Conservation and community support through tourism in protected areas
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
1 gefällt mir•826 views
Keynote presentation at the International Workshop on Economic Impacts of Tourism in Protected Areas, 21-25 September 2015
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Andere mochten auch
Andere mochten auch (19)
Ähnlich wie Conservation and community support through tourism in protected areas
Ähnlich wie Conservation and community support through tourism in protected areas (20)
Mehr von Anna Spenceley
Mehr von Anna Spenceley (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Conservation and community support through tourism in protected areas
- 1. Conservation and community support through tourism in protected areas Dr Anna Spenceley, annaspenceley@gmail.com International Workshop on Economic Impacts of Tourism in Protected Areas, 21-25 September 2015
- 2. • Part 1: TAPAS Group and the IUCN Best Practice Guidelines • Part 2: A decade of progress on tourism and economic impacts: Comparing the IUCN WPC 2003 (Durban) and 2014 (Sydney) Outline
- 3. • Part 1: TAPAS Group and the IUCN Best Practice Guidelines • Part 2: A decade of progress on tourism and economic impacts: Comparing the IUCN WPC 2003 (Durban) and 2014 (Sydney) Outline
- 4. Part 1: IUCN WCPA TAPAS Anna Spenceley (Chair) Knowledge development •Megan Epler Wood Communities •Susan Snyman (Vice Chair) Capacity Building •Dan Paleczny Heritage •Robyn Bushell Communications •Ron Mader Membership •Elena Nikolaeva IUCN Secretariat •Giulia Carbone
- 5. Membership application: http://tinyurl.com/tapasmembership Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Tourism-and- Protected-Areas-Specialist-Group/122961127797095 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=4735342 Slideshare: http://www.slideshare.net/planeta/tapasgroup Wiki: http://planeta.wikispaces.com/tapas Google+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/117973343043881234019/posts IUCN Website: http://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/gpap_home/gpap_c apacity2/gpap_wcpacap/gpap_tourism/ Social media / online channels
- 6. What we do traditionally PARKS The I n t er n ational Jo urnal of Protected Areas and Co nser vation Issue 18.2: December 2012 Developing capacity for a pr otected pl anet Build capacity Network Develop knowledge
- 7. Online review and comment Webinars on key themes What we doing more of Engagement with international tourism groups
- 8. IUCN Best Practice Guidelines • 58 contributors from 23 countries • Chapters on “Tools for sustainable financing of protected areas through tourism” • user fees (recreation, entrance, licenses etc) • concessions (PPPs) Tourism and Visitor Management in Protected Areas (3rd Edn)
- 9. IUCN Best Practice Guidelines • Case studies on 45 countries & territories Diversity of examples: Governance types; IUCN categories; Ecosystem types
- 10. IUCN Best Practice Guidelines http://iucn.oscar.ncsu.edu/
- 11. • Part 1: TAPAS Group and the IUCN Best Practice Guidelines • Part 2: A decade of progress on tourism and economic impacts: Comparing the IUCN WPC 2003 (Durban) and 2014 (Sydney) Outline
- 12. • World Parks Congress – once a decade – Biggest global meeting on protected areas • Organised by IUCN and WCPA – 2003 – Durban • 3000 delegates – 2014 – Sydney • 6000 delegates Part 2: Tourism & the WPC © Eagles, 2014
- 13. WPC 2003 and 2014 Financing PAs, 33% Sustainable use of nature/ culture, 61% Conventions and guidelines, 21% Heritage links, 3% Stewardship by public, 12% Working with local people and industry, 46% Supporting community development and poverty reduction, 29% Co-management, 21% Contributing to Civil-society, 21%
- 14. Eagles and Kajala, 2014Sinclair, 2014 • Visitor number monitoring • Shift from state funding to tourism fees Financing protected areas
- 15. Financing protected areas • Tourism concession tools: UNDP, IFC, SADC (TFCAs) • TFCA tourism (SADC): – Tour de Tuli, – Desert Knights – Tour de Pafuri
- 16. Partnerships to: • Manage PAs • Strengthen constituencies • Reduce operational costs • Collect fees Vorhland, 2014 Financing protected areas
- 17. Community development and poverty reduction • Generate enough $ to change behaviour that damages biodiversity • Good governance of revenue-sharing • Long-term technical & capacity support for communities Sinclair, 2014Sinclair, 2014 Maluleke, 2014
- 18. Community development and poverty reduction Snyman, 2014 Sinclair, 2014 Wilderness Safaris paid USD 1.1 m in community lease fees in 2013
- 19. Formal outputs of WPC Sinclair, 2014 Chong-Chun, 2014 2003 Recommendation V12: Tourism as a Vehicle for Conservation & Support for PAs 2014 Tourism mentioned 5 x in Vision & Stream outputs. No tourism recommendation.
