism Summit took place in the city <strong>of</strong><br />
Quebec. The major objective <strong>of</strong> this summit was to review the potential<br />
contribution <strong>of</strong> ecotourism to sustainable development (World Ecotourism<br />
Summit - Québec, 2002). The summit was expected to be the largest ever<br />
meeting between all stakeholders involved in or affected by ecotourism (UNEP,<br />
2002). One <strong>of</strong> the aims <strong>of</strong> the Quebec summit was to deliver the Québec City<br />
Declaration on Ecotourism and to elaborate a set <strong>of</strong> conclusions. Recently, the<br />
first results from the summit have been published, where 1,100 delegates, from<br />
6
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
133 different countries participated. The document will be <strong>of</strong>ficially tabled at<br />
the World Summit on Sustainable Development in August 2002, in<br />
Johannesburg.<br />
This report is being carried out at a time when ecotourism is at a<br />
crossroads. After years <strong>of</strong> confusion and uncertainties, this year is supposed to<br />
bring more rules, regulations and recommendations on planning, development,<br />
management, marketing and monitoring <strong>of</strong> ecotourism activities, with a view to<br />
ensuring long-term sustainability.<br />
In this report will call ecotourism in question. Is ecotourism<br />
environmentally, culturally/socially, and economically sustainable How to<br />
manage and control ecotourism correctly And prevent that the word is not<br />
being abused. These are the questions we would like to put in focus.<br />
1.2. Structure and limitation<br />
Chapter one introduces the project and gives some information on<br />
ecotourism, and it outlines the issues to be discussed in the report.<br />
Chapter two will give an overall introduction to ecotourism. Below,<br />
different aspect <strong>of</strong> chapter two is outlined.<br />
• Ecotourism is a wide-ranging word, and there are a lot <strong>of</strong> different<br />
definitions <strong>of</strong> ecotourism. This chapter will describe definitions <strong>of</strong><br />
different branches in the tourist industry, and different definitions<br />
<strong>of</strong> ecotourism. But with the main focus on the UNEP definition.<br />
• It will look at ecotourism as a sustainable development concept and<br />
present some guidelines <strong>of</strong> basics element in ecotourism.<br />
Furthermore, ecotourism will be contemplated as a part <strong>of</strong> the<br />
tourism industry.<br />
7
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
• Introduce which conditions are important for successful<br />
ecotourism.<br />
• It will deal with ecotourism within the world tourism market and<br />
consider economical aspects.<br />
• It will deal with ecolabeling (environmental certification in<br />
tourism), and present different kinds <strong>of</strong> ecolabels around the world.<br />
• It will look at the roles <strong>of</strong> ecotourism in conserving biodiversity in<br />
protected areas and the role <strong>of</strong> local participation in ecotourism.<br />
The chapter also looks at how the proceeds are generated and who<br />
benefits from tourism.<br />
• It deals with the negative impacts <strong>of</strong> ecotourism and how to<br />
minimise these impacts.<br />
Chapter three is made up <strong>of</strong> two case studies. We will look at how tourism<br />
is promoted in these two places. We have chosen two countries from distinct<br />
places in the world, and we will look at how they are managing the National<br />
Park. They are both developing countries. It would have been interesting to<br />
compare these two countries with tourism in an industrialised country, but it<br />
would not be possible within the scope <strong>of</strong> this project. We chose the Galapagos<br />
Islands and the Kruger National Park in South Africa because they have a very<br />
similarly economic situation, but they differ when it comes to the actual<br />
management <strong>of</strong> tourism. Learning from two case studies, we will figure out what<br />
should be followed and what should be avoided.<br />
Chapter four opens a discussion on the notion “ecotourism”, and how to<br />
implement it in practice.<br />
Chapter five contains the final conclusion and suggestions.<br />
8
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
2. <strong>ECO<strong>TO</strong>URISM</strong><br />
2.1. Definition <strong>of</strong> Ecotourism<br />
Until recently, there has been some confusion concerning the etymology<br />
or origin <strong>of</strong> the term ecotourism, as is evident in the tremendous volume <strong>of</strong><br />
literature on the topic (Fennell, 1999). It is quite obvious that ecotourism is a<br />
special part <strong>of</strong> tourism, as the "Eco" (1) label means that there is some "natural"<br />
concern within this branch <strong>of</strong> tourism.<br />
On the following pages we will give an introduction to this extremely<br />
complicated and diversified field. We will also present the major approaches <strong>of</strong><br />
tourism recently used, and in the end <strong>of</strong> the theoretical part we will carry out<br />
some final definition <strong>of</strong> "ecotourism" including all the important aspects.<br />
2.1.1. Branches <strong>of</strong> tourism<br />
The most narrow definition <strong>of</strong> tourism has been presented by the World<br />
Tourism Organisation (W<strong>TO</strong>) (2) . According to this definition tourism is any<br />
form <strong>of</strong> travel that involves a stay <strong>of</strong> least one night but less than one year away<br />
from home. But generally tourism is simply defined as domestic or<br />
international travel for leisure and recreation (Roe, 1997).<br />
Within the huge group <strong>of</strong> different types <strong>of</strong> tourist activities we can<br />
distinguish some major segments. Basically, tourism consists <strong>of</strong> two major<br />
parts: mass tourism and alternative tourism (Mieczkowski, 1995). The<br />
alternative "branch" may be divided into many other parts like: agro-tourism,<br />
wildlife tourism, adventure tourism, nature and ecotourism (see figure 2).<br />
1 oikos - from Greek words, means - house or dwelling, (Odum, 1971).<br />
2 The World Tourism Organisation is the leading international organisation in the field <strong>of</strong> travel and<br />
tourism<br />
9
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
Figure 2: Branches <strong>of</strong> tourism (Mieczkowski, 1995)<br />
2.1.2. Different kinds <strong>of</strong> tourism<br />
• Mass tourism<br />
This part <strong>of</strong> tourism is a leisure-oriented type <strong>of</strong>fering the highest comfort<br />
and convenience level regardless <strong>of</strong> any environmental effects. A typical<br />
example <strong>of</strong> this type is the classic "3S" vacation focussing on sea, sun and sand<br />
(Weaver, 2001). The high popularity <strong>of</strong> this type leads to high concentrations <strong>of</strong><br />
people in relatively small spaces, that is why it is called mass tourism.<br />
• Alternative tourism<br />
The alternative types <strong>of</strong> tourism are facing mass tourism from the opposite<br />
point <strong>of</strong> view. Small groups <strong>of</strong> "interested" people enjoy the close contact with<br />
nature. But many subdivisions are possible within this group.<br />
+ Wildlife tourism: "involves travel to observe animals like birds, fish and<br />
mammals in their native habitat" (Honey, 1999). This includes the consumptive<br />
and non-consumptive use <strong>of</strong> wild animals. “It may be high volume mass tourism<br />
or low volume/low impact tourism, generate high economic returns or low<br />
economic returns, be sustainable or unsustainable, domestic or international, and<br />
based on day visits or longer stays” (Roe, 1997).<br />
10
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
+ Nature tourism: "involves travel to unspoiled places to experience and<br />
enjoy, usually like hiking, biking, sailing and camping” (Honey, 1999).<br />
+ Adventure tourism: "is nature tourism with a kick" requires physical<br />
skill and endurance and involves a degree <strong>of</strong> risk taking (Honey, 1999).<br />
+ Agricultural tourism: this type <strong>of</strong> tourism is specific especially for the<br />
European cultural landscape where the farmers can <strong>of</strong>fer many opportunities for<br />
tourists to find the experiences closely connected with the agricultural practices<br />
(horseback riding, to some extent volunteers on organic farms could also be<br />
considered a kind <strong>of</strong> agro-tourism). In the Ecotourism Guide released by The<br />
Geographical in June 2000, they present many volunteering jobs as ecotourism.<br />
+ Ecotourism: all the previous definitions within the group <strong>of</strong> alternative<br />
tourism could be included in the definition <strong>of</strong> ecotourism. But in addition to the<br />
recreational activities, ecotourism is also defined by its benefits to both<br />
conservation and to people in the host country (Honey, 1999) with a strong<br />
emphasis on the sustainability <strong>of</strong> nature and people's livelihood.<br />
2.2. Ecotourism definition<br />
As mentioned above, there is still certain confusion with regards to the<br />
definition <strong>of</strong> the term "ecotourism". To consolidate the ideas and manage<br />
"ecotourism" from a global point <strong>of</strong> view The Ecotourism Society (TES) found<br />
out like a small, influential NGO organisation. TES with the co-operation <strong>of</strong> The<br />
United Nation Environmental Program (UNEP) (3) and the World Conservation<br />
Union (former IUCN) (4) are the major players in the field <strong>of</strong> ecotourism recently.<br />
3 UNEP -works to encourage sustainable development through sound environmental<br />
practices everywhere (UNEP, 2002).<br />
4 IUCN -was established to influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world<br />
to conserve the integrity and diversity <strong>of</strong> nature and to ensure that any use <strong>of</strong> natural<br />
resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable (IUCN, 2002).<br />
11
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
The Ecotourism Society produced the earliest and still commonly used<br />
definition <strong>of</strong> ecotourism in 1991: "responsible travel to natural areas that<br />
conserves the environment and sustains the well-being <strong>of</strong> local people".<br />
Ten years after the introduction <strong>of</strong> this first definition, lots <strong>of</strong> things have<br />
changed and the term ecotourism is getting a more precise meaning.<br />
According to the UNEP definition, the term ecotourism has two<br />
dimensions:<br />
• Ecotourism is a sustainable development tool.<br />
• Ecotourism is a form <strong>of</strong> alternative (nature based) tourism.<br />
(UNEP, 2002)<br />
2.2.1. Ecotourism as a sustainable development concept<br />
It is generally supposed that well planned and managed ecotourism could<br />
be an effective tool for ensuring long-term conservation <strong>of</strong> biodiversity. As a<br />
development tool, ecotourism can serve to advance three <strong>of</strong> the basic goals <strong>of</strong><br />
the Convention on Biological Diversity:<br />
• To conserve biological and cultural diversity<br />
• To promote the sustainable use <strong>of</strong> biodiversity, by generating income,<br />
job and business opportunities…<br />
• To share the benefits <strong>of</strong> ecotourism developments with local<br />
communities and indigenous people (UNEP and Convention on<br />
Biological Diversity, 2002).<br />
The recent development towards clear guidelines, principles and finally<br />
ecotourism certification (see the following chapter) has created a general<br />
consensus on the basic elements <strong>of</strong> ecotourism:<br />
• Contributes to the conservation <strong>of</strong> biodiversity.<br />
12
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
• Sustains the well being <strong>of</strong> local people.<br />
• Includes an interpretation/learning experience.<br />
• Involves responsible action on the part <strong>of</strong> tourists and the tourism<br />
industry.<br />
• Is delivered primarily to small groups by small-scale businesses.<br />
• Requires the lowest possible consumption <strong>of</strong> non-renewable resources.<br />
• Stresses local participation, ownership and business opportunities,<br />
particularly for rural people (UNEP, 2002).<br />
The figure 3 shows the role played by ecotourism in the field <strong>of</strong><br />
sustainable tourism 5 .<br />
Figure 3: Ecotourism as a sustainable development concept<br />
5<br />
Sustainable tourism - this term means the broader theoretical view on the sustainability <strong>of</strong><br />
tourism, includes all aspects <strong>of</strong> development (UNEP, 2002). In our opinion, ecotourism is the<br />
form <strong>of</strong> tourism that could fulfil those aims in reality. Ecotourism is mostly focused on "local"<br />
(host) areas not on the tourism as whole.<br />
13
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
2.2.2. Ecotourism as a market segment<br />
When viewing ecotourism as part <strong>of</strong> the tourism industry it is important to<br />
mention, that ecotourism is a small but now rapidly growing industry.<br />
Ecotourism operates with a very valuable resource - biodiversity (Mercer, 1996)<br />
and <strong>of</strong>fers not only passive enjoyment and experiencing but <strong>of</strong>fers a possibility<br />
to participate in nature conservation.<br />
Figure 4 presents how ecotourism fits into the large tourism market place.<br />
From this point <strong>of</strong> view it is important, that ecotourism has a stronger<br />
connection to cultural and rural than to adventure tourism (UNEP, 2002). (6)<br />
Figure 4: Ecotourism as a Market Segment<br />
6<br />
In ecotourism the prime motivation is generally the observation and appreciation, in<br />
adventure tourism it is physical exercise and challenging situations in natural environments<br />
(UNEP, 2002). From the marketing point <strong>of</strong> view<br />
14
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
2.2.3. Other definitions<br />
To complete the overview <strong>of</strong> the main ideas and definitions <strong>of</strong> the term<br />
ecotourism, there are some other definitions, which were found in the literature:<br />
• WWF (The Worldwide Fund for Nature):<br />
"Any travel to or through wilderness areas that has minimal impact on the<br />
natural environment and its wildlife while providing some economic benefits to<br />
local communities and the area's indigenous stewards"<br />
• Kutay, in Honey 1999:<br />
"Ecotourism is more than travel to enjoy or appreciate nature, it also<br />
includes minimisation <strong>of</strong> environmental and cultural consequences, contribution<br />
to conservation and community projects in developing countries, and<br />
environmental education and political consciousness raising, such as the<br />
establishment <strong>of</strong> codes <strong>of</strong> conduct for travellers as well as the various<br />
components <strong>of</strong> the travel industry".<br />
• Moulin, 1991 :<br />
"Tourism that is environmentally sensitive".<br />
• Burton, 1997:<br />
"Ecotourism is when the environment benefits from the activity"<br />
(Source: Roe, 1997)<br />
However, the definition from TES and more recently presented concepts<br />
from UNEP and W<strong>TO</strong> are the most commonly used. We suppose that the<br />
ecotourism concept made by UNEP is the most comprehensive and we follow it<br />
in our project. Despite the next short chapter brings our opinion about the<br />
concept <strong>of</strong> ecotourism.<br />
15
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
2.2.4. Ecotourism - is there a final concept<br />
It is important to understand ecotourism not separately from other tourism<br />
branches. There will be always connection to all aspects <strong>of</strong> tourism with the<br />
common guideline. There is no border-line which separates different branches<br />
from each-other. We can regard the ecotourism as the continual shift from mass<br />
tourism to more sustainable kinds <strong>of</strong> tourism. Even in the ecotourism concept,<br />
we can find some kind <strong>of</strong> continuum (spectrum) from active(hard) to<br />
passive(s<strong>of</strong>t) ecotourism (Weaver, 2001). Due to this continuity it is problematic<br />
to set up final concept without doubt. Therefore we thing that the ecotourism<br />
concept is still open issue with lots <strong>of</strong> challenges.<br />
2.3. Is Ecotourism really sustainable<br />
2.3.1. Conditions for successful ecotourism<br />
Apparently ecotourism is not inherently sustainable. Three important<br />
segments must be included in the ecotourism planning for the result to be<br />
sustainable. It must be economically viable, environmentally appropriate and<br />
socio-culturally acceptable. Economy, environment and culture are all involved,<br />
one is not more important than the other (Wall, 1997). But it will probably take<br />
a long time before we fully understand how to apply all the aspects <strong>of</strong><br />
sustainability on the concrete problems, including ecotourism.<br />
2.3.2. How many tourists are ecotourists<br />
Another issue closely connected to the sustainability <strong>of</strong> the visited areas,<br />
is the number <strong>of</strong> (eco)tourists present at any given time. According to the UNEP<br />
guidelines about ecotourism which define the appropriate number <strong>of</strong> tourists in a<br />
group, it is evident that ecotourism is mainly an individual small-scale activity.<br />
The UNEP guidelines recommend groups <strong>of</strong> up to 25 persons and hotels with<br />
fever than 100 beds in one structure (UNEP, 2002).<br />
16
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
But there are some voices claiming that small-scale tourism may actually<br />
be inappropriate and unsustainable under certain circumstances, while large<br />
scale or mass tourism may be sustainable under other conditions (Weaver,<br />
2001).<br />
This is one <strong>of</strong> the ideas <strong>of</strong> Weaver's study. He tries to bridge the gap<br />
between mass tourism and ecotourism. He claims that only large numbers <strong>of</strong><br />
(eco)tourists would result in a high revenue flow. Secondly, he argues that only<br />
large tourist corporations are able to implement sustainable practices, because<br />
they can fund e.g. the wastewater treatment facilities, while small local<br />
ecotourism agencies would not be able to do so. One <strong>of</strong> the principles <strong>of</strong> recent<br />
ecotourism policy is the emphasis on small-scale tourism provided by locals,<br />
independent <strong>of</strong> the large corporations. It is necessary to mention that Weaver is<br />
not very sure about the carrying capacity; he claims that carrying capacity is not<br />
necessarily fixed (Weaver, 2001).<br />
There lies a major challenge in promoting small-scale tourism in the<br />
future. But not only within this sector, all the other parts <strong>of</strong> the global economy<br />
are now fighting with the problem <strong>of</strong> low cost mass production which compete<br />
with the locally-based and much more expensive production.<br />
Therefore, this problem must be included in all planning and discussions<br />
concerning sustainability <strong>of</strong> ecotourism and the role <strong>of</strong> locally owned<br />
agencies/large corporations. More about the economical aspect is going to be<br />
mentioned in the next part.<br />
2.4. Economic aspects <strong>of</strong> ecotourism<br />
Some <strong>of</strong> the aspects <strong>of</strong> tourism (ecotourism) economy were already<br />
shortly mentioned above. This part is going to introduce ecotourism from the<br />
global economy point <strong>of</strong> view.<br />
17
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
Tourism is the world’s largest growth industry with no signs <strong>of</strong> slowing<br />
down in the 21st century (UNEP, 2002). (The peak was in the year 2000 - In the<br />
year 2001 there was a significant decline because <strong>of</strong> the terrorist attack on<br />
September 11).<br />
Proceeds from international tourism have increased by an average <strong>of</strong> 9 per<br />
