Tourism in the Greater Himalaya supports the local economy with foreign exchange and by creating opportunities for local employment. Mass and unregulated tourism, however, can cause environmental damage, particularly in ecologically fragile areas. Is ecotourism - responsible travel that aims to conserve the environment and improve local people's welfare - an effective compromise?

The Greater Himalaya is a critical ecosystem, one of 34 biodiversity 'hotspots' worldwide. About 11 percent of the region is managed as protected areas. The Annapurna Conservation Area Project (ACAP), established in 1986, is the first and largest conservation area in Nepal.

Before ACAP, trekkers exploited local forests for firewood and left behind huge amounts of rubbish. The average trekker spent US$3 a day, 20 percent of which reached local people. Since the ACAP began, satellite mapping shows a dramatic increase in forest cover and cleaner trails. The study also revealed that, over time, about 50 percent of tourist revenue stays in the local economy.

Annapurna is a good model as local people have strong decision-making powers based on negotiation and are testing management solutions. Success factors include:

• Tourist money is going directly into the local economy as tourists spend money on lodging, porters and food.
• A revitalised local craft industry and the potential for farmers to grow food for tourists.
• Tourism revenues benefit local health and education - to repair and construct schools and health clinics and to promote sanitation through the construction of pit latrines and rubbish pits.
• Local people are undertaking management activities through conservation area management committees that work with political organisations to improve environmental protection and train local workers.
• Alternative energy sources and fuel-efficient technologies in some tourist areas are minimising the need to cut trees for firewood, reducing deforestation.
• Walking trails, information posts and Conservation Education Centres encourage tourists to be aware of and reduce the effects they have on the environment.

Often located in remote and inaccessible areas, ecotourism has clearly benefited people as an alternative income source. However, the benefits and overall potential of ecotourism are sometimes overstated. Successful projects are rare and efforts to replicate them limited. In some places ecotourism is damaging rather than protecting fragile areas, as it opens up previously fragile destinations to tourism.

Too many visitors may damage protected areas, leading to degraded surroundings and a decline in tourism, leaving local people without an income source. Other ecotourism ventures such as trekking in Bhutan and watching mountain gorillas in Rwanda and Uganda are solving this problem by limiting visitor numbers and introducing high tourist fees.

While ecotourism in Nepal is currently accessible for many, the number of visitors may cause problems in the future. Making ecotourism practical and sustainable is a challenge for tourism entrepreneurs and protected area managers.

Source(s):
‘Ecotourism and Biodiversity Conservation’, by N. Chettri, ICIMOD Newsletter 45: 17-19, 2004 Full document.
‘Ecotourism and Conservation: Hand in Hand in the Annapurna Region of Nepal’, by P. C. Gurung, Tigerpaper 25 (2):19-23, 1998
‘Annapurna Conservation Area Operational Plan’, by M. N. Sherpa, B. Coburn and C. P. Gurung, KMTNC, Kathmandu, 1996

id21 Research Highlight: 5 September 2005

Further Information:
Nakul Chettri
International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development
GPO Box 3226
Khumaltar
Kathmandu
Nepal

Tel: +977 (0)1 552 5313
Fax: +977 (0)1 552 4509
Contact the contributor: nchettri@icimod.org.np

International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), Nepal

Other related links:
'People and protected areas: new agendas for conservation', September 2005, id21 insights #57

‘People and protected areas: new agendas for conservation’

‘Is forced displacement acceptable in conservation projects?’

‘Learning to learn’

‘Protecting nature, culture and people’

‘Agriculture versus protected areas’

See id21's useful web links on people and protected areas