- 20. Other outputs Sinclair, 2014 Chong-Chun, 2014 https://www.facebook.com/pages/Tourism-and-Protected-Areas- Specialist-Group/122961127797095 http://www.slideshare.net/planeta/tapasgroup http://planeta.wikispaces.com/tapas UNDP Park Talks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC- KOkIyprmsuavAE5BMDp2A Tourism and the IUCN World Parks Congress 2014 JOST, 23 (7), 1114-1116 Sustainable and inspirational: A decade of progress in protected area tourism
- 21. And for the next decade? Sinclair, 2014 Chong-Chun, 2014 UN Resolution A/RES/69/233 on sustainable tourism Decision XII/11 on Biodiversity and Tourism Development
- 22. What’s next for TAPAS Group? • New working group: Economics of Tourism in Protected Areas. Nominations Oct-Dec 2015; Elections early 2016 • Knowledge Development: • Develop data models/simulations for analysis of revenue generation for tourism & research agreements with Universities/Business Schools • Special journal edition on benefit sharing from tourism and protected areas • IUCN BP Guide for (1) engaging with communities in tourism / (2) maximizing financial benefits of tourism in protected areas • Fundraising: Proposal to 10YFP for Flagship project in Southern Africa: Component on visitor monitoring • Projects by TAPAS Group members: eg Tanzania
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Specialist group of the WCPA Exco that meets monthly 320 members globally – all volunteer – PS, NGO etc.
- INSERT PHOTOGRAPHS AT BOTTOM
- Koedoe – downloaded 15,300 times since 2014!
- INSERT PHOTOGRAPHS AT BOTTOM
- INSERT PHOTOGRAPHS AT BOTTOM
- INSERT PHOTOGRAPHS AT BOTTOM
- INSERT PHOTOGRAPHS AT BOTTOM
- Tourism - not a stream or cross-cutting issue (either time) Despite this . . . 125 tourism and visitation presentations: covering all streams Tourism events at WPC: e.g. SADC/TAPAS Group/GiZ, UNDP, University of Waterloo, GSTC, TAPAS Group Parallel meetings: Global Eco, Wildlife Tourism Australia Tourism Journey: a guide through the complex program, from the TAPAS Group (informal stream)
- Comparing the 9 themes addressed at the Vth WPC in 2003 identified by Robyn Bushell and Paul Eagles (2007, and the VIth WPC in 2014, it is clear that many of the issues were reflected as relevant and important at both events, despite being a decade apart. Tourism presentations from the Vth IUCN WPC in 2003 were reported in the book “Tourism and Protected Areas: Benefits beyond Boundaries” (Bushell & Eagles, 2007a), and synthesized in a conference report by Staiff and Bushell (2004). Since the 2003 WPC presentations are not available collectively online, and therefore the review relied heavily on these documents as resources from which to compare the two conferences.
- Financial support for protected areas Several papers in 2014 documented quantified economic impacts of tourism in protected areas for conservation. In particular, the use of tourism as a mechanism to raise funds for conservation within protected areas was a strong theme in presentations at the 2014 WPC (e.g. Bodtker et al., 2014; Collins, 2014b; Huebner, 2014; Sinclair, 2014; Spenceley, et al., 2014). At the previous WPC tourism-based income generation options for protected areas had also been explored in 2003, with evaluations of options assessed in Bolivia, Mexico, and Belize (Drumm, 2007). Linked with these papers were several regarding need to have accurate information on visitor numbers, and their expenditure, for the public sector to justify budget support for conservation (Kajala, 2014). Some of these reviewed methods of approaching such data collection and interpretation which included the use of sensors (rather than people) to record visitor entries in remote locations (e.g. Eagles & Kajala, 2014; Kajala & Koontz, 2014). It was recognised that in some countries such as Canada, protected area financing was shifting from state funding towards tourism fees and charges, and towards using NGOs and civil society groups to operate areas, or contribute to the delivery of management services (Eagles, 2014b).
- One of the tools used to generate funds for protected areas reported at the 2003 WPC was tourism concessions (Fernhead, 2007). Fernhead (2007) described the strategy of concessioning within South African National Parks (SANParks) and the process used to enhance proposals that incorporated environmental and empowerment commitments. The concessioning had been given technical and financial support from the International Finance Corporation, who provided an update on the achievements in 2014. It was noted that concessions in Kruger National Park had generated more than USD20 million in revenue, in addition to infrastructure and assets worth more than USD36 million that would revert to SANParks at the end of the contracts (Nicolas, 2014). A further suite of presentations were made on concessions during the 2014 WPC, which explored issues of procurement processes, commercial viability, and community equity and financial benefits (e.g. Collins, 2014c; Mackay, 2014; Maluleke, 2014b; Massyn, 2014; Sikopo, 2014; Snyman, 2014c, 2014d). As an indication of the current emphasis on concessions in protected areas, three new technical guidance tools on the topic were presented and are now available for use: by United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the World Bank Group, and the Southern African Development Community (Nicolas, 2014; Spenceley, 2014; Thompson, 2014). This movement from single case studies to outsourcing guidelines suggests a strengthening of the concept within protected area management over the last decade. Tourism concessions also provided the context for a TAPAS Group / Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) session on “Tourism in Transfrontier Conservation Areas”, where presentations were made on sporting events in transfrontier conservation areas (e.g. transboundary hiking, mountainbiking, canoeing), and the logistical and bureaucratic challenges that were frequently faced (Snyman, 2014; Theron & Maluleke, 2014; Vorwerk, 2014). AND that they are mainly not ready for concessioning yet – an incubation phase is needed for TFCA events – as they are marginal for profit / need huge logistics / remote areas / difficult boundary issus.