cent annually for the past 16 years to reach US$476 billion in 2000. During the<br />
same period, international arrivals rose by a yearly average <strong>of</strong> 4.6 per cent to<br />
reach 698 million in 2000. W<strong>TO</strong> forecasts that international arrivals will top one<br />
billion by 2010. The W<strong>TO</strong> figures indicate that all the tourism activities account<br />
for over 4% <strong>of</strong> the Global GDP and that their combined direct or indirect<br />
contribution to global GDP are over 11%. Tourism-related activities provide<br />
200 million jobs (World Travel and Tourism Council, 2000).<br />
The W<strong>TO</strong> has estimated that "alternative" (nature based) (7) travels - <strong>of</strong><br />
which ecotourism is one <strong>of</strong> the forms - generated about 7% <strong>of</strong> all international<br />
travel expenditures in 1997. At the beginning <strong>of</strong> the 1990s the "alternative"<br />
(nature based) travel was growing at the rate <strong>of</strong> 10-30% per year (World<br />
Resources Institute/WRI, 1997). Others authors are approximately at the same<br />
level as Frangalli (1997), who proposes a rate <strong>of</strong> 20% per year. In 1995, the<br />
global value <strong>of</strong> ecotourism was estimated between US$ 17,5 millions (Fennell,<br />
1999) and US$ 25 millions and they expected the value to reach US$ 50<br />
millions by the year 2000 (Fennell, 1999).<br />
This increase in alternative tourism has been promoted by a broadening <strong>of</strong><br />
the clientele for ecotours and by an increase in independent non-group travel.<br />
These new clients are also more aware <strong>of</strong> the environmental and socio-<br />
7<br />
Alternative/nature-based tourism: in some literature the name "nature-based" tourism is used<br />
for tourism branches such as adventure, wildlife, ecotourism and so on. We prefer instead to<br />
use the name "alternative". This is because "nature-based" includes almost all kinds <strong>of</strong><br />
tourism, despite its mass, unsustainable, etc.<br />
18
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
developmental issues <strong>of</strong> the destination they are visiting (Lew, 1997). This<br />
aspect should be a driving force for the next stages <strong>of</strong> development in<br />
ecotourism.<br />
When focusing on ecotourism as a sustainable development tool, which<br />
mainly concerns the biodiversity conservation, it is necessary to mention the<br />
global market share <strong>of</strong> tourism (see table 1).<br />
It is evident that the major part <strong>of</strong> tourists are now concentrated in Europe<br />
or in the Americas, but the major benefits from ecotourism are expected through<br />
biodiversity protection in "hot spots <strong>of</strong> biodiversity" (8) (Primack, 2001).<br />
Recently, the market share <strong>of</strong> the areas concentrating the major part <strong>of</strong><br />
biodiversity is quite low. Therefore, from the marketing point <strong>of</strong> view, there is a<br />
great challenge for the travel industry to extent the focus more into these areas<br />
where market possibilities are abundant. And as mentioned before the<br />
biodiversity is a high value resource and could be included in a marketing<br />
strategy (Mercer, 1997). But this shift is already taking place. As the studies<br />
show, the East Asia and the Pacific have experienced the highest growth (World<br />
Almanac & Book <strong>of</strong> Facts, 2002).<br />
8 Hot spots <strong>of</strong> biodiversity – “key places <strong>of</strong> the world, concentrating high biodiversity, they<br />
have high level <strong>of</strong> endemism and are endangered by extinction and degradation”. There are 25<br />
areas named “hot spots”. For example – South-East Asia, Central America, Caribbic, Central<br />
Africa, Madagascar, Brazilian forests etc. This areas maintain 44% <strong>of</strong> worlds flora, 30% <strong>of</strong><br />
worlds mammals and 54% <strong>of</strong> amphibias (Primack, 2001)<br />
19
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
Table 1: The global market share <strong>of</strong> tourism<br />
(first two collums are numbers <strong>of</strong> tourists in 1999,2000)<br />
In many countries tourism has become the major source <strong>of</strong> foreign<br />
exchange earnings. For 38% <strong>of</strong> the countries in the world (especially developing<br />
countries), tourism is the main source <strong>of</strong> foreign currency. A sensitive<br />
introduction <strong>of</strong> alternative (nature based) tourism could contribute to develop<br />
their economies without all the negative environmental impacts that all the<br />
developed countries have already experienced. In the view <strong>of</strong> ecotourism there<br />
is a fair possibility that ecotourism, if properly introduced, would be a way to<br />
follow up on the economical development <strong>of</strong> already "developed" countries on<br />
the one hand - while avoiding the mistakes that "developed" countries have<br />
already made (the high pressure on resources and the environment) on the other<br />
hand.<br />
20
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
2.5. Certification <strong>of</strong> ecotourism<br />
Summarising the conclusions from the previous parts, there is a strong<br />
need for some kind <strong>of</strong> regulation within the ecotourism industry to achieve the<br />
aims properly. The ecolabeling (Buckley, 2001) or environmental certification<br />
in tourism (Font, 2002) would be a one way to regulate ecotourism from the<br />
international level to the national or the regional levels.<br />
At first sight, the easiest and most commonly used level, at which<br />
regulations may be set up (e.g. in the form <strong>of</strong> economic instruments), is the<br />
national level. But there are several reasons why this scheme is not always<br />
applicable for ecotourism purposes:<br />
• The definition <strong>of</strong> ecotourism is still not clear for governmental<br />
negotiation<br />
• And even in the case they are taking an active attitude towards<br />
regulation, this is limited to national boundaries, which makes it<br />
inefficient due to the international nature <strong>of</strong> the tourism industry<br />
(Font, 2001).<br />
Consequently, some kind <strong>of</strong> volunteer agreements at the international<br />
level – such as ecolabels - are the most appropriate. The voluntary approaches<br />
are certainly the best way to ensure long-term commitments and improvements,<br />
and putting the tourism industry on the path <strong>of</strong> sustainability. And the<br />
international volunteer agreements are generally a very good way to motivate<br />
the national governments to take action (Töpfer, 1998).<br />
The purpose <strong>of</strong> the ecolabels is to certify that specific efforts have been<br />
made to reduce environmental impact (UNEP, 1998), more specifically that the<br />
ecotourism provider (travel agency) is actually behaving according to the rules,<br />
which were set by ecolabel certification schemes.<br />
21
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
Up to now there has been an undefined field where ecotourism businesses<br />
declared themselves as being sustainable, green, environmental friendly and so<br />
on (Font, 2001).<br />
Since introducing certain ecolabeling schemes this field has become more<br />
transparent. Currently, there are over 100 ecolabels for tourism, hospitality and<br />
ecotourism, with many <strong>of</strong> them overlapping in sector and geographical scope<br />
(Font, 2001).<br />
In 1998 UNEP made a big survey among the 28 international, national<br />
and regional, "ecolabeling schemes". They decided on some general rules, which<br />
they expect the "ecolabeling" organisations to live up to:<br />
• Local environmental issues: criteria are realistic only if they relate to<br />
the local environment.<br />
• The sector's environmental impact: all impacts need to be addressed, it<br />
is important to recognise diversities within the sector (hotels, hostels,<br />
alpine refuges must be assessed separately etc.).<br />
• Technical and management know-how: the technical possibilities are<br />
also important; setting criteria which can not be attained (because the<br />
technology is not available) is not effective, even though the criteria<br />
may be relevant (UNEP, 1998).<br />
The UNEP general rules for ecolabeling stress the importance <strong>of</strong><br />
compromises for a successful implementation <strong>of</strong> ecotourism regulation.<br />
In the following sections, we will list some <strong>of</strong> the most important<br />
"ecolabel "schemes which have had major impact recently and look into the<br />
reality <strong>of</strong> ecolabeling etc.<br />
22
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
2.5.1 Green Globe 21<br />
The "Green globe 21"ecolabel was the first and still is the only<br />
attempt at a single ecolabel scheme applicable to all forms <strong>of</strong><br />
tourism worldwide (Buckley 2001). This ecolabel was initiated<br />
by the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) (9) in 1998. In the early<br />
stages, the Green Globe has taken decisions that have put them in the firing line<br />
<strong>of</strong> environmental NGOs for reasons such as becoming a pr<strong>of</strong>it organisation, no<br />
improvement in certifying, and allowing companies to use the logo without the<br />
certification (Font, 2002). But this scheme was well accepted by the travel<br />
industry.<br />
Because <strong>of</strong> the criticism the Green Globe is now attempting to advance to<br />
the next evolutionary step and gain the acceptance from the consumers,<br />
governments, and environmental groups without loosing its existing acceptance<br />
by the industry (Buckley, 2001).<br />
Currently three major approaches are followed in the Green Globe 21:<br />
1. Recently they launched new approach towards reduction in green<br />
house gas emissions and introducing this into ecotourism labelling.<br />
2. And also they stated its intention to use local legal and cultural<br />
framework for implementation (Buckley, 2001). (It is much more<br />
difficult for schemes with wide coverage to achieve this than for the<br />
national and sub-national schemes /UNEP, 2002/.)<br />
9 WTTC -The World Travel & Tourism Council is the global business leaders' forum for Travel &<br />
Tourism, http://www.wttc.org<br />
23
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
3. Since the year 2000 they require from affiliates that their operations<br />
comply with Agenda 21 10 standards.<br />
The Green Globe 21 uses the following "Green global path" through the<br />
ecolabeling process. When applying, a company passes three levels <strong>of</strong><br />
certification:<br />
1. Affiliation: it is registered by Green Globe, receives information on<br />
how to improve sustainability etc. they are also promoted on the Green<br />
Globe Website<br />
2. Benchmarking: the companies submit measurements to Green Globe,<br />
they are supposed to make annual improvements <strong>of</strong> performance.<br />
3. Certification: they develop environmental a management system, they<br />
pass a confidential sustainability audit report, and are allowed to use<br />
the logo with a "tick"<br />
(Green Globe 21 Path, 2001)<br />
It seems that the Green Globe 21 is now turning on the right way to be the<br />
global ecolabeling certification scheme respected by all authorities, the tourism<br />
industry and consumers.<br />
2.5.2. National Ecotourism Accreditation Program <strong>of</strong> Australia<br />
Another ecolabeling scheme is the National Ecotourism Accreditation<br />
Program <strong>of</strong> Australia (NEAP) which is an example <strong>of</strong> a regionally oriented<br />
ecolabeling program. This program has been initiated by the tourism portfolio in<br />
the Australian government as a part <strong>of</strong> ecotourism-related initiatives (Buckley,<br />
10 Agenda 21: is a comprehensive plan <strong>of</strong> action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by<br />
organisations <strong>of</strong> the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in<br />
which human impacts on the environment (United Nations Division for Sustainable<br />
Development, 2001)<br />
24
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
2001). (The conditions in Australia are completely different from other areas<br />
due to the high level <strong>of</strong> environmental interest - the initiative came just from the<br />
government).<br />
NEAP´s principal difficulty in its early stages was a relatively low<br />
industry sign up. Perhaps because <strong>of</strong> low publicity only rather few providers<br />
were able to qualify for this accreditation, which is based on well-defined<br />
substantive criteria. Currently, this system is still fighting with limited reach<br />
within the Australian ecotourism sector. They developed a three tiered<br />
accreditation system - nature tourism, ecotourism and advanced ecotourism.<br />
As NEAP stated in their presentation on the www.eco-tor.org guide their<br />
major concern is: "accepting applications to provide ecotourism operators and<br />
protected area agencies with the opportunity to meet minimum standards for<br />
providing or conducting genuine ecotourism operations".<br />
They also assist affiliated companies with the development <strong>of</strong> ecotourism<br />
products and recognise the best sustainable practise.<br />
There are differing opinions about the future <strong>of</strong> NEAP, some say that<br />
NEAP, appropriately customized to different environments and countries, could<br />
become the basis for the Green Globe 21 within the specialist ecotourism sector<br />
world-wide (Buckley, 2001). Green Globe 21 continued its expansion plans by<br />
associating with other schemes like Green Leaf, Green Key and Caribbean<br />
Alliance for Sustainable Tourism (Font, 2002).<br />
2.5.3. Other Tourism Ecolabels<br />
As mentioned above there are more than 100 ecolabels, but only few <strong>of</strong><br />
them are really important and relevant for ecotourism purposes.<br />
As an example <strong>of</strong> another scheme within the group <strong>of</strong> international<br />
attempts is:<br />
25
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
Ecotel - launched in the year 1994 by the private promoter concerned mostly<br />
about accommodation (water use etc.).<br />
On the regional level the Blue Flag promoted by NGO since 1985 is the<br />
most visible scheme. They focus on sustainable use <strong>of</strong> marinas (localities) and<br />
beaches. Currently, over 1,800 beaches and over 600 marinas are accredited.<br />
Accreditation must be re-earned every year (Buckley, 2001). (See the criteria on<br />
the Blue flag web sites - http://www.blueflag.org).<br />
In the Asian/pacific region Green Leaf is another regional example,<br />
which was started by the Pacific Asia Travel Association in 1997. Buckley<br />
wrote in 2001 that they are now to be integrated with the Green Globe 21. But<br />
according to their web site they are apparently still independent<br />
(www.greenleafthai.org).<br />
On the national level there are many schemes which are mostly concerned<br />
with accommodation. For example Green Key in Denmark - They are checking<br />
for water use in washing and bathing.<br />
In Germany there is Environmental Squirrel concerned about the<br />
catering and accommodation.<br />
In France the European Charter for Sustainable Tourism in Protected<br />
Areas was found out by the NGO to regulate the tourism in the protected areas<br />
within France.<br />
On the sub-national level there are some schemes which only work in part<br />
<strong>of</strong> the country, for example - Ecotour (Balearic Islands) or Green Tourism<br />
Business Scheme (Scotland) (UNEP, 1998).<br />
In the appendix 1 there is a calendar <strong>of</strong> events relevant to ecolabels in<br />
ecotourism.<br />
26
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
2.5.4. Structural framework <strong>of</strong> ecolabel schemes<br />
In the following parts, we will mention some organisational aspects <strong>of</strong><br />
ecolabel schemes.<br />
Human resources: some <strong>of</strong> them run by volunteers (NGO), private<br />
associations, or they are part <strong>of</strong> a bigger association with broader interests. For<br />
example the Green Leaf recently now.<br />
Financial resources: financing <strong>of</strong> the ecolabel schemes are provided mostly by<br />
the membership fees.<br />
The fees are related to:<br />
• annual turnover <strong>of</strong> the applicants<br />
• physical size <strong>of</strong> the applicant's operation<br />
• type <strong>of</strong> accommodation (hotels, hostels etc.)<br />
• geographical origin -hotels in developed countries pay double price<br />
comparing to developing countries (UNEP, 1998).<br />
For example the fees <strong>of</strong> the Green Globe 21 members are based on an<br />
annual turnover with a fee <strong>of</strong> US$ 5,000 for a turnover more than US$ 30<br />
millions per operating unit (UNEP, 1998).<br />
The National Ecotourism Accreditation Program follows the same system,<br />
where the members pay Aus$ 1,325 for turnover over Aus$ 3 millions (UNEP,<br />
1998).<br />
2.5.5. Ecolabels as a future for ecotourism regulation<br />
The field <strong>of</strong> tourism ecolabels is still a bit confusing because <strong>of</strong> the<br />
different approaches (wide or very narrow), different promoters (NGOs, private<br />
and industry associations and public authorities) and different levels<br />
27
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
(international, national, regional). This diversity results from different national,<br />
cultural, geographical and historical backgrounds.<br />
As a result <strong>of</strong> the need for some global ecotourism regulation the Green<br />
Globe 21 with co-operation <strong>of</strong> the NEAP and other schemes seems to be the best<br />
for the future, setting <strong>of</strong> the global rules <strong>of</strong> ecotourism through certification. The<br />
best would probably be, when the rules <strong>of</strong> the Green Globe 21 are sensitively<br />
applied to the local conditions (environmental and cultural background etc.) by<br />
the local authorities, NGO or private companies (using the strong support by the<br />
Green Globe 21).<br />
In the tourism market it is important to mention that the major motivation<br />
for the providers when applying for "ecolabel" is that they gain some<br />
competitive advantage resulting in an increased revenue flow. So the<br />
environmental performances are <strong>of</strong>ten instruments to how they increase their<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>its. As an instrument for the consumer’s choice, ecolabels are a valuable<br />
environmental management tool in tourism (Buckley, 2001). And it is a great<br />
challenge for all environmental issues, because this approach is not very<br />
common up to now.<br />
But the ecolabeling is still now in the early stages and only few tourists<br />
routinely search for ecolabels in product purchasing (Buckley, 2001). So the<br />
future emphasis should be aimed to enhance the transparency <strong>of</strong> the ecolabels<br />
and effectively hand in hand with emphasis on public promotion <strong>of</strong> tourism<br />
ecolabels as a way to travel more "environmentally".<br />
2.6. Different roles <strong>of</strong> ecotourism<br />
As mentioned in the section <strong>of</strong> the economic aspects <strong>of</strong> ecotourism,<br />
tourism has rapidly developed all over the world. It significantly becomes a<br />
contributor to the local, regional, national, and global economy.<br />
28
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
Generating benefits from ecotourism have been discussed in different<br />
dimensions. It could be a means <strong>of</strong> generating economic benefits for different<br />
stakeholders, increasing awareness for both local communities and tourists,<br />
promoting biodiversity conservation and mitigating negative impacts.<br />
2.6.1. Generating economic benefits for different stakeholders<br />
Ecotourism not only generates economic benefits for government<br />
agencies, non-government agencies but also for local people.<br />
First <strong>of</strong> all, all forms <strong>of</strong> tourism have greatly contributed to the national<br />
and international economy. This point <strong>of</strong> view has been mentioned before.<br />
Especially, this economic source is very important for developing countries.<br />
Thailand earned approximately US$1.5 million a year for set <strong>of</strong> parks (FAO,<br />
1997). Nepal has received total revenue <strong>of</strong> US$4.5 million in 1994 just from the<br />
hotel industry in the Royal Chitwan National Park (Marnie et al., 1998).<br />
Globally, all tourism in the developing countries earned about US$ 118,518<br />
million in 1995 (Stefan, 1999).<br />
Secondly, entrance fees can significantly contribute to the cost <strong>of</strong><br />
managing the national parks. The fees account for 0.01 to 1% <strong>of</strong> the total travel<br />
costs (Stefan, 1999). Here, we would like to illustrate just how large the entrance<br />
fees are. The Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve earned US$ 35,750 in 1987,<br />
Costa Rica got approximately US$ 168,000 in 1988 while Ecuador received<br />
US$ 2.6 million in 1993 (Stefan, 1999) and US$ 4.3 million in 1998 (UNEP,<br />
2002). The New Special laws <strong>of</strong> Tourism in Galapagos Island requires to put<br />
40% entrance fees for the protected area (Honey, 1999). These incomes are<br />
expected to cover a range <strong>of</strong> conservation-related expenditures (Stefan, 1999). In<br />
contrast, the case <strong>of</strong> tourism in Indonesia (Sheryl & Wall, 1999), all entrance<br />
fees were sent to the central government without filtering back to the protected<br />
areas.<br />
29
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
Encouraging tourists and tour operators to give donations is another way<br />
to increase income for national parks. Tourists and tour operators may very<br />
voluntarily pay if they recognise that their money can contribute to the<br />
conservation <strong>of</strong> parks (Stefan, 1999, UNEP, 2002). The Costa Rica tour<br />
operators have donated US$ 25,000 to the Costa Rica Park Service in the early<br />
1990s, US-based tour operators help to establish 100,000 ha rain forest for<br />
biodiversity research in the Peruvian Amazon (UNEP, 2002).<br />
Furthermore, income from local people who participated in ecotourism<br />
activities sometimes also contributes to protect national parks. In Brazil,<br />
community-based ecotourism has provided 20% <strong>of</strong> net pr<strong>of</strong>its needed for the<br />
management <strong>of</strong> the reserve (WWF, 2001).<br />
Finally, ecotourism aims to hire locally staff businesses (Megan, 1993)<br />
including local <strong>of</strong>fice, field staff, transport - vehicle & boat rental services,<br />
accommodations - hotels, lodges, camps and restaurants; it also consume local<br />
supplies from food and craft vendors but avoid all products made from rare<br />
species. While conventional tourism doesn’t consider much to benefit for local<br />
people, economic business is largely in hand <strong>of</strong> city-tour operators. In general,<br />
ecotourism employs local people in many activities and has created wide range<br />
<strong>of</strong> jobs. From these activities and jobs, local communities can improve their<br />
income. Sven (2000) show that ecotourism in Amazon has brought much<br />
benefits for local people, especially from food, handicraft selling and cultural<br />
services. In Nepal, the local communities have participated in different<br />
ecotourism activities, 1,100 villagers have been employed by hotel industrial<br />
and <strong>of</strong> 104 local people (74%) were trained as a nature guides with their salary<br />
to be increased by 36% afterwards (Marnie, et. al., 1998). Up to now, tourism<br />
activities have globally created about 200 million jobs (World Travel and<br />
Tourism Council, 2000).<br />
30
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
In short, economic benefits have been generated from different<br />
stakeholders in ecotourism activities. This may contribute significantly to<br />
maintenance costs <strong>of</strong> protected areas and would help to reduce the need for<br />
economic investment for conserving biodiversity from governments.<br />
Furthermore, the benefits generated from ecotourism particularly improve the<br />
livelihood <strong>of</strong> people. Specifically, it has raised the local living standard and<br />
made local people become more involved in conservation. Conservationists also<br />
believe that ecotourism may help protect nature and generate economic benefits<br />
for local residents (Honey, 1999, Amanda, 2001). David (2001) stated that<br />
“Without income flows, it may be more difficult to justify to some politicians<br />
and legislators the continued existence <strong>of</strong> protected natural areas strictly on less<br />
tangible grounds such as protecting watersheds, preventing climate change,<br />
preserving biodiversity or saving such areas for future generations”.<br />
2.6.2. Ecotourism as a benefit to local education<br />
In empirical activities <strong>of</strong> ecotourism, it is suggested that educating both<br />
local residents and visitors are necessary to get success in the ecotourism<br />
industry. Ecotourism has to become an integral part <strong>of</strong> sustainable ecotourism<br />
and a major secondary goal <strong>of</strong> management protected areas (Stefan, 1999). At<br />
the Conference on Sustainable Development <strong>of</strong> Ecotourism in Desert Areas,<br />
about 200 people from 21 different countries agreed that information and<br />
awareness raising in ecotourism should be concerned, particularly local<br />
populations, guides, foreign tour operators, accompanying staff, and tourists<br />
(Bouchdjira, 2002).<br />
Public involvement or public participation in the planning stage <strong>of</strong><br />
ecotourism projects is one <strong>of</strong> several ways to educate local residents. It is<br />
strongly recommended in tourism development projects (Diduck, 1999; Stephan,<br />
31
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
1999). Local communities must be involved from the very beginning in planning<br />
a reserve, and be able to give their opinions and to be heard (Gail).<br />
In addition, “capacity building” can fulfil what should be educated for<br />
local communities participating in ecotourism activities, including natural and<br />
cultural history, and skills in ecotourism operation in a sustainable way. Various<br />
papers have emphasised that the local communities need to be trained if they<br />
wish to become involved in ecotourism activities, this is especially important if<br />
they are to work as ecotourist guides (Bouchdjira, 2002; Oliver, 2001; Eugenio,<br />
2002; Megan, 1993; Honey, 1999). They are the key people who help to make<br />
the ecotourists satisfied during the tour and minimise the negative impacts that<br />
may occur from visitors (Honey, 1999). A project in Sabah, Malaysia has<br />
improved community skills considerably, including hospitality, finance,<br />
marketing, computer skill, and English language. Local communities also raised<br />
their interest and awareness <strong>of</strong> the richness <strong>of</strong> the biodiversity (WWF, 2001).<br />
In short, local people are very important in ecotourism development<br />
projects. They play an important role in the success <strong>of</strong> ecotourism activities.<br />
They should be educated to learn the basic knowledge <strong>of</strong> how to run ecotourism<br />
in a sustainable way. In addition, local communities also need to be empowered<br />
to decide what forms <strong>of</strong> tourism facilities and wildlife conservation programs<br />
they want to have developed in their respective communities, and how the<br />
tourism cost and benefits are to be shared among different stakeholders (Akama,<br />
1996).<br />
Ecotourism not only provides knowledge to local communities but also to<br />
visitors. The right kinds <strong>of</strong> tourist experiences can results in increasing<br />
environmental awareness and cultural sensitivity among tourists (Amanda,<br />
2001). The Conference on Sustainable Development <strong>of</strong> Ecotourism in Desert<br />
Areas has figured out the importance <strong>of</strong> ecotourism guides in educating for<br />
32
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
ecotourists. It helps to ensure that the latter do not have negative impacts on<br />
natural environment and local culture (Bouchdjira, 2002). In addition, it is<br />
necessary to prepare detailed and specialised information for ecotourists, both<br />
before and during the trip (Megan, 1993). The information can be designed in<br />
various forms, such as brochures, guidebooks, leaflets, maps, eco-museums,<br />
signpost nature trails etc. They should contain details on flora, fauna, geology,<br />
and in general on the ecosystem to be visited and provide guidelines for what the<br />
tourists may and may not do during transport and on site (Eugenio, 2002). All<br />
information will help ecotourists to understand <strong>of</strong> the areas they are going to<br />
visit. In other words, tourists should already be educated before starting the tour.<br />
With regards to the educational aspects <strong>of</strong> visitors, many businesses and<br />
organisations have promoted a less damaging brand <strong>of</strong> tourism and recreation. It<br />
can be a designed as signs, pamphlets, posters, and T-shirts. All these measures<br />
are meant to warn visitors against disturbance and destruction <strong>of</strong> wild species<br />
and their habitat (Ruth et al., 1998). In addition, through the tours, ecotourists<br />
will learn from nature, understand processes and developments and get involved<br />
in looking after endangered species or ecological activities (Oliver, 2001).<br />
Furthermore, public relations also contribute to raising environmental<br />
awareness for both local communities and visitors (Oliver, 2001). It educates<br />
through the newspapers, broadcast media such as radio, television, etc. This type<br />
<strong>of</strong> activity should be supported by government agencies.<br />
2.6.3. Ecotourism benefit to promote conservation<br />
Ecotourism as a support for biodiversity conservation has been mentioned<br />
by a number <strong>of</strong> scientists. It is <strong>of</strong>ten viewed as an effective means for promoting<br />
the conservation <strong>of</strong> endangered species and habitats in developing countries.<br />
33
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
Community-based ecotourism (CBE) has been widely introduced and<br />
implemented around the world. It promotes both the quality <strong>of</strong> human life and<br />
conservation <strong>of</strong> resources (Ruth et al., 1998; Scheyvens, 1999; WWF, 2001).<br />
This is a form <strong>of</strong> tourism that meets some criteria <strong>of</strong> ecotourism. The local<br />
community has substantial control over, and involvement in its developed and<br />
management, and the major proportion <strong>of</strong> the benefits remain within the<br />
community (WWF, 2001). Local communities join in partnerships with<br />
government agencies, non-governmental organisations, and private tour<br />
companies to plan tourism strategies and develop new attraction for tourists.<br />
Local hosts gain much more control over how tourism affects their communities<br />
(Amanda, 2001). Communities are generally aware <strong>of</strong> the fact that ecotourism<br />
will not replace their traditional economic activities. But they <strong>of</strong>ten feel that it<br />
has the potential to generate additional incomes for them (Ruth et al., 1998).<br />
Therefore, these pressures which threaten to destroy natural resources,<br />
especially the natural habitats, in the local communities would be reduced. In<br />
other words, it would play a role in conservation.<br />
In Nepal, CBE made changes in local attitudes toward wildlife<br />
conservation, including endangered species and habitat conservation and<br />
increase benefits for the local people (Marnie, et. al., 1998). In New Zealand,<br />
Maori communities are using ecotourism as a means <strong>of</strong> sustainable utilising<br />
physical resources at their disposal in a way, which can provide employment<br />
options (Scheyvens, 1999). In the Amazon, income flows from ecotourism made<br />
local communities raise their environmental awareness and gave incentives for a<br />
“new” use <strong>of</strong> traditional resources (Sven, 2000).<br />
However, many small scale CBEs have failed because <strong>of</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> market<br />
assessment, organisation, quality and promotion (WWF, 2001). CBE therefore<br />
should be linked with other segments <strong>of</strong> tourism. It can be integrated with other<br />
34
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
sectors in order to get to know the market better, upgrade knowledge in tourist<br />
operation and management.<br />
In Namibia, CBE provides a linkage between communities with outside<br />
agencies and operators. Local communities are assistance through training,<br />
business advice, marketing, advocacy and funding. In addition, a central<br />
booking and information system has also been established. Finally, the<br />
ecotourism project in Namibia shows that wildlife numbers, including black<br />
rhino and elephant, have increased significantly since the community approach<br />
have been adopted (WWF, 2001).<br />
In participatory democracy theory, it has also been mentioned that: "the<br />
more individuals participate the better able they become to do so" (Diduck<br />
1999). Amanda (2001) has also argued that if ecotourism industry were to<br />
provide the right inputs, such as “a participatory approach” then the negative<br />
impacts <strong>of</strong> tourism on the local hosts could be reduced. Anthropologists have<br />
discussed the role <strong>of</strong> local participation in the planning and management <strong>of</strong><br />
protected areas. They strongly claim that without the consent <strong>of</strong> the local<br />
communities, protected areas could not be managed effectively (Benjamin &<br />
Brush, 1996). Again, Scheyvens (1999) has emphasised the empowerment <strong>of</strong><br />
local communities in decision-making in ecotourism projects. It includes<br />
economic empowerment, psychological empowerment, social empowerment,<br />
and political empowerment.<br />
In addition, through tourism activities, visitors learn not only much from<br />
nature, human culture etc. but they also contribute in conserving protected areas<br />
(Megan). It includes helping protected areas generate revenue, direct corporate<br />
donations and researches, mount-advertisement etc. and sometimes gives very<br />
good comments on how to improve the ecotourism in detail.<br />
35
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
Thus, ecotourism has been thought to increase the involvement <strong>of</strong> both<br />
local communities and visitors in conservation. Specifically, it has encouraged<br />
local people to conserve resources, including natural resources, local culture and<br />
language. It has also encouraged participation in community groups, created<br />
opportunities for training and technical assistance, develop the abilities needed<br />
for communities to manage financial resources, and lead to the establishment <strong>of</strong><br />
well-managed reserves, educational facilities (such as museums or botanical<br />
gardens), and other attractions (WWF, 2001).<br />
2.7. Monitoring ecotourism activities and mitigating negative impacts<br />
2.7.1. Negative impacts from ecotourism<br />
Ecotourism activities also generate vast negative impacts on the<br />
environment due to poor tourism management, unmonitored and unregulated<br />
(Amanda, 2001).<br />
Generally, economic benefits from tourism in protected areas <strong>of</strong>ten result<br />
in degradation <strong>of</strong> environments (Joseph, 1997). It includes garbage dumping<br />
(Mark, 1995; Sapna & Rawat, 2000), increasing soil erosion and a decreasing<br />
plant cover (Whinam and Comfort, 1996; Cole and Spildie, 1998; Joseph, 1997;<br />
Traycy & Merion, 2001), plant species composition changing (Joseph, 1997),<br />
wood and animal species threatening (Sven, 2000).<br />
Social problems can be created from rapid and large local income growth.<br />
It includes alcohol problems, loss <strong>of</strong> cultural identity (Sven, 2000; Gail). Gender<br />
problems have also been generated from ecotourism (Sven, 2000; Marnie, et. al.,<br />
1998). In the Amazon, most <strong>of</strong> the workers employed in ecotourism activities<br />
while women have to work in domestic domains. In Nepal, approximately 70%<br />
<strong>of</strong> the employees in the hotel industry were local people but less than 2% were<br />
women.<br />
36
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
Above negative impacts from tourism generally may cause by lack <strong>of</strong><br />
environmental considerations. Particularly if tourism or ecotourism is<br />
unmonitored and unregulated, it may disturb both wildlife and people (Amanda,<br />
2001).<br />
2.7.2. Indicators for monitoring and mitigating negative impacts <strong>of</strong><br />
ecotourism<br />
Monitoring ecotourism activities is one <strong>of</strong> the key successes in ecotourism<br />
industry. Monitoring can be based on site visits, visitors feedback, third-party<br />
monitoring and self-monitoring (UNEP, 1998). It will help to recognise negative<br />
impacts as early as possible before serious problems occur. Amanda (2001) has<br />
emphasised that if ecotourism activities are unmonitored and unregulated, it may<br />
spoil natural areas and disturb both wildlife and people. It should be conducted<br />
with the participation <strong>of</strong> all stakeholders involved (Bouchdjira, 2002; Oliver,<br />
2001).<br />
Carrying capacity was strongly recommended in ecotourism development<br />
(Stefan, 1999). It was a means to indicate essential parts in ecotourism<br />
development, not only in the parks and protected areas but also in rural areas<br />
(Bouchdjira, 2002). It includes physical, perceptual, social, and economical<br />
aspects (Stefan, 1999).<br />
• Physical carrying capacity is characterised by the limits beyond which<br />
environmental problems arise.<br />
• Perceptual carrying capacity is the subjective view that travellers have on the<br />
conditions <strong>of</strong> an area (environmental quality or socio-cultural conditions),<br />
which limits their willingness to travel to that area.<br />
• Social limits arise from the host population's willingness to tolerate visitors,<br />
and the acceptance <strong>of</strong> social change.<br />
37
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
• Economic carrying capacity is the ability to absorb tourist activities without<br />
displacing or disturbing traditional local activities.<br />
Mark (1995) recommended using indicator measurements such as<br />
satisfaction-enjoyment, education learning, attitude-belief change and<br />
behaviour-lifestyle change <strong>of</strong> visitors to minimise negative impacts from<br />
ecotourism. Oliver (2001) has suggested other parameters in ecoturism<br />
monitoring. These include:<br />
• Amount <strong>of</strong> budget per capita allocated by government for conservation and<br />
environmental management purposes<br />
• Percentage <strong>of</strong> the protected areas’ surface in the country<br />
• Ratio <strong>of</strong> number <strong>of</strong> tourists to the number <strong>of</strong> local residents<br />
• Evolution <strong>of</strong> the number <strong>of</strong> tourism enterprises<br />
• Number <strong>of</strong> tourism enterprises that posses an eco-label<br />
• Number <strong>of</strong> tourists per surface <strong>of</strong> protected areas<br />
• Number <strong>of</strong> rare species in ecosystems that are ecotourism destinations.<br />
However, implementing these above mentioned-indicators is not easy. It<br />
is really difficult to fix the guidelines for the 4 aspects <strong>of</strong> carrying capacity. It<br />
depends on the efficiency <strong>of</strong> tourism planning and management. For example,<br />
higher number <strong>of</strong> tourism can be accepted if tourism is well managed. It also<br />
depends on the kind <strong>of</strong> tourists. It can be said that the higher conservation<br />
awareness <strong>of</strong> tourists, the less impacts to environment or the more carrying<br />
capacity. Therefore, ecotourism operator needs to concern much on capacity<br />
building.<br />
Some papers have made guidelines based on empirical studies for tourism<br />
activities (Megan, 1993; UNEP & TIES, 2002). These include how to educate<br />
38
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
visitors before and during the tour in order to prevent environmental and cultural<br />
impacts; how to provide local communities with the knowledge they need to<br />
carry out their own business and prevent negative impacts from accumulating.<br />
3. C<strong>AS</strong>E STUDIES<br />
3.1. Ecotourism in Galapagos Islands<br />
3.1.1. Introduction to the Galapagos Islands<br />
The Galapagos Islands are a cluster <strong>of</strong> volcanic islands located in the<br />
Pacific Ocean about 1000 km <strong>of</strong>f Ecuador’s coast. There are 13 large islands, 6<br />
Figure 5: Map <strong>of</strong> Galapagos<br />
(www.ecoudorexplorer.com/html/galapagos_map.html)<br />
smaller ones and<br />
107 islets and<br />
rocks. The total<br />
land area is about<br />
8000 square<br />
kilometres.<br />
islands<br />
The<br />
are<br />
volcanic in origin<br />
and<br />
several<br />
volcanoes are still<br />
very active. The<br />
Galapagos is a<br />
province <strong>of</strong> the<br />
republic<br />
<strong>of</strong><br />
Ecuador, and the<br />
capital is Puerto<br />
39
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
Baquerizo Moreno on San Christobal Island, although the largest town is Puerto<br />
Ayora on Santa Cruz. Five <strong>of</strong> the islands are inhabited, with a total population <strong>of</strong><br />
around 15.000 people.<br />
The Galapagos Islands is a very unique place, because it has been deserted<br />
for many years. Species <strong>of</strong> plants and animals have evolved differently on<br />
approximately 14 islands. That means the islands contain many endemic species.<br />
The nature is still in a pristine state, (though it is endangered by tourists and<br />
immigrants), and because <strong>of</strong> that it is an ideal place to study evolution and other<br />
ecological issues.<br />
3.1.2. Nature<br />
Three to five million years ago volcanic eruption gave birth to a new<br />
archipelago. This new group <strong>of</strong> islands had flat shorelines and mountain<br />
interiors, but despite <strong>of</strong> equatorial location, the habitat <strong>of</strong> several <strong>of</strong> the islands<br />
was desert like. But plant and animals migrated to Galapagos and nowadays it is<br />
home to many unique, endemic species.<br />
Though Galapagos sites equator it also lies in the path <strong>of</strong> a cool nutrientrich<br />
current, so corals, manta rays and other plants and animals <strong>of</strong> tropical seas,<br />
share islands with penguins, fur seal lion and other cool-water species.<br />
Galapagos have many different habitats, such as forests, beaches, volcanic<br />
craters, mangrove forests etc. The mangrove has rich concentrations <strong>of</strong> nutrients<br />
and plankton flow in and out with the tides, making the forest an important<br />
breeding and nursery ground for fishes and invertebrates. The mangrove is also<br />
used as nesting sites by many birds.<br />
a. Flora<br />
Plants entering the islands tend to be pioneer species, hardy plants which<br />
successfully cross oceans and manage to establish themselves in the <strong>of</strong>ten<br />
40
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
hostile environment <strong>of</strong> the islands. Relatively few plants succeed in doing this,<br />
so Galapagos Islands have far fewer species than in similar environments on the<br />
South American mainland.<br />
The plants have few specialised fleshy fruits and showy flowers, because<br />
they have adapted to very few insects and other pollinators to pollinate their<br />
flowers and disperse their fruits.<br />
The Galapagos Islands have 560 native species and one third <strong>of</strong> these are<br />
endemic, species such as cotton, tomato, pepper, guava and passionflower.<br />
Introduced species is a big problem on the Galapagos. They arrived with<br />
the people for the purposes <strong>of</strong> either agriculture or gardening. Now they have<br />
become pests and invade the native vegetation. In 1999, 475 introduced species<br />
where known, and 10 new species arrive each year. In 2007, it is estimated that<br />
the introduced species will outnumber the native ones (Galapagos Conservation<br />
Trust, 2002).<br />
Introduced animals are also a big problem. Goats, donkeys and cattle have<br />
decimated the vegetation, and introduced insects and other invertebrates have<br />
infected and killed many native species (Galapagos Conservation Trust, 2002).<br />
b. Fauna<br />
Galapagos has many unique and endemic animals, most <strong>of</strong> which are<br />
fearless due to the lack <strong>of</strong> natural predators. One <strong>of</strong> the best known is the giant<br />
tortoise. Scientist believes the tortoises have drifted from the mainland with the<br />
ocean current, their shells keeping them afloat, and that the giant tortoise has<br />
grown to an immense size (250 kg), because <strong>of</strong> abundant food and absence <strong>of</strong><br />
predators (Galapagos Conservation Trust, 2002).<br />
There have been 14 races <strong>of</strong> tortoises, evolved on 14 different islands, but<br />
as a result <strong>of</strong> hunting, 3 races are extinct and 1 left <strong>of</strong> the fourth race. It is<br />
41
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
estimated that more than 100.000 in total were hunted over the centuries.<br />
(Charles Darwin foundation, 2001). Today 15.000 tortoises have been counted.<br />
Other reptiles on the Galapagos include the marine- and land-iguanas. The<br />
land iguanas are endangered because <strong>of</strong> wild dogs. The only native mammals on<br />
the islands are rice rats and two species <strong>of</strong> bats.<br />
The Galapagos have an amazing birdlife. Among the endemic seabirds are<br />
penguins, albatrosses, cormorants and gulls. There are 29 resident land birds, <strong>of</strong><br />
which 22 are endemic. They are largely dull in colour and extremely tame,<br />
because <strong>of</strong> the absence <strong>of</strong> predators.<br />
c. Marine life<br />
The cool and warm current system, coupled with a great variety <strong>of</strong><br />
underwater landscapes, that include underwater volcanoes that rise hundreds <strong>of</strong><br />
metres to near the sea surface, promote a great diversity <strong>of</strong> species, including<br />
sponges, corals, anemones, gorgonians, shrimp, conchs and starfish. The small<br />
animals provide food for larger species <strong>of</strong> fish, seabirds, dolphins, sea lions and<br />
whales. The open ocean in the tropics typically has little productivity, however<br />
deep nutrient-rich currents moving east across the Pacific Ocean strike the<br />
Galapagos Islands and the underwater volcanoes and rise to the sea surface<br />
creating an important feeding zone for marine mammals (Charles Darwin<br />
foundation, 2001).<br />
All living species in and around Galapagos depend on the sea. Even<br />
highly placed communities <strong>of</strong> plant and animals utilise nutrients released as<br />
droppings by marine petrels returning to the nests (Charles Darwin foundation,<br />
2001). The highly productive coastal waters thus support the food chain that<br />
extends not only from plankton to shark but also to land plants, insects and<br />
birds. Three hundred species <strong>of</strong> fishes have been found. Sea lions and fur seals<br />
42
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
are found around the coast, where dolphins, whales and sea turtles are also<br />
common.<br />
3.1.3. History<br />
Galapagos had no aboriginal inhabitants before the 1900s, probably<br />
because <strong>of</strong> the extreme scarcity <strong>of</strong> water. The tenth <strong>of</strong> March 1535 the Spanish<br />
Bishop Tomás de Berlanga arrived to Galapagos as the first known arrival <strong>of</strong><br />
humans. He recorded the island and described the nature scene. The discovery<br />
made no impact on the Spanish conqueror or on the English and Dutch<br />
navigators, because no great minerals were found (Galapagos Conservation<br />
Trust, 2002).<br />
During 1600 buccaneers and pirates used the islands as a staging post, for<br />
restocking on water and repairing their boats before carrying out raids on the<br />
mainland. They caught the giant tortoises, which they brought with them alive<br />
on board their ships for fresh meat (Galapagos Conservation Trust, 2002).<br />
In the 1800 whaling ships and fur-sealers used Galapagos as a resting<br />
spot. They collected tortoises for food and fine “turtle oil” (Galapagos<br />
Conservation Trust, 2002). The whalers nearly decimated not only the whales<br />
but also the tortoise population before 1860. Fortunately the bottom fell out <strong>of</strong><br />
the whaling industry (Honey, 1999).<br />
In 1835 a young British aristocrat, Charles Darwin stopped at Galapagos<br />
while sailing around the world during a five years expedition. He spent five<br />
weeks observing the nature. His observation changed the western scientific<br />
thought. Darwin noted two important phenomena “that wildlife, with no natural<br />
predators, was unusually tame, and that many <strong>of</strong> the islands had developed their<br />
own unique species <strong>of</strong> animals, birds and plants”. These observations gave rise<br />
to his book about evolution by natural selection (Honey, 1999).<br />
43
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
The passing ships and the tiny permanent settlement on several islands,<br />
was the beginning <strong>of</strong> the introduction <strong>of</strong> alien species as rats, cats, pigs, goats<br />
and other animals highly destructive to the local flora and fauna (Honey, 1999).<br />
Gradually small colonies were established in several islands. Many <strong>of</strong> the<br />
present-day inhabitants moved to the islands from the Ecuador mainland. During<br />
the last 40 years the population is currently increasing at more than 8% per<br />
annum (Galapagos Conservation Trust, 2002).<br />
a. Charles Darwin Foundation<br />
In 1960 the Charles Darwin Foundation (CDF) was set up, as an<br />
international non-pr<strong>of</strong>it organization, with the main <strong>of</strong>fice in Quito Ecuador and<br />
a research station on Santa Cruz Galapagos. It was set up under auspices <strong>of</strong><br />
UNESCO and IUCN (World Conservation Union). The research station acts as a<br />
scientific advisor for the National Park Service. The international CDF and the<br />
Ecuadorian government cooperate with matters such as scientific research,<br />
protection, educational programs at local and national level and breeding <strong>of</strong><br />
captive endangered species.<br />
b. Ecotourism<br />
In 1970 the only public transportation to the islands was aboard an<br />
uncomfortable cargo ship coming every three months from the mainland. The<br />
numbers grew after an old US military base on the island Baltra was refurbished<br />
and a commercial air link were established. Gradually a tourism infrastructure<br />
began to be built.<br />
Organized ecotourism began in the late 1960s, when an Ecuadorian and a<br />
New York-based company (Metropolitan tourism and Lindblad Travel)<br />
established two cruise boats (a 12 passengers sailing vessel and a 60 passenger<br />
luxury-liner). Tourism was done in close conjunction with Darwin Research<br />
44
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
station and the new national Park. During the early 1970 tourism facilities grew.<br />
Small boats occasionally carrying tourist on day trips, one luxury hotel,<br />
bungalows, floating hotels and restaurants, which were owned by long-term<br />
island residents (except from the two boats owned by Metropolitan and Lindblad<br />
Travel). Most <strong>of</strong> the locals lacked the capital, the foreign-language and<br />
marketing skills to do business on international scale. After the industry<br />
expanded the ownership shifted to international owned companies (Honey,<br />
1999).<br />
There has been a tendency, that the tourism has been split in two. The low<br />
budget, land-based tourism via on-land hotels and day boats, dominated by<br />
Galapagueños and Ecuadorians. They serve primary Ecuadorian tourists. On the<br />
other hand is the upmarket luxury tourism via luxury tour boats and floating<br />
hotels, which is controlled primary by foreigners and wealthy Ecuadorians. They<br />
serve mainly foreigners (Honey, 1999).<br />
Since 1979 the number <strong>of</strong> tourist has increased more than fivefold, and<br />
there have been tendencies toward poorly done ecotourism and conventional<br />
tourism, as well as uncontrolled immigration and commercial fishing (Honey,<br />
1999).<br />
3.1.4. The National Park<br />
The Galapagos National Park (GNP) administration began to function in<br />
1968. It has full legal support <strong>of</strong> the government. The governmental agency<br />
(GNP) is responsible for the management and protection <strong>of</strong> the national park,<br />
which include protection <strong>of</strong> endangered populations <strong>of</strong> native animal and plants,<br />
eradication and control <strong>of</strong> introduced species, and management <strong>of</strong> recreation and<br />
tourism by establishing and maintaining nature trails.<br />
45
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
The Park manager has set some rules and regulation which the tourists<br />
have to obey.<br />
• No animals, plants or rocks may be disturbed, touched or removed.<br />
• No foreign material is to be transported to the islands or from one island<br />
to another island.<br />
• No food to uninhabited islands. Smoking is prohibited.<br />
• Don’t touch, feed, pet or approach the animals too closely.<br />
• It is forbidden chasing or frightening living creature from its nest or<br />
resting place.<br />
• While diving or snorkelling don’t hurt any marine creature.<br />
• Waste products must be taking away from the islands.<br />
• Don’t buy souvenirs made from plants or animals <strong>of</strong> the islands.<br />
• Don’t paint names or graffiti on rocks.<br />
• All groups visiting the national park must be accompanied by a licensed<br />
guide.<br />
• Follow the marked trails at all times.<br />
(Ecuador & Galapagos, 1999).<br />
a. Ecotourism industry<br />
Ecotourism is dominated by two mainland-based tour operators <strong>of</strong>fering<br />
high-quality ecotourism (Metropolitan Touring and another company). They<br />
own several floating hotels and part <strong>of</strong> the Ecuadorian airlines that fly to the<br />
islands. Since 1980 their dominance has been challenged by the growth <strong>of</strong><br />
ecotourism operators. They have responded to the growing international market<br />
by <strong>of</strong>fering comfort and safety. The high-quality and well-managed floating<br />
46
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
hotels do not <strong>of</strong>fer much direct benefit to the local community. The tourists<br />
sleep and eat on the boats, and they are usually discharged for only a few hours<br />
on land to visit the Darwin Research Station and the National park, maybe they<br />
will buy some souvenirs at the station rather than in the town (Honey, 1999).<br />
The less luxury and locally-owned floating hotels are being marginalized<br />
by better-financed companies, who are buying up operating permits, and are<br />
bringing in larger and more luxurious vessels. This has some negative<br />
consequences, as decrease in local employment opportunities, and it contributed<br />
to population growth, because <strong>of</strong> imported staff for larger vessels which demand<br />
more experienced personnel, and a tendency for more pressure on the most<br />
popular visitor sites, because the larger ships want those (MacFarland, 1998).<br />
Since 1980s the Ecuadorians began receiving discounts on flight-tickets,<br />
park entrance and cruise boats. In average foreigners were spending 3.5 times<br />
more than Ecuadorians, yet a much higher proportion <strong>of</strong> the money spent by<br />
Ecuadorians went into the local economy, because they spent their money on<br />
low-quality, local-owned boats and on-land hotels (Honey, 1999).<br />
Tourism has grown gradually and has now reached a total <strong>of</strong> over 60.000<br />
visitors per year and almost 90 vessels. The growth has been driven by<br />
economic interests; it is neither planned technically in relation to natural<br />
resources, nor to market studies. The supply is already exceeding the demand<br />
(MacFarland, 1998). This means that too many accommodations and tourist<br />
activities are being established with no tourists to make use <strong>of</strong> them.<br />
Tourists provide an income for an estimated 80% <strong>of</strong> the people living on<br />
the Galapagos Islands, and 60% <strong>of</strong> all tourism revenues in Ecuador comes from<br />
Galapagos. Only 15% <strong>of</strong> the tourism income enters the islands economy, the rest<br />
goes to the mainland economy. The income from local farmers, cattle ranchers,<br />
47
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
fishermen and floating hotels (most not owned by Galapagueños) are virtually<br />
non-existent, most food and other suppliers are imported (Honey, 1999).<br />
b. Legislation/Regulation<br />
Gradually steps were taken towards conservation. In 1935 the Ecuadorian<br />
government passed legislation to protect the islands wildlife. But the legislation<br />
was not enforced; it was not until 1959 that the Ecuadorian government declared<br />
97% <strong>of</strong> the islands a national park. The remaining 3% <strong>of</strong> settlement were already<br />
established (Honey, 1999).<br />
In 1986 the Ecuadorian government declared 50.000 square kilometres <strong>of</strong><br />
water reserved. Under a new special Galapagos law enacted in 1998, the<br />
reserved area has been enlarged to over 130.000 square kilometres in size. It is<br />
now the second largest marine reserve in the world, after the Great Barrier Reef<br />
in Australia.<br />
To visit the National park you have to be accompanied by a licensed<br />
guide. Naturalist guides are licensed by the National park, after required training<br />
courses given by the park and Charles Darwin Research Station, and finally<br />
passing an examination. The park’s regulations require a maximum <strong>of</strong> 16<br />
visitors per guide in a single group.<br />
One way to collect money for protection and conservation is through park<br />
entrance fees. In the early 1990s park entrance fees, paid at the airport, covered<br />
the entire stay at the islands. The tax were 40$ for foreigners and 0.16$ for<br />
nationals. Only 10-20% <strong>of</strong> the revenues went to support the national park<br />
(Honey, 1999). Through the 1990s the entrance fees raise from 40$ to 100$, and<br />
in 1994 the government set aside 40% for protection <strong>of</strong> the National park. In the<br />
mid-1990s tourism was the fourth largest foreign currency earner in Ecuador,<br />
after petroleum, bananas and shrimps (Honey, 1999).<br />
48
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
In 1998 the Ecuadorian government made some strategies both through<br />
legislation and planning for protection and conservation <strong>of</strong> Galapagos. The<br />
result was the New Special Law.<br />
3.1.5. The effect <strong>of</strong> tourism<br />
It is difficult to distinguish between ecotourism and mass-tourism, but in<br />
general tourism have produced some related trends in Galapagos, which are<br />
threatening the island’s biodiversity and ecosystems. These trends are described<br />
below.<br />
a. Decline in quality <strong>of</strong> tourism<br />
Tourists, scientists and even boat owners have complained that the most<br />
visited places are becoming overcrowded. The government is supposed to set<br />
limits on the number <strong>of</strong> tourist and tour boats admitted each year, but these<br />
limits keep being raised (Honey, 1999).<br />
In 1992, the government announced that it was not issuing any new boat<br />
permits, but boat owners found ways to get around the restriction, by adding<br />
more berths to the boats or by buying permits from owners <strong>of</strong> smaller boats<br />
(Honey, 1999).<br />
As tourist numbers have grown and competition among the companies<br />
have increased, the companies have taken cost-saving shortcuts that negatively<br />
affect the marine reserve. For instance tour boats dumping organic and inorganic<br />
waste within the marine reserve instead <strong>of</strong> bringing for disposals and most<br />
common practices is for floating boats to discharge their sewage and organic<br />
kitchen wastes into the ocean (Honey, 1999).<br />
In 1997 another threat loomed over the marine reserve. Sports fishing and<br />
special type <strong>of</strong> spear fishing as part <strong>of</strong> the ecotourism market. With over-fishing<br />
already, sports fishing could not be policed and would only lead to further<br />
49
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
exploitation, and it could provide cover for commercial fishing activities. It<br />
would also attract a new type <strong>of</strong> clientele.<br />
As the tourist number has increased, the number <strong>of</strong> guides has been forced<br />
to expand rapidly; this has meant certification <strong>of</strong> a new classification <strong>of</strong> guides.<br />
These guides are mostly native Galapagueños who know a lot about the island,<br />
but lack the scientific knowledge, and frequently only speak Spanish (Honey,<br />
1999).<br />
The guides do not always exert adequate control over their group, either<br />
because <strong>of</strong> a lack <strong>of</strong> conservation understanding or commitment or because they<br />
don’t want to upset their passengers and jeopardize their end-<strong>of</strong>-cruise tip<br />
(Honey, 1999).<br />
Many substandard day boats and on-land hotels are marketing a more<br />
conventional type <strong>of</strong> “sun-and-sand” tourism, which has a negative impact on<br />
ecotourism, and attracting another clientele (Honey, 1999).<br />
b. Rapidly growing human population<br />
Historically, the tiny population, were farmers and fishermen and since<br />
1960s people who worked for the Charles Darwin Research Station or the Park<br />
Service, but since the late 1980s, as word spread on mainland that tourism were<br />
a “gold mine”, there have been a rapid acceleration in arrivals. The arrivals<br />
include colonist, fishermen, poachers, and job and fortune seekers (Honey,<br />
1999).<br />
The new arrivals are lured by stories <strong>of</strong> plentiful jobs and high salaries.<br />
The cost <strong>of</strong> living on the islands is several times higher than on the mainland,<br />
but salaries are also as much as seventy-five times higher (Honey, 1999).<br />
50
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
The Galapagos Islands are now the fastest growing area in Ecuador concerning<br />
population, with an average increase <strong>of</strong> 8%. The islands permanent population<br />
leaped from a few hundred to 15.000 by the late 1990s (Honey, 1999).<br />
The new arrivals are straining limited resources, such as freshwater,<br />
electricity, telephone service and schools. This also raises problems with<br />
garbage and sewage disposal, and, more timber and parkland for houses and<br />
farms is needed.<br />
c. Rapidly increasing rates <strong>of</strong> introduction <strong>of</strong> alien species<br />
Introduction <strong>of</strong> non-native species has accelerated with the tourism boom,<br />
and they are endangering the survival <strong>of</strong> fragile and endemic species. On some<br />
islands, species <strong>of</strong> tortoise have become extinct because goats have eaten the<br />
vegetation they feed on, and rats have eaten their eggs. Goat and donkeys have<br />
also caused massive erosion, threatened the tortoises’ habitat and trampled their<br />
nests (Honey, 1999). The park service and the research station have made<br />
campaigns to kill the goats and donkeys and they have relocated some <strong>of</strong> the<br />
tortoises to a breeding centre, and restored the island’s ecosystem through<br />
fencing, seed banks and by reintroduction <strong>of</strong> native species to help boost the<br />
wild population.<br />
The government have - through the New Special Law - made some effort<br />
to track and eliminate alien species –plants, animals, insects, fungi, bacteria –<br />
that are brought by boat or plane by tourist, new immigrants and illegal fishing<br />
operations. They have made a quarantine plan, inspection <strong>of</strong> cargo and people<br />
arriving by boat or plane, and the research station activities have been<br />
concentrated on eradication, and breeding <strong>of</strong> endangered species.<br />
51
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
d. Massive extraction <strong>of</strong> marine resources (marine fisheries)<br />
There are indications that artisanal fishing is affecting exploited marine<br />
communities. They are not only affecting the target species, they also have a<br />
cascading effect on non-commercial species and the ecosystem in general<br />
(Ruttenberg, 2001)<br />
Management and control <strong>of</strong> the marine resources have been very poor<br />
before 1986, and after 1986 it has been run by “everyone and no one”, the navy,<br />
the ministry <strong>of</strong> Industry and fishery, and INEFAN (the national service that falls<br />
under the ministry <strong>of</strong> Agriculture and livestock). But lack <strong>of</strong> management and<br />
control has allowed the overexploitation <strong>of</strong> the marine resources.<br />
In recent years local fishermen (many <strong>of</strong> them new arrivals), commercial<br />
fishing, and trawlers (many foreign) have been doing illegal and highly<br />
destructive commercial fishing within the marine park for lobsters, tuna, sharks,<br />
grouper and sea cucumber. Japanese ships are frequently spotted just outside the<br />
reserves, where they sell their illegal catches. Divers also report findings <strong>of</strong> dead<br />
sharks, sea lions and turtles attached in nets. There are also reports that boats<br />
from mainland comes to exchange sea cucumbers with prostitutes and drugs<br />
(Honey, 1999).<br />
For two decades a battle has been going on between the national park<br />
service and fishermen and industrial fishing groups, about how the marine<br />
reserve should be used.<br />
In 1994 Ecuadorian television showed shocking footage <strong>of</strong> large<br />
clandestine encampments <strong>of</strong> sea cucumber fishermen, who were diving into<br />
shallow waters and collecting an estimated 150.000 cucumbers per day. The sea<br />
cucumbers were clandestinely exported to Japan, Taiwan and Hong Kong,<br />
where they were eaten or used in medicines. Shortly after the illegal camps were<br />
shown in television, park guards and tour guides discovered 86 butchered giant<br />
52
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
tortoises on Isabela Island. The fishermen were widely suspected to have been<br />
behind the slaughter. Then in 1995 an enormous fire started on Isabela and<br />
burned for month destroying big areas. Sabotage was suspected (Honey, 1999).<br />
There was disagreement in the government on how to solve the problem,<br />
with congress member Eduardo Veliz favouring fishery, and the national park<br />
service and ministry <strong>of</strong> Agriculture (together with the tourism industry, scientist,<br />
and research station) opposing collection <strong>of</strong> sea cucumber in the marine reserve.<br />
The final solution was a three-month period where fishermen could harvest no<br />
more than 550.000 sea cucumbers. The experiment was disastrous. No effective<br />
controls or enforcement were put in place, and before the period was over, 6 to<br />
10 million sea cucumbers were harvested (Honey, 1999).<br />
After the three months when the government announced that it was<br />
closing the fishing season, the conflict escalated. Groups <strong>of</strong> masked sea<br />
cucumber fishermen with clubs blockaded the national park headquarters and<br />
research station, forcing the staff members to stay inside the building and<br />
threatening to kill the tortoises. The blockade lasted in four days, until the<br />
government flew in military troops and representatives <strong>of</strong> the fisheries authority<br />
to negotiate.<br />
Congressman Veliz managed to push through a law, which had something<br />
to <strong>of</strong>fer to everyone, but nothing for conservation. In 1995, Ecuador’s president<br />
vetoed the legislation, which lead to a three-week strike (a very militant action)<br />
leaded by Veliz. Protestors blockaded and closed down the airport on San<br />
Christobal and Baltra, and again the park service and research station. Veliz<br />
even threatened to kidnap tourist and burn area <strong>of</strong> the national park. After this<br />
tour operators reported a drop in reservation <strong>of</strong> 15%. When the strike was finally<br />
called <strong>of</strong>f, the president set up a commission to draft a New Special Law for the<br />
conservation <strong>of</strong> the Galapagos (Honey, 1999). Though the law provides an<br />
53
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
excellent framework for conservation there still is negotiation on how to define<br />
“artisanal” fishery.<br />
3.1.6 The New Special Law<br />
In 1997 the government set up a process <strong>of</strong> consultation and negotiation,<br />
which included representatives from conservations groups, the tourism industry,<br />
industrialist, environmental authorities and representatives from national and<br />
international organizations. The Charles Darwin Research Station participated as<br />
an advisor. After a series <strong>of</strong> meetings they reached an agreement on how to<br />
promote conservation <strong>of</strong> biodiversity and sustainable development in the<br />
Province <strong>of</strong> Galapagos. The laws contain the following regulations.<br />
1) Control <strong>of</strong> introduced species, by regulating transport <strong>of</strong> introduced<br />
species, eradication in agricultural lands, a quarantine inspection system,<br />
environmental impact assessment (EIA) and audit.<br />
2) Local participation and appreciation. This should among other things be<br />
promoted by environmental education. Institutions and individuals have<br />
duty to participate in controlling <strong>of</strong> introduced species. To incentive the<br />
locals, they have to be some local economic benefits, in terms <strong>of</strong><br />
improved social service, exclusive rights to future tourism and fishing<br />
opportunities. Local responsibility is also enhanced through participation<br />
in the Marine Reserves authority and the INGALA council (National<br />
Institution for the Galapagos, which arise with the new law. It is<br />
responsible for coordinating policies and planning throughout the<br />
Galapagos).<br />
3) Tax incentives for organizations that train local residents and the law also<br />
oblige employers to hire permanent residents rather than employ<br />
outsiders.<br />
54
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
4) Redistribution <strong>of</strong> the revenues from Park entrance fees. 40% will go to the<br />
National Park service, 40% to the town councils and other local<br />
authorities. The quarantine system, Marine Reserve, the navy and<br />
Ecuador’s other national parks will split the last 20%.<br />
5) Stabilization <strong>of</strong> the Island population. Only those who have lived on the<br />
island for more than five years will be eligible for legal residency.<br />
6) Setting aside <strong>of</strong> another 2% <strong>of</strong> the islands territory for human settlement.<br />
7) Extending the zone <strong>of</strong> protected water from 50.000 to 130.000 square<br />
kilometres. The Marine Reserve is to be managed by INEFAN (Ecuador’s<br />
national park service) under the overall authority <strong>of</strong> an interinstitutional<br />
committee composed <strong>of</strong> four ministries and three stakeholder group<br />
(tourism, fisheries and scientific and an educational group).<br />
8) Banding <strong>of</strong> industrial fishing for sharks and sea cucumbers, but permitting<br />
local fishermen to fish seasonally for lobsters and specified types <strong>of</strong> fish<br />
(Charles Darwin Foundation, 1998 and Honey, 1999)<br />
3.1.7. Conclusion<br />
The Galapagos Islands are a little paradise in the middle <strong>of</strong> the Pacific<br />
Ocean, with a well-run national park and a biological research station. There are<br />
scientists, natural guides, low-impact floating hotels and environmental aware<br />
tourists, and a well working cooperation between tour operators and the national<br />
park service. Ecotourism on the Galapagos is a roll-model for sustainable<br />
tourism management. However in the latter half <strong>of</strong> 1990s there has been fire,<br />
slaughter <strong>of</strong> tortoises, illegal fishing, demonstration and other troubles. The<br />
tourism has expanded too rapidly without any planning or governmental control.<br />
With the New Special Law, the government does after all try to stand up to<br />
tourism.<br />
55
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
The tourists do not have a direct effect on the ecosystem. Studies prove<br />
that there are only minor impacts on soils and geological features at very<br />
restricted locations and on certain trails. Birds breeding colonies have shown no<br />
detectable impact on the reproductive success (MacFarland, 2001). However<br />
tourisms have an indirect impact on the ecosystem. They are the cause <strong>of</strong><br />
growing population, increased consumption <strong>of</strong> resources and partly responsible<br />
for the introduction <strong>of</strong> alien species.<br />
Concerning the growing population, the government have made some<br />
improvements concerned the influx <strong>of</strong> new immigrants, with no long-term<br />
commitments to the island, who are seeking for quick money. The government<br />
also promotes environmental education <strong>of</strong> new immigrants, and they have<br />
prohibited further immigration.<br />
The Galapagos Islands have a close and positive cooperation between tour<br />
operators and the national park service and research station, but the increased<br />
tourism means among other things a decline in the guide quality and a more<br />
careless attitude to the environment, (for instance dumping <strong>of</strong> garbage and<br />
sewage). The growth in tourism has also meant a decline in environmental<br />
“education” <strong>of</strong> visitors, because <strong>of</strong> the increasing demand for guides. The result<br />
is education <strong>of</strong> locals, who lacks the needed qualifications. On the other hand it<br />
has given job opportunities for the locals.<br />
There is also a tendency that tourism takes a small twist to conventional<br />
tourism. If the national park service does not control the planning and the<br />
control <strong>of</strong> activities in the national park area, the tourist industry will go ahead<br />
<strong>of</strong> the management authorities, with new modalities and activities, as jet skiing,<br />
sport harpooning, helicopter over-flights and sports fishing. Management<br />
capacity must be in place before tourism growth is allowed (including new<br />
56
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
modalities and activities). The tourist industry should also be brought into the<br />
process <strong>of</strong> planning <strong>of</strong> the nature system in Galapagos.<br />
The conflict between the national park and the fishermen is not a story <strong>of</strong><br />
poor locals whose need for economic development is being fought by affluent<br />
outside conservationists. It is rather a struggle between new immigrants with<br />
international fishing interests. The national park, research station, tourism<br />
operators and even Galapaguaños, believe that they will get more benefits by<br />
preserving the ecosystem and promoting tourism than by exports <strong>of</strong> extracted<br />
natural resources.<br />
Concerning cultural respect (which is a part <strong>of</strong> the ecotourism protocol),<br />
the local communities <strong>of</strong> the Galapagos are virtually imported. The population<br />
consists mainly <strong>of</strong> sailors, prisoners, adventures and settlers, so this is not a<br />
significant issue on the Galapagos Islands.<br />
The Galapagos Islands is not a good roll-model for local ecotourism,<br />
which intensely involves local communities as the primary service provider and<br />
beneficiaries and which attempts to provide for minimizing impacts to their<br />
cultural and social life. Ecotourism on the Galapagos is on the other hand a good<br />
roll-model for conservation and protection <strong>of</strong> biodiversity.<br />
3.2. Ecotourism and wildlife in the Kruger National Park<br />
3.2.1. Introduction<br />
a. History<br />
Kruger National Park (KNP) lies in the Northeast <strong>of</strong> South Africa (figure<br />
5 and 6) and is one <strong>of</strong> the largest and oldest protected areas in Africa. It was<br />
declared in 1926 and now has an area <strong>of</strong> 19.458 square kilometres.<br />
57
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
(a)<br />
(b)<br />
Figure 6: Map <strong>of</strong> Africa (a) and South Africa (b)<br />
(a)www.amergeorg.org/history.htm (b)www.park-sa.co.za/trames.aspmainurf=park/national_parks.html<br />
The Kruger National Park’ history started when it was declared a game<br />
reserve in the last part <strong>of</strong> 1890’s by a group <strong>of</strong> English gentlemen, who after<br />
killing a great number <strong>of</strong> animals and exporting a big quantity <strong>of</strong> ivory just for<br />
pleasure and luxury, decided to protect the area to preserve its wildlife. This was<br />
done by removing the native African population from its lands to marginal lands<br />
in the south <strong>of</strong> the reserve - and it would not be the last time they did that.<br />
On the 28 th <strong>of</strong> October 1902 a new game legislation was promulgated, its<br />
most important novelty was that “…like its nineteenth-century predecessors,<br />
generally remained based on class and race distinctions. However in terms <strong>of</strong><br />
58
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
hunting privileges, it treated all landowners equally, whether white or African”<br />
(Carruthers, 1995).<br />
The Transvaal Game Protection Association (a group <strong>of</strong> Englishmen who<br />
worked to protect wildlife in the name <strong>of</strong> a class sport as hunting) became an<br />
important pressure group. They tried to convince the authorities about the basic<br />
idea that wildlife was in danger because <strong>of</strong> the native Africans, in saying so,<br />
they could maintain the elitism <strong>of</strong> their sport. Since the very first moment, this<br />
has been shown not to be true and on the contrary “…the over protection <strong>of</strong><br />
game in some parts….have resulted in the most disastrous consequences to the<br />
Natives who had in many cases lost their whole crops” (Carruthers, 1995).<br />
The situation in Kruger National Park (KNP) was as follows: a white<br />
colonialist minority who took the KNP under control to protect wildlife for<br />
game hunting was against a majority <strong>of</strong> black natives who had lost their land<br />
(and therefore the only opportunity to survive) simply to protect the white’s way<br />
<strong>of</strong> living.<br />
To create this National Park, thousands <strong>of</strong> Africans were evicted from<br />
their lands and “…not only were (they) forcibly moved to overcrowded and<br />
marginal agricultural lands on the periphery <strong>of</strong> these new reserves; colonial laws<br />
also denied them hunting and fishing licences and the right to use firearms or<br />
hunting dogs. They were also forbidden to kill wildlife that wandered outside<br />
the reserves and destroy their crops and domestic animals, and they were banned<br />
from collecting any wood or grasses within the reserves. Invariably, the colonial<br />
state chose to protect wildlife instead <strong>of</strong> the local Africans. In times <strong>of</strong> drought<br />
or when water was scarce, Africans were forced to move out” (Honey, 1999).<br />
But “Preventing Africans from hunting was not merely an economic strategy; it<br />
was embedded in white cultural perceptions. Whites generally regarded Africans<br />
59
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
as ‘savages’ or barbarians, and thus unable to ‘appreciate’ European refinements<br />
such as notions <strong>of</strong> ‘cruelty’ or ‘pleasure hunting’” (Carruthers, 1995).<br />
The situation was kept as explained until 1980 when African parks were<br />
opened to all races although these parks were divided into black and white areas.<br />
In 1990, the real change came with two milestones in Africa’s history: the<br />
legalization <strong>of</strong> the African National Congress and the liberalization <strong>of</strong> Nelson<br />
Mandela.<br />
Even thought the African Natives have felt a very deep hate to the ‘white<br />
idea’ <strong>of</strong> national parks because <strong>of</strong> all they meant to the blacks, Nelson Mandela<br />
saw in them an opportunity for development <strong>of</strong> the nation. However, he believed<br />
that some changes had to occur, as for example a revision <strong>of</strong> the management <strong>of</strong><br />
these national parks (which were at that point carried out by landowners),<br />
employment <strong>of</strong> local people, and equal division <strong>of</strong> revenues between locals and<br />
others.<br />
3.2.2. Management <strong>of</strong> South African National Parks<br />
South African National Parks (SANParks) is the organisation which<br />
manages all the twenty parks in South Africa taking into account: flora, fauna,<br />
landscape and culture.<br />
Its main goal is: “National parks should be the pride and joy <strong>of</strong> all South<br />
Africans” (SANParks, 2002). To achieve that, the organisation has to follow a<br />
mission: “To acquire and mange a system <strong>of</strong> national parks that represents the<br />
indigenous wildlife, vegetation, landscape and associated cultural assets <strong>of</strong><br />
South Africa for the pride and benefit <strong>of</strong> the nation”.<br />
The main legislation was proclaimed in 1995 and in the Land Restitution<br />
Act whose outcome is “the restitution <strong>of</strong> land rights to people or communities<br />
who were dispossessed by racist laws <strong>of</strong> the past” (SANParks, 2002). Under this<br />
60
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
Act several agreements have been achieved as for example between Makuleke<br />
community and the organisation. The 1995 law obligates institutions to restore<br />
their possessions to the different communities. The Makuleke has agreed to<br />
giving up exploitation <strong>of</strong> their areas for the next 50 years in favour <strong>of</strong><br />
ecotourism.<br />
The conservation program includes management <strong>of</strong> biodiversity and<br />
social ecology:<br />
“The SANParks will continue to fulfil the reason for its<br />
existence…namely the conservation and management <strong>of</strong> biodiversity and the<br />
protection <strong>of</strong> the beautiful scenery that South Africa is blessed with. But we<br />
want to do more then that by introducing the vital element <strong>of</strong> people into<br />
conservation- for without people, conservation could not be said to be taking<br />
place. By doing this, we shall bring our parks to life, rejuvenate them. We call<br />
this approach social ecology”<br />
(Mavuso Msimang, Chief Executive SANParks)<br />
Three main points in ecotourism are implemented in the management <strong>of</strong><br />
African national parks:<br />
• The conservation <strong>of</strong> representative sample <strong>of</strong> the biodiversity <strong>of</strong> the country.<br />
• To maintain a relationship <strong>of</strong> community upliftment and capacity building<br />
amongst people living in and around the park areas.<br />
• To provide a recreational outlet to the public to experience and enjoy the<br />
wonders <strong>of</strong> the parks.<br />
61
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
• The third <strong>of</strong> these responsibilities is achieved through tourism, and it is<br />
necessary to provide the financial resources required by the organisation in<br />
order to sustain the first and second responsibility.<br />
Kruger National Park (one <strong>of</strong> the most important national parks in South<br />
Africa as exposed before) has a further – more concrete - number <strong>of</strong> obligations<br />
in order to maintain sustainability and environmental protection:<br />
• There is a maximum threshold <strong>of</strong> vehicles that can enter the park daily.<br />
• Firearms must be declared and sealed at the entrance gates. The seals will be<br />
broken at the gate on departure.<br />
• No pets are permitted in national parks.<br />
• There are no television sets or radios in the Kruger Park to ensure maximum<br />
enjoyment <strong>of</strong> the wilderness sounds. Tourists who bring their own may not<br />
disturb other visitors.<br />
• Feeding <strong>of</strong> animals is strictly prohibited for the visitors as well as animals<br />
safety and well being.<br />
• Latecomers at entrance gates will be refused entry, whilst <strong>of</strong>fenders at rest<br />
camps could be fined.<br />
• Open vehicles, motorcycles and vehicles with an axle load exceeding 8,000<br />
kilos are not permitted.<br />
Kruger National Park not only <strong>of</strong>fers the opportunity to enjoy<br />
wildlife but also culture heritage. In its installations one can enjoy different<br />
cultural ages as Stone Age, Bushman Folk, Iron Age, etc. The main attractions<br />
at this national park are:<br />
• The big five: buffalo, elephant, leopard, lion and rhino.<br />
62
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
• The little five: buffalo weaver, elephant shrew, leopard tortoise, ant lion and<br />
rhino beetle.<br />
• Birding big six: ground hornbill, kori bustard, lappet- faced vulture, martial<br />
eagle, pel’s fishing owl and saddle- bill stork.<br />
• Five trees: baobab, fever tree, knob thorn, marula, mopane.<br />
• Five natural/cultural features: letaba elephant museum, jock <strong>of</strong> the bushveld<br />
route, masereni ruins, Stevenson Hamilton Memorial Library, thulamela.<br />
3.2.3. Tourists and their expectations<br />
In Obua J. and D. M. Harding´s research (1996), an investigation was<br />
carried out to find out what tourists expect from a visit in the Uganda National<br />
Park. Tourists were asked why they chose this destination. Their answers were<br />
as follows in order <strong>of</strong> importance: “About three-quarters said they mainly visited<br />
the place to view the wildlife. Over one-half gave the forest and its diversity as<br />
the second major reason. Nearly 50 % gave the tropical setting as the third<br />
reason, and the similar proportion named the culture and the people as the fourth<br />
reason. The peace and quite were <strong>of</strong> less significance and were given as the fifth<br />
reason by more than half <strong>of</strong> the visitors”.<br />
In this same research they tried to figure out what kind <strong>of</strong> people these<br />
tourists where to be able to improve the management <strong>of</strong> the parks in the future.<br />
The better you understand tourists, the better you can manage a national park to<br />
<strong>of</strong>fer services. The results were that tourists did not belong to one specific<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>ile, tourists were found from every social class, education, etc. But it was<br />
exposed that a great quantity <strong>of</strong> them were mature people with a university<br />
degree and at considerable knowledge about the environment.<br />
63
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
3.2.4. Wildlife in Kruger National Park<br />
KNP is the only national park in Africa that does not have a deficit. Due<br />
to this it helps financing other national parks in Africa. But why is the park so<br />
economically strong<br />
The National Park <strong>of</strong>fers: “The drawing car, the game which includes,<br />
according to Kruger’s <strong>of</strong>ficial list, 29,142 zebras, 2,314 hippos, 250-300<br />
cheetahs, 4,600 giraffes, 3,150 kudu, 1,425 waterbuck, 350-plus wild dogs, more<br />
than 500 species <strong>of</strong> birds, and all the “big five”: elephants (7,834), rhinos (220<br />
black and 1,871 white), leopards (600-900), Cape buffalo (15, 253), and lions<br />
(1500-plus) “ (Honey, 1999). In relation to tourists services “There are eight<br />
entrance gates, a network <strong>of</strong> some 2600 km <strong>of</strong> tarred and gravel roads, 24 rests<br />
camps <strong>of</strong>fering a variety <strong>of</strong> accommodation and camping facilities. The Kruger<br />
has 4200 beds, and with day visitors, can accommodate around 5000 visitors at<br />
any time. The management has imposed a limit <strong>of</strong> 1 vehicle per km <strong>of</strong> road at<br />
peak periods.<br />
The Kruger National Park takes an unashamedly populist approach,<br />
<strong>of</strong>fering people comfort and easy access to wildlife. There is little <strong>of</strong> the classic<br />
African safari left in the Kruger. Despite the massive tourist presence, the rest<br />
camps, roads and viewing bands that run alongside them, occupy only some 4<br />
per cent <strong>of</strong> the total area <strong>of</strong> the park. The remaining area is unspoilt and left to<br />
nature.” (Roe, et al, 1997).<br />
3.2.5. Human influence on the wildlife<br />
Human disturbs the animals directly and indirectly. Although tourists<br />
behave respectfully to wildlife, there are some kinds <strong>of</strong> animals, which need an<br />
quiet environment or who are just shy as cheetahs. Human presence can cause<br />
very important problems in cheetahs due to the fact that they are used to hunt at<br />
day in contrast to lions, who are nocturnal hunters. It has been shown that during<br />
64
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
the more active cheetahs hours, the tourists are more active too, and since cars<br />
are allowed in some national parks, these animals have developed a stressrelated<br />
disease similar to HIV “…which causes their immune systems to<br />
collapse “(Kock, 1994). However, it has been shown that sometimes the<br />
presence <strong>of</strong> tourists can be positive for hunters due to the prey can be confused<br />
which; the tourists actually help the predator to in their hunting efforts.<br />
However, this is just a positive and marginal point <strong>of</strong> view if we consider that<br />
the cheetahs population has decreased 30 per cent since cars were allowed in<br />
national parks.<br />
A very important problem <strong>of</strong> the tourists presence is not only that animals<br />
get shy, on the contrary some <strong>of</strong> them get too used to humans (and their<br />
machines). They are used to be feed by them and some gets aggressive in order<br />
to get more food. A curious case is that <strong>of</strong> the Antarctic whales where “….calves<br />
normally maintain constant body contact with their mothers but, when separated,<br />
can transfer their attachment to the side <strong>of</strong> a boat” (Roe, 1997).<br />
In parks with species similar to human beings such as gorillas, human can<br />
contribute to infection <strong>of</strong> human diseases which are in some cases mortal. This<br />
has resulted in a minimum distance <strong>of</strong> 5 meters between gorillas and humans,<br />
although these rules sometimes are not fulfilled. (Roe, 1997).<br />
The basic indirect problem caused by the protection <strong>of</strong> National Parks is<br />
the change in habitats from trampling and littering. Managers in several National<br />
Parks worldwide consider forbidding cars in the parks because they (as for<br />
example, in the Kakadu National Park, Nothern Australia) “…contribute to<br />
weed infestation by transporting seeds into the park” (Roe, 1997). Littering is<br />
also a very important problem in National Parks nowadays. To avoid habitat<br />
changes, KNP “has a management policy that aims to retain the habitat in a state<br />
that is neither too closed for tourist viewing, nor too utilised by elephants” (Roe,<br />
65
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
1997). This shows that Environmental Impact Assessment is priority before<br />
carrying out any kind <strong>of</strong> activity in the wild.<br />
3.2.6. Tourism/Mining: An African economic dilemma<br />
The economical problems are <strong>of</strong> a very different nature. The main thing is<br />
that the incomes are not divided equally between the natives and the whites.<br />
This makes them think that this is just a “white project” which does not involve<br />
them and worse, not leave them to live as they used to. This is the reason why<br />
Masai warriors killed a large number <strong>of</strong> wild animals to get their land again.<br />
Furthermore, Africa has a very important problem with mining. This<br />
consumptive activity is the main obstacle to conservation because this is the<br />
most powerful industry in Africa. Its interests are the opposites <strong>of</strong> conservation<br />
and ecotourism. The UNEP recognises “The copper mining industry in<br />
Phalaborwa has, in fact, long been a source <strong>of</strong> irritation to the management <strong>of</strong><br />
the Kruger Park, as well as to a number <strong>of</strong> private game reserves in the vicinity.<br />
Airborne pollution and effluent from the industry have contaminated soil as<br />
rivers that feed the reserves” (Kock, 1994). But not only contamination is the<br />
problem - human lives are at risk too. 300 workers die each year due to mining.<br />
Furthermore, there is a contradiction between law, government and protection.<br />
The new minerals act <strong>of</strong> 1991 gives the minister the right “…to grant<br />
consent to an application for permission to mine where the state holds the state<br />
to any minerals…and gives priority to mineral rights over private ownership”<br />
(Kock, 1994). In 1995 a dispute emerged between mining, military and<br />
environmental interests by Madimbo Corridor. At the beginning <strong>of</strong> that period<br />
environmental interests seemed losing the battle against mining. National Park’s<br />
fault when thousands <strong>of</strong> people were removed from their land and their houses<br />
were burned in the name <strong>of</strong> conservation. It never involved them. Right now,<br />
conservation promise to create 33 jobs speaking about a “long-term” activity as<br />
66
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
ecotourism. Mining companies were promising 2,000 jobs and it has always<br />
been there. The situation was very difficult because environmental organisations<br />
had to convince natives that the traditional “white conservationist power”<br />
wanted to help them. This means that natives can work in a short-term activity<br />
as mining, which is the African government favourite or in a long-term activity<br />
as conservation/ecotourism, etc. But at the time they solved the problem, not<br />
promising the panacea, but giving the exact information, they got a win-win<br />
situation.<br />
Sadly, not all examples are successful. In St. Lucia Game Reserve (in<br />
South Africa too) the battle against titanium and heavy metals mining was long<br />
and with no happy end. Convincing natives was not possible prevailing the<br />
“Black” idea about conservationist as exposed in Honey M., 1999. “Why all <strong>of</strong> a<br />
sudden is there all this activity and protest to save animals when there was no<br />
reaction at the time when people faced removal Is it because this time, there is<br />
a treat to the survival <strong>of</strong> a favourite holiday resort for whites”<br />
Another economical problem is that not all national parks in Africa give<br />
benefits although this is not the case with KNP. This park not only has benefits<br />
but it helps to finance other parks.<br />
3.2.7. Conservation/tourism<br />
Conservation has caused several problems, maybe because <strong>of</strong><br />
inexperience. Attracting people is not always an easy job, but it is known that<br />
tourists travel to see the animals, which now are called “the big five”: elephants,<br />
rhinos, leopards, buffaloes and lions. Sometimes, the population <strong>of</strong> these<br />
animals moves to other sites looking for food. Now they have been removed<br />
back into the National Parks to attract tourists. It is known that one <strong>of</strong> the<br />
reasons for tourists' unhappiness in visiting the national park (as commented) is<br />
that they were not able to see the animal they wanted. Then special places to<br />
67
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
sight these animals were provided. They then had to move some <strong>of</strong> the<br />
vegetation, which was essential to some species. For example, an Environmental<br />
Impact Assessment (EIA) was done to prevent problems in Thornybush Game<br />
Reserve. They wanted an open space to view wildlife and for that, they had to<br />
remove scrub. The EIA concluded that this clearance would be good to that kind<br />
<strong>of</strong> animals which are natural predators or big enough to find refuge in scrub such<br />
as lions, zebras, etc. But other kinds <strong>of</strong> animals such as kudu survive thanks to<br />
these scrubs, so they would be in danger. However, this has been done for a long<br />
time in national parks.<br />
3.2.8. Social problems<br />
The social problems caused by national parks have been commented<br />
along this project too but it is necessary to name them again. Firstly, for natives<br />
these have been one <strong>of</strong> the apartheid forms. They have not been allowed to get<br />
in to the national parks for a number <strong>of</strong> reasons. Firstly, because it was the<br />
natives “fault” that wildlife was disappearing. Secondly, because the natives<br />
couldn't understand a very refined sport due to the barbarian race they belong to.<br />
Thirdly, because they were damaging the ecosystem in general, etc. Natives<br />
realised that the only way to fight against this imposition was by killing wildlife.<br />
Not allowing the natives to enter the national parks will not only<br />
influence their survival possibilities but also their customs. Most tribes in Africa<br />
venerate their dead, by going to the burial sites. Many <strong>of</strong> these sites are in the<br />
national parks, but because <strong>of</strong> the national park regulations they cannot follow<br />
this tradition.<br />
Violence is recognised as one <strong>of</strong> the most important handicaps in national<br />
parks nowadays. And it can threaten the marketing <strong>of</strong> any national park, such as<br />
commented in the news: On September 15, 2000 a honeymoon couple went to<br />
KNP from New York but they were robbed. “They filed a complaint with the<br />
68
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
police, the American Embassy replaced their clothes and they flew back to New<br />
York on Tuesday. They will not recommend South Africa as an ecotourist<br />
destination to their friends” (Yahoo news, 2000).<br />
As commented before, a programme <strong>of</strong> formation/information would<br />
solve part <strong>of</strong> these problems. During a long time, National Parks managers have<br />
not informed the population about what was happening because they never<br />
considered it necessary (it is different nowadays as Ronnic McKilvey -<br />
Londolozi’s managing director - explains “We created Londolozi as a model not<br />
because we’re good guys. We know if we want to stay in tourism, we have to<br />
have friendly neighbours” (Honey, 1999). Now they continue not giving<br />
information but for a different reason. They are scared <strong>of</strong> what happened in later<br />
years, as explained by Ndumo’s manager, Ian Derrick, “The community as a<br />
whole and the tribal authorities up in the mountains have not been well informed<br />
about what’s happening here. It’s hard for us to go out and tell them. They’ve<br />
been lied to before by whites, so why would they believe us” (Honey, 1999).<br />
This is a very understandable feeling but anyway, information cannot be denied<br />
in advance because <strong>of</strong> problems, which were encountered a long time ago.<br />
Although, there still is a problem.<br />
3.2.9. Conclusions<br />
This chapter has shown that the problems in managing wildlife and local<br />
people are numerous and very different. This is, however, not an excuse for not<br />
working with the problems.<br />
When protecting animals, local people should not be forgotten because<br />
they are not an integral part <strong>of</strong> the solution; the animals may suffer, so both<br />
factors (locals and animals) are keys to protecting nature. Education is the key to<br />
the problem. As explained before, visitors <strong>of</strong> national parks want to have more<br />
information before coming to the parks. If visitors are well educated with<br />
69
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
respect to the environment and wildlife in general, it will be easier to protect and<br />
manage the national parks. It would not be necessary to clear any areas to satisfy<br />
the tourists, if they knew the consequences <strong>of</strong> the clearing. Because the greater<br />
awareness among tourists would make them understand why the animals are not<br />
always close by.<br />
Sighting animals is the main attraction in South Africa for researchers as<br />
well as for tourists and interested people in general. Binoculars could be a<br />
solution to sight birds and other animals from a distance without disturbing<br />
them.<br />
With respect to local community involvement, education and information<br />
are important. No matter how many mistakes were made in the past, there is no<br />
excuse for not giving the necessary information today. Anyway, it has been<br />
shown that educational programmes carried out in South Africa are really<br />
successful because native people are the first interested in preserving the wild.<br />
Information campaigns about mining and short-long-term activities should be<br />
carried out to show that tradition has not always been a very good solution. In<br />
this matter, African governments should be involved in international<br />
programmes. This will teach them how to manage the problems and what the<br />
solutions can be. Although, this measure will not be successful due to the most<br />
part <strong>of</strong> the world is getting energy from South African coal, but it is hopped that<br />
with the improvement <strong>of</strong> clean energies in the world, activities such as mining<br />
will disappear. In the future, African authorities should develop other sectors to<br />
protect the environment and to avoid future economical crisis as Europe has<br />
spent.<br />
About violence in Africa, democracy will be a step in the right direction.<br />
Improvement <strong>of</strong> the welfare state could contribute to solve this problem,<br />
although that is a long and hard work in Africa. The existence <strong>of</strong> democratic<br />
70
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
space at the national level and freedom <strong>of</strong> association for all groups are crucial<br />
to the success <strong>of</strong> a locally based strategy <strong>of</strong> resource conservation.<br />
Revenues should be divided between different stakeholders, and the<br />
different stakeholders should have the opportunity to participate in the<br />
management and planning process <strong>of</strong> the National Park.<br />
The differences between a national park and other kinds <strong>of</strong> protected areas<br />
is on the social or human plan, where local people are supposed to be involved<br />
in the practical work, by receiving formation etc. This consideration is really<br />
important at the moment <strong>of</strong> understanding the problems that national parks have<br />
generated and generate nowadays. It is important to keep in mind that the<br />
definition <strong>of</strong> a national park, (eco)tourism can be a good way to collaborate with<br />
this kind <strong>of</strong> projects in economical and social terms. The concept <strong>of</strong> eco-tourism<br />
should be exposed to understand the very different levels that a national park<br />
and eco-tourism can be related to.<br />
4. DISCUSSION<br />
Ecotourism as a way to protect nature… That is the headline <strong>of</strong> this<br />
project. But is ecotourism sustainable and what does sustainability mean<br />
Following the UNEP definition “Responsible travel to natural areas that<br />
conserves the environment and improves the well-being <strong>of</strong> local people”,<br />
ecotourism has to be environmentally/ecologically sustainable, indicating that<br />
tourists should have no or very low impact on the ecosystem. The ecosystem<br />
should be unchanged. Following the definition it also attaches importance to<br />
cultural/social sustainability, which indicates that locals have to benefit<br />
economically from tourism to prevent conflict between locals and<br />
conservationists.<br />
71
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
One <strong>of</strong> the ecotourism milestones is to protect pristine and fragile<br />
ecosystems. But how can ecotourism contribute to protect the nature This could<br />
be done by funding and by managing and promoting ecotourism correctly.<br />
One thing is regulation <strong>of</strong> the number <strong>of</strong> tourists. This is every individual<br />
aspect from one national park to another, and it is very difficult to put a general<br />
ceiling on the visitor number. This should be done on local, regional or national<br />
levels, and not on an international level. Still there should be some control by<br />
the government or else there is a possibility that the number <strong>of</strong> tourists will<br />
increase, because tourism is <strong>of</strong>ten a very capitalistic industry which <strong>of</strong>ten tries to<br />
evade the rules where possible. This was, for instance, the situation on the<br />
Galapagos. The government had made some limitation on the number <strong>of</strong> boats,<br />
but boat owners got around this limitation by adding more berths to the boats<br />
and some bought permits from owners <strong>of</strong> smaller boats. In that way they<br />
increased the number <strong>of</strong> tourist without adding more boats.<br />
A way to decrease the number <strong>of</strong> tourists is to increase the cots, for<br />
instance by increasing the entrance fees. Most people will pay more money if<br />
they get a special and unique experience, and if they know they are participating<br />
in conserving the National Park.<br />
Tourists should leave no footprint when they visit national parks. This is<br />
very difficult to practise in reality, because the tourist will always have a direct<br />
or indirect impact on the nature.<br />
Directly, tourists can affect the environment simply by their presence, as<br />
the example with the cheetah shows. And they can have an influence on the<br />
animals’ behaviour, if animals get used to being fed by humans. They can also<br />
affect the vegetation on the most visited places. The cost will be soil erosion and<br />
loss <strong>of</strong> vegetation (Roe, 1997).<br />
72
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
Indirectly, tourists can infect animals, as the example with the gorilla<br />
shows, and they can introduce alien species. Alien species can be regulated by a<br />
quarantine system, eradication and inspection <strong>of</strong> ships, vehicles and tourists, as<br />
they do on the Galapagos Islands. These regulations demand a good capital and<br />
a well managed national park, and this is <strong>of</strong>ten not the situation in developing<br />
countries.<br />
The footprint also depends on the number <strong>of</strong> tourists and how the tourists<br />
are distributed in an area. It is important to distribute the tourist to minimise the<br />
impact on nature or else the most visited places will get depleted. It is also<br />
important that the tourists get “educated” by guides. They will then get an<br />
ecological background, and they will be told how to behave and the<br />
consequences and impact on nature by avoiding certain behaviours, such as<br />
throwing garbage, feeding, touching or disturbing animals or plants.<br />
It can be difficult to educate tourists if the guides or working staff<br />
themselves do not respect the rules, as for instance on Galapagos Islands where<br />
tour boats dump organic and inorganic waste in the marine reserve, and floating<br />
hotels discharge their sewage and organic kitchen wastes in the ocean.<br />
There is a tendency that accommodations become more and more<br />
luxurious. Is that the idea <strong>of</strong> ecotourism If accommodations become more<br />
luxurious it will mean a higher consumption <strong>of</strong> resources such as food, water<br />
and energy. This is not environmental friendly. It will also attract another kind<br />
<strong>of</strong> clientele, which may search for other adventure, such as “sea, sun and sand”.<br />
From this point <strong>of</strong> view, ecotourism should focus on environmentally<br />
sustainable ways to build the accommodations.<br />
You can call ecotourism in question if you look at how tourists are<br />
transported from destination to destination. Tourists travel overseas more than<br />
ever and huge amounts <strong>of</strong> fuel are consumed. This contributes to an increasing<br />
73
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
amount <strong>of</strong> greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. The Galapagos Islands are<br />
located 1000 km <strong>of</strong>f Ecuador’s coast, and most tourists will prefer to fly to the<br />
island rather than passing 30 hours or more to get there by boat. It is possible to<br />
promote “polluted payment” on travel cost. Travel agencies should spend a<br />
reasonable percentage <strong>of</strong> the travel costs on forest maintenance or reforestation.<br />
This could be the way to reduce the greenhouse gasses.<br />
Tourists are transported by car on safaris and other cultural trips to show<br />
and satisfy the tourists as much as possible, instead <strong>of</strong> showing one place more<br />
intensely by foot or on horseback etc. Ecotourism should consider and react on<br />
these trends.<br />
Social and cultural aspects are also important in ecotourism development.<br />
It is very necessary to make sure whether social and cultural aspects are<br />
sustainable or not. Social society and cultural attraction are easily affected when<br />
protected areas are established. They may also be affected by the outside culture<br />
that is brought by tourists. Conflicts between black people and white people in<br />
KNP have occurred because white people have moved back people out <strong>of</strong> the<br />
protected areas. Their cultural and social structures were changed in the new<br />
place.<br />
It is not only a case <strong>of</strong> establishing <strong>of</strong> protected areas but many large-scale<br />
developing projects also generate social and cultural conflicts. You can imagine<br />
how difficult it is for local people to get new jobs, and the huge changes <strong>of</strong><br />
social and cultural structures in the new place are. There is no doubt that<br />
conflicts will happen if we carelessly plan in project development strategies.<br />
Public involvement at the early stage <strong>of</strong> project planning is one <strong>of</strong> the best<br />
ways to reduce conflicts. Most large-scale development projects in the world are<br />
now required to have environmental impact assessment (EIA) in place. In this<br />
process, public involvement is one very important step. Local leaders, local<br />
74
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
organisations and local people are invited to contribute to project planning.<br />
Project holders play an important role to present project proposals and listen to<br />
ideas from contributors.<br />
In this case, local people are given a chance to understand the goal <strong>of</strong> the<br />
project and its purposes in detail. They also have opportunities to contribute to<br />
project proposals by giving contributing with their own ideas. Communities,<br />
therefore, will know what projects are going to be done. This also means<br />
conflicts from local communities are weeded out at an early stage <strong>of</strong> the<br />
planning process. So the planer can go further in the discussion, explanation,<br />
and compromise with local communities in order to get agreements. Hence, the<br />
conflicts will be limited or eliminated before projects are carried out.<br />
Ecotourism development should learn from this point <strong>of</strong> view. The CBE<br />
as mentioned before is a form <strong>of</strong> local participation. It is successful in some<br />
cases from Namibia CBE, Langtang Ecotourism project-Nepal (UNEP, 2002).<br />
Supporting our ideas, various authors also emphasised the role <strong>of</strong> a participatory<br />
approach (Benjamin & Brush, 1996; Diduck, 1999; Amanda, 2001). Benjamin<br />
& Brush (1996) strongly stressed that “without the consent <strong>of</strong> local<br />
communities, protected areas couldn’t be managed effectively”.<br />
The above arguments show that local participation in ecotourism projects<br />
is very important. It helps to reduce or eliminate the social problems at the<br />
beginning <strong>of</strong> the project establishment. Therefore, it should be promoted for<br />
future ecotourism development elsewhere. The base steps were summarised by<br />
UNEP in the appendix 3.<br />
In addition, local communities need to be empowered in order to control<br />
ecotourism occurring in their place. Regina (1999) has emphasised the role <strong>of</strong><br />
local empowerment in tourism management. It includes economic<br />
empowerment, psychological empowerment, social empowerment, and political<br />
75
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
empowerment. Communities will perhaps try to preserve their traditional culture<br />
because <strong>of</strong> outside visitor’s interest. Traditional culture demonstration is one <strong>of</strong><br />
several income sources, tied to the local community in ecotourism (Sven, 2000).<br />
It is one <strong>of</strong> several reasons that tourists plan to travelling to protected areas<br />
(Joseph, 1997).<br />
The sustainability <strong>of</strong> ecotourism is very dependent on tourism<br />
management strategies. The “carrying capacity” concept may be very useful and<br />
should be implemented in the tourism management strategy. It is really needed<br />
to define the limit levels that the whole ecosystems can tolerate. In order to do<br />
that, we need to focus our attention on the whole ecotourism system, including<br />
local capacity building, susceptibility <strong>of</strong> the natural ecosystem, sensitivity <strong>of</strong> the<br />
local culture, etc. But it is very difficult to define different kinds <strong>of</strong> tourism.<br />
Therefore, the “carrying capacity” needs to be very flexible and adaptable to<br />
different tourism situations. Weaver (2001) has also agreed with our ideas and<br />
emphasised that the carrying capacity could not be fixed.<br />
Carrying capacity alone may not be enough to ensure success in the<br />
control <strong>of</strong> ecotourism impacts. The flexible and dependable actions sometimes<br />
succeed ant other times they do not. It depends very much on the whole capacity<br />
building and also on the individual participant. Every participant has their own<br />
skill to carry out ecotourism activities. Some can do well and some cannot. The<br />
emergent local guides at The Galapagos Islands could not control well the<br />
visitors because <strong>of</strong> lacking education (Honey, 1999). This evidence indicates<br />
that how importance <strong>of</strong> capacity building is. If capacity building is ignored,<br />
long-term negative impacts will be accumulated and lead to expose to the<br />
ecotourism environment later. This is called “accumulated impacts” from<br />
ecotourism.<br />
76
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
In order to minimise the accumulated impacts, monitoring programs may<br />
play an important role. Such programs should be planned as part <strong>of</strong> the<br />
ecotourism operation strategy. The right monitoring program could figure out<br />
good indicators and frequency checking. It will help the ecotourism manager to<br />
reflect on experiences from past ecotourism activities. It also means that any<br />
problems will be recognised as early as possible, before the serious problems<br />
occur. Therefore, the existing management plans can be improved and help<br />
create a better tourism situation.<br />
Indicators and frequency checking for ecotourism monitoring depend on<br />
each ecotourism operation (see more in appendix 2). It should be focused on<br />
activities in ecotourism, the site activities, the sensitivity <strong>of</strong> the ecosystem<br />
(threatened species, rare species, endangered species, etc). Appropriate<br />
indicators should indicate environmental changes when negative impacts occur.<br />
The frequency checking should implement to recognise every environmental<br />
change. The UNEP (1998) has pointed out some ways <strong>of</strong> monitoring an<br />
ecotourism operation. It includes site visit monitoring, visitor feedback<br />
monitoring, third-party monitoring, and self monitoring.<br />
Monitoring program is globally promoted in environmental impact<br />
assessment (EIA) procedure, particularly in the developing projects. Ecotourism<br />
should involve EIA in the future. It will help to predict what will happen And<br />
what should be done to solve negative impacts Also what should be maximised<br />
during ecotourism activities without causing harm to the whole ecosystem.<br />
Monitoring programs also help the ecotourism manager to adjust the<br />
ecotourism activity plans when they find negative tendencies in ecotourism<br />
development. For example, from the monitoring program, we may recognise the<br />
excessive visiting numbers. This recognition will alarm when it is needed to<br />
control the number <strong>of</strong> visitor or other things to improve the capacity building,<br />
77
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
laws/regulation etc. In contrast, decreasing numbers <strong>of</strong> visitors may be caused<br />
by bad ecotourism services or boring tourism attractions. It may wake up the<br />
manager to look back and check the whole tourism conditions.<br />
The case study in Galapagos Islands is evidence showing how useful a<br />
monitoring program can be. Recognising the problem which were created from<br />
inadequate local guides is a good example for others ecotourism elsewhere.<br />
Establishment <strong>of</strong> the new special laws may also be the consequence <strong>of</strong> a well<br />
implemented monitoring program and The Charles Darwin Research Station<br />
likewise.<br />
Up to now, the word “ecotourism” has been abused. The term ecotourism<br />
should be meaningfully implemented. However, who will judge whether it is<br />
abused or not It is very difficult to answer right now.<br />
The existing ecolabels such as “Green globe 21” and others are being<br />
promoted and implemented elsewhere as the certification for tourism operation.<br />
It is necessary to have a linkage between the local, regional, national and<br />
international organisations to control and qualify ecotourism operations. UNEP<br />
may play an important role in this aspect. They should co-operate with other<br />
ecolabels to plan strategies for certifying the ecotourism operation. Local<br />
organisations play a role in implementing and monitoring the tourism<br />
management strategies. National and international organisations are important in<br />
consultant duties.<br />
It is possibly necessary to link ecolabel with carrying capacity and<br />
monitoring programs. This would help to ensure successful ecotourism<br />
operation. The carrying capacity and ecolabel play a role as guidelines and<br />
certification for tourism operation. Whereas monitoring programs play a role as<br />
the controller. Monitoring programs will check whether ecotourism operators<br />
have a certification or not. Monitoring program also checks whether ecotourism<br />
78
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
operations exceed the carrying capacity or not. These checked result in feedback<br />
to tourism management plans.<br />
Running ecotourism cannot be carried out by single ecotourism segment<br />
such as local communities, tourist companies, and government agencies. Local<br />
communities do not have much experience with establishing ecotourism<br />
themselves, but they play an important role in conserving the wildlife<br />
surrounding them. They need to learn from other tourism segments.<br />
The tourist companies may have more experiences with tourist operation<br />
than other organisations. They may play an important role in training and<br />
advising the local people in ecotourism operation. They are also a bridge<br />
between the local, regional, national, and international levels. They can help to<br />
advertise and <strong>of</strong>fer advises for tourism activities.<br />
In order to set political guidelines for tourism operation, the government<br />
organisations may play more important role. Establishing regulations is, <strong>of</strong><br />
course, contributed from many different disciplinary, including social sciences,<br />
political sciences, natural sciences etc. Government agencies may need to be<br />
given a high power for controlling over other tourism segments.<br />
Scientific research institutes and universities may play an important role<br />
in assessing natural attraction, including species components, abundance,<br />
distribution and their situation in term <strong>of</strong> conservation and potential visibility for<br />
ecotourism attraction. Later, they also help to monitor impacts and give<br />
suggestions to environmental and wildlife management. The Charles Darwin<br />
Research Station in Galapagos has acted as advisers for park management in<br />
general and ecotourism operation in particular.<br />
Why should we prefer ecotourism rather than conventional tourism<br />
Tourism is a good source <strong>of</strong> income and because <strong>of</strong> that, mass tourism <strong>of</strong>ten<br />
79
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
brings over development and uneven development, because <strong>of</strong> the sudden<br />
increase in income. Often the money does not stay in the host country, because<br />
the tourist companies and accommodations are international owned; the only<br />
benefits to local communities are from low-payment service jobs. Mass tourism<br />
also brings environmental pollution and spoils cultural attractions. Tourist<br />
attractions that earlier on were a beautiful spot becomes degraded as a result <strong>of</strong><br />
mass tourism. Following the UNEP definition this is what ecotourism tries to<br />
avoid.<br />
The local people should benefit from ecotourism. They should be given<br />
job opportunities and a higher income than the income resulting form extraction<br />
<strong>of</strong> natural resources, such as mining, agriculture and fishery. The local future<br />
economy could improve by preserving the ecosystem and promoting tourism. It<br />
can be difficult to convince the local people to promote long-term tourism rather<br />
than short-term extraction <strong>of</strong> resources. This is the situation in South Africa,<br />
where conservation <strong>of</strong> the National Park will create 33 jobs and mining will<br />
create 2000 jobs and they will get their income immediately. It is not easy for<br />
local people in developing countries to invest in long-term, future projects, when<br />
they need the money here and now. And 2000 jobs are more attractive than 33<br />
jobs.<br />
The different stakeholders should also benefit from tourism, as on the<br />
Galapagos Islands, where the revenue from the entrance fees is distributed on<br />
different stakeholders. The theory that the different stakeholders will protect<br />
what they receive money from is not enough. They need to be educated and<br />
participate in the planning process.<br />
It is also important to satisfy tourists up to a point, so there will keep<br />
being a stabile influx <strong>of</strong> tourists and therefore income. It is then necessary to<br />
inform the tourists <strong>of</strong> what to expect, so they avoid getting disappointed. As the<br />
80
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
example in Kibale National Park shows, where people expected to see specific<br />
animals.<br />
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS<br />
The term “ecotourism” is going to be clearly understood in the future. It is<br />
globally supported by various organisations and conservationists. The<br />
meaningfully implemented ecotourism can contribute to both conservation and<br />
local economic rising.<br />
Ecotourism can protect nature by preserving biodiversity, promoting<br />
conservation education and providing economic incentives for sustainable use.<br />
A range <strong>of</strong> species and ecosystems would no longer persist without tourism<br />
(Stefan, 1999).<br />
Working with local communities is necessary to encourage their support<br />
and co-operation. The CBE is a model <strong>of</strong> local participation in sustainable<br />
ecotourism.<br />
Ecotourism, in contrast, also generates negative impacts. Carefully<br />
planning, monitoring <strong>of</strong> ecotourism activities are good ways to minimise<br />
negative impacts. These measures are being supported by various organisations<br />
such as UNEP, TIES.<br />
Establishing a linkage between local, regional, national and international<br />
organisations may be a good way for future tourism management and<br />
certification.<br />
Polluted payment is recommended to apply in the future order to reduce<br />
mass tourism and negative effects <strong>of</strong> ecotourism.<br />
81
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
REFERENCES<br />
• Akama J. (1996) Western environmental values and nature-based tourism in<br />
Kenya. Tourism Management, 17 (8), 567-574.<br />
• Amanda S. (2001) Anthropology <strong>of</strong> Tourism: Forging new ground for<br />
Ecotourism and Other Alternatives. Annual Review Anthropology, 30, 261-<br />
283<br />
• Benjamin S. O., and S. B. Brush (1996) Anthropology and the Conservation<br />
<strong>of</strong> Biodiversity. Annual review Anthropology, 25, 329-352.<br />
• Bouchjira A. (2002) Sustainable development <strong>of</strong> ecotourism in desert areas:<br />
Preparatory seminar for the International Year <strong>of</strong> Ecotourism in 2002 (Final<br />
report). www.world-tourism.org<br />
• Buckley R. (2001) Tourism ecolabels. Annals <strong>of</strong> Tourism Research, 29 (1),<br />
183-208.<br />
• Carruthers, J. (1995) The Kruger National Park. A social and political<br />
history. Pietermaritzburg: <strong>University</strong> <strong>of</strong> Natal Press.<br />
• Carter, E. and Lowman, G. (edit) (1994) Ecotourism. A sustainable option<br />
Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. McCool, F. (1995) Linking tourism, the<br />
environment, and concepts <strong>of</strong> sustainability: setting the stage. Minneapolis:<br />
Gen. Tech. Rep.<br />
• Charles Darwin foundation (1998) Development.<br />
http://serv1.law.emory.edu/sites/GALAPAGOS/1998DEV.htm<br />
• Charles Darwin foundation (2001). www.darwinfoundation.org<br />
• Cole D. N. and D. R. Spildie (1998) Hiker, horse and llama trampling effects<br />
on native vegetation in Montana, USD. Journal <strong>of</strong> Environmental<br />
Management, 53, 61-71.<br />
82
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
• David A. F. (1999) Ecotourism: an introduction. Published by Loutledge,<br />
London, 163.<br />
• David B. W. (2001) Ecotourism as Mass tourism: contradiction or reality<br />
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 104-112.<br />
• Diduck A. (1999) Critical education in resource and environmental<br />
management: learning and empowerment for a sustainable future. Journal <strong>of</strong><br />
Environmental Management, 57, 85-97.<br />
• Ecuador & Galapagos (1999) Tourism and recommendations.<br />
http://Library.thinkquest.org<br />
• Eugenio Y. (2002) Sustainable development <strong>of</strong> ecotourism web-conference:<br />
The framework <strong>of</strong> the International Year <strong>of</strong> Ecotourism and Conditions for<br />
the sustainable development and management <strong>of</strong> ecotourism. www.worldtourism.org<br />
• FAO (1997) Ecotourism for Forest Conservation and Community<br />
Development. Proceeding <strong>of</strong> International Seminar 28-31 January 1997, 72-<br />
81.<br />
• Fennell D. A. (1999). Ecotourism - An introduction. Routlege, 30.<br />
• Font X. (2001) Environmental certification in tourism and hospitality:<br />
progress, process and prospects. Tourism management, 23, 197-205.<br />
• Gail Lash (no year) What is Community-Based Ecotourism<br />
www.rec<strong>of</strong>tc.org/download/International_Report_Series/Ecotourism/.<br />
• Galapagos Conservation (2002) Conservation/Education.<br />
www.gct.org.history<br />
• Green Globe 21 path (2001), http://www.greenglobe21.com/<br />
83
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
• Honey M. (1999) Ecotourism as sustainable development, Who owns the<br />
paradise Island Press. Washington, D.C<br />
• Joseph Obua (1997) The potential, development and ecological impact <strong>of</strong><br />
ecotourism in Kibale National Park, Uganda. Journal <strong>of</strong> Environmental<br />
Management, 50, 27-37<br />
• Kock, E. (1994) Reality or rhetoric Ecotourism and rural reconstruction in<br />
South Africa. Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social<br />
Depvelopment.<br />
• Lew A. (1997) The Asia Pacific Ecotourism Industry: Putting Sustainable<br />
Tourism Into Practice.<br />
• MacFarland Graig (1998) An analysis <strong>of</strong> nature tourism in the Galapagos<br />
Islands. www.darwinfoundation.org/articles<br />
• Mark B. O. (1995) Current issues towards a more desirable form <strong>of</strong><br />
ecotourism. Tourism management, 16 (1), 3-8.<br />
• Marnie P. B., E. Dinerstein, A. Rijal, H. Cauley and A. Rajoura (1998)<br />
Ecoutourism's support <strong>of</strong> biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology,<br />
12 (6), 1399-1404.<br />
• Megan E.W. (1993) Ecotourism guidelines for nature tour operators.<br />
International Ecotourism Society, North Bennington Vermont, USA,<br />
www.ecotourism.org/guid.html<br />
• Mercer D. (1996) Ecotourism. Geodate, 9 (1), 1-6<br />
• Mieczkowski Z. (1995). Environmental Issues <strong>of</strong> Tourism and Recreation -<br />
<strong>University</strong> press <strong>of</strong> America, New York, 1995) p. 1.<br />
in Muller F.G. (2000) Ecotourism; an economical concept for ecological<br />
sustainable tourism - International J. Environmental Studies. 57, 241-251<br />
• Odum E. (1971) Fundaments <strong>of</strong> ecology, 3 issue, W.B. Sander Company, p 9<br />
84
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
• Obua, J. and Harding, D.M. (1996) ‘Visitors characteristics and attitudes<br />
towards Kibale National Park, Uganda’, Tourism Management, 17 (7), 495-<br />
505.<br />
• Oliver H. (2001) Conference on Sustainable development <strong>of</strong> ecotourism in<br />
small islands developing states (SIDS) and other small islands: Preparatory<br />
seminar for the International Year <strong>of</strong> Ecotourism Mahe, Seychelles, 8-10<br />
December 2001 (Final report). www.world-tourism.org<br />
• Primack R. B. (2001). Biological principles <strong>of</strong> nature conservation. Portal<br />
ltd, Czech translation <strong>of</strong> the American original - A primer <strong>of</strong> Conservation<br />
Biology, 209.<br />
• Roe, D. et al. (1997) Take only photographs, leave only footprints: the<br />
environmental impacts <strong>of</strong> wildlife tourism, London: IIED Wildlife and<br />
Development Series.<br />
• Ruth N., J. S. Wilber, and L. O. M. Marín (1998) Community-Based<br />
Ecotourism in the Maya Forest: Problems and Potentials.<br />
www.planeta.com/planeta/98/0598mayaforest.html.<br />
• Ruttenberg, Benjamin I (2001) Effects <strong>of</strong> Artisanal Fishing on Marine<br />
Communities in the Galapagos Islands. www.blackwell-synergy.com<br />
• Scheyvens R. (1999) Ecotourism and empowerment <strong>of</strong> local communities.<br />
Tourism management, 20, 245-249<br />
• Sapna M. & L. Rawat (2000) The impacts <strong>of</strong> tourism on the environment <strong>of</strong><br />
Mussoorie Garhwat Himalaya, India. The environmentalist, 20, 249-255.<br />
• Stefan G. (1999) Analysis Ecotourism: a means to safeguard biodiversity and<br />
ecosystem functions Ecological economics, 29, 303-320.<br />
• Sven W. (2000) Analysis ecotourism and economic incentives-an empirical<br />
approach. Ecological economics, 32, 465-479.<br />
85
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
• The Ecotourism Society (TES). www.ecotourism.org<br />
• Töpfer K. (1998) Ecolables in the tourism industry, p.1<br />
• Tracy A. F. & J. L. Marion (2001) Identifying and assessing ecotourism<br />
visitor impacts at eight protected areas in Costa Rica and Belize.<br />
Environmental Conservation, 28 (3), 215-225.<br />
• UNEP & the TIES (2002) Ecotourism: Principles, Practices and Policies for<br />
Sustainability. Magan Elper Wood (Ed). UNEP<br />
• UNEP (1998) Ecolables in the tourism industry. United Nations<br />
Environment Programme - Industry and Environment.<br />
• UNEP (2002) United Nations Environmental Program, data downloaded<br />
from the web pages http://www.unep.org<br />
• UNEP and Convention on Biological Diversity (2002).<br />
http://www.uneptie.org/pc/tourism/ecotourism/home.htm<br />
• Wall G. (1997) Is ecotourism really sustainable Environmental management<br />
21 (4): 483-491.<br />
• Weaver D. B. (2001) Ecotourism as Mass tourism: Contradiction or Reality<br />
Coronell-Hotel and restaurant administration quarterly, April 2001, 104-<br />
112.<br />
• Whinam J. and M. Comfort (1996) The impacts <strong>of</strong> commercial horse riding<br />
on sub-alpine environments at Cradle Mountain, Tasmania, Australia.<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> Environmental Management, 47, 61-70.<br />
• World Ecotourism Summit - Québec (2002). www.ecotourism2002.org<br />
• World ressource institute (2002) Wasington, D.C. www.wri.org<br />
86
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
• World Travel and Tourism Council (2000). Industry and environment. July -<br />
December 2001.www.amegeorg.org/history.htm<br />
• WWF (2001) Guidelines for community-based ecotourism development.<br />
• www.blueflag.org<br />
• www.ecuadorexplore.com/html/galapagos_map.html<br />
• www.globalforestwatch.org<br />
• www.greenthai.org<br />
• www.parks-sa.co.za/tranes.aspmainort=parks/national-parks.htm<br />
• Yahoo wildlife news (2000).<br />
http://www.unesco.org/courier/1999_08/sp/dossier/txt23.htm<br />
87
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
APPENDIX<br />
Appendix (1): Various ecolabels in the world<br />
Adopted from: X.Font, Tourism management 23 (2002) 197 - 205<br />
88
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
Appendix 2: Proposed guidelines for successful Ecotourism Certification<br />
• Indicators for sustainability must be arrived at by research <strong>of</strong> appropriate parameters<br />
based on current best practice<br />
• Indicators for sustainability must be reviewed and approved via a stakeholder process<br />
• Indicators for sustainability must be arrived at for each segment <strong>of</strong> the industry, e.g.<br />
hotels, tour operators, transportation systems, etc.<br />
• Indicators for sustainability must will vary according to region and must be arrived at via<br />
local stakeholder participation and research<br />
• Certification programs require independent verification procedures that are not directly<br />
associated with the entity being paid to certify. <strong>University</strong> involvement is ideal for this<br />
process.<br />
• Certification programs, particularly for the small ecotourism business sector, are unlikely<br />
to pay for themselves through fees, and will need national, regional and international<br />
subsidization.<br />
• Certification programs can be given to the operating entity, but should specify the<br />
products or locations that fulfil relevant criteria as certified.<br />
• Certification should be ground tested before full-fledged implementation to ensure all<br />
systems are properly in line, due to the difficult <strong>of</strong> verifying appropriate performance<br />
standards without advance testing.<br />
UNEP & TIES (2002) modified from Epler Wood and Halpenny, Ecolabels in Tourism (2001)<br />
89
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
Appendix 3: Basic steps to encourage community participation<br />
Understand community’s role: community should exercise to control over their growth and<br />
development. They will in many cases need technical assistance to make appropriate<br />
decisions and should be given adequate information and training in advance. Allocate time,<br />
funds and experienced personnel to work with community well in advance. Avoid allowing<br />
communities to feel they are powerless to influence patterns <strong>of</strong> development.<br />
Empower communities: Participation is a process that is more than just making communities<br />
the beneficiaries <strong>of</strong> an ecotourism project. Jobs are an important benefit, but they do not<br />
replace empowerment. Communities must genuinely participate in decision-making process.<br />
This involves more than just consultation. Processes must be initiated to ensure that<br />
communities can manage their own growth and resources wisely.<br />
Urge local project participation: Project manager must identify local leaders, local<br />
organisations, key priorities <strong>of</strong> the community, and ideas, expectations and concerns local<br />
people already have. Information can be gathered for and by the community. The opinions<br />
gathered should be disseminated and discussed with the community along with other relevant<br />
information such as government market statistics or regional development plans. Training<br />
opportunities must be formulated at this phase to help community members gain planning<br />
skills, and also the entrepreneurial skills required to run small businesses.<br />
Create stakeholders: Participation can be encouraged at 2 levels – for individuals and local<br />
organisations. Investment in project development areas should be encouraged, either in cash,<br />
labours or in-kind resources. Developing logging by local entrepreneurs, and setting standards<br />
for local services by local organisations are 2 good examples.<br />
Link benefits to conservation: The link between ecotourism benefits and conservation<br />
objectives need to be direct and significant. Income, employment and other benefits must<br />
promote conservation.<br />
Distribute benefits: Ensure that both the local community and individuals benefit from<br />
projects.<br />
Identify community leaders: Identify opinion leaders and involve them in the planning and<br />
execution <strong>of</strong> projects. Identify leaders that represent different constituents to ensure that a<br />
cross-section <strong>of</strong> society is involved (including both men and women). Be sure that the project<br />
has good information on the local social structure. Strategize on the effects <strong>of</strong> the projects on<br />
90
Ecotourism as a sustainable way to protect nature<br />
different social groups and never assume that all parts <strong>of</strong> society will cooperate or agree. Be<br />
strategic and gain appropriate allies early.<br />
Bring about change: Use existing organisations already working in the community to<br />
improve its social well-being through economic development. Development associations or<br />
local cooperatives are good prospects. Groups involve in organizing reaction can also be good<br />
allies. Community participation through institutions is more likely to bring about effective<br />
and sustained change.<br />
Understand site-specific conditions: Be aware that authority structures vary greatly in each<br />
region. Consensus is not always possible, nor is the full participation <strong>of</strong> all sectors <strong>of</strong> society<br />
(women are <strong>of</strong>ten excluded).<br />
Monitor and evaluate progress: Establish indicators in advance to track tourism’s impactsboth<br />
positive and negative. Goals such as employment and income levels are only one type <strong>of</strong><br />
indicator. The project should tract negative impacts such as evidence <strong>of</strong> rapidly escalating<br />
prices for local goods, inflation and land prices, antagonism towards visitors, frequency <strong>of</strong><br />
arrests, change in youth activities, and evidence <strong>of</strong> drug, prostitution and other illicit<br />
activities. Ideally, the more local community is fully involved in ecotourism development, the<br />
less these problems should develop. Another important indicator <strong>of</strong> local involvement is<br />
evidence <strong>of</strong> initiatives within the community to respond to the negative influences <strong>of</strong> tourism.<br />
UNEP and TIES, 2002 modified from Brandon, Ecotourism: A guide for Planners &<br />
Managers-Volume 1, 1993.<br />
91