- Partnerships Another example of changes over time was illustrated in relation to the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. At the 2003 WPC, partnerships on the Great Barrier Reef were reviewed in relation to operators collecting an Environmental Management Charge (EMC) that was paid to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) to finance conservation (Skeat & Skeat, 2007). At that time, it was noted that the introduction of the fees had led to some controversy and strained relationships between the GBRMPA and the private sector. By 2014 these fees were better accepted, and it was reported that operators were continuing to collect the EMC. Furthermore, the private sector were leading the way on action relating to climate change by using a Tourism Operators Emission Calculator, and also through the certification of their products (Vorhland, 2014).
- Community development and poverty alleviation In Cambodia, considerable success was reported in the Snuol Wildlife Sanctuary, where a quality birding tourism model had been developed that engaged partnerships with tour companies (R. Sinclair, 2014). Through a process that focused on ensuring land tenure and resource rights for communties, livelihood benefits, with robust social instutions for decision making, and collaborative patrols, there had been substantial improvements. This included the populations of endangered species increasing, and the rate of deforestation and the hunting of threatened species declining. Financial benefits included that 30% of households benefited from tourism employment or by selling their services and products to the sector, and that there was an average revenue of USD2000-4000 per village per year from the USD30 per tourist fee charged. The program made USD 135,000 profit during 2013 and planned to invest USD150,000 in conservation during 2014. Of paramount importance was the ability to generate enough revenue to change behaviour that had adverse impacts on biodiversity (R. Sinclair, 2014). Also in South Africa, progress from the Hluhluwe-iMfolozi park was presented in relation to the People and Parks Program, which had emanated from the Vth WPC in 2003 (Nsukwini, 2014). Here a profit-sharing formula had been determined in collaboration between the communities and protected area managers, with a system that was considered transparent and fair. The majority of community members participate in either ecotourism or conservation (65%), including as 80% of park staff, as guides, operating cultural tourism activities, or running craft stalls (Nsukwini, 2014). The Makuleke people reported on their progress made the last WPC with tourism development within the northern region of the Kruger National Park in South Africa (Maluleke, 2014b). The Makuleke people had been forcibly removed from this area during Apartheid in 1969 (Elliffe, 1999). Following a land restitution process, it was returned to them for conservation purposes in 1998 (Elliffe, 1999). Reflections from a representative of the Makuleke community included that success was more likely where there was a clear rights framework and where the community association was truly accountable to its community members. Notably, it was stated that long-term technical and capacity support was essential for the community – particularly for negotiating with the private sector and to facilitate the resolution on issues of disagreement between partners (Maluleke, 2014b).
- Theme 2: Working with local stakeholders and industry, community development and poverty alleviation Of particular note was one of the few contributions made by the private sector. Several presentations relating to Wilderness Safari’s operations in southern Africa were made by one of their employees, who illustrated the substantial contributions made towards enhancing local benefits from tourism through employment, procurement, and corporate social responsibility initiatives (e.g. Snyman, 2014a, 2014b, 2014c). 93% of the company’s 2663 staff are citizens of the country, and over 75% are recruited from local communities (Snyman, 2014a). For example, in 2013 the company paid over USD1.1 million in community lease fees (Snyman, 2014a).
- As major international events, WPCs produce a series of official reports. In 2003, these included the Durban Accord, the Durban Action Plan, Emerging Issues, Recommendations, and a Message to the CBD (IUCN, 2012). The Recommendations included one that was dedicated to tourism (WPC Recommendation V.12: Tourism as a Vehicle for Conservation and Support for Protected Areas: IUCN, 2012). Outputs from the 2003 WPC addressed the importance of tourism as a tool to finance protected areas and support local communities – and considering the prevalence of this theme at the 2014 WPC, this recommendation had clearly been taken forward. In 2014, the main outputs comprised the Vision of Sydney and reports from each stream on “Innovative approaches for change” (IUCN, 2014j). Rather than having a full recommendation dedicated to tourism, the sector is alluded to and occasionally mentioned within the Vision and all of the stream reports (IUCN, 2014k). Recommendation - Reconciling Development Challenges Stream is to “integrate protected area values into the methodologies and procedures for economic accounting, such as in tourism . . . which measure, account, monitor and report on development and human well-being” (IUCN, 2014g). Tourism businesses are also noted as key partners required in Reaching Conservation Goals, recognizing that “effectively managed protected areas are a key social and economic asset” (IUCN, 2014f). . Panorama – uploading ppts
- Although the WPC has always been a face-to-face meeting, there will also be constraints for people who cannot reach the meeting in person. Cognizant of this, TAPAS Group made efforts to share the tourism-related presentations with a broader global audience for those who did not attend. Presentations were uploaded to Slideshare; videos of sessions were place on YouTube, and a Twitter Hashtag was established, and links to all of these noted on the TAPAS Group’s Facebook site. Some of the links to videos on YouTube have reached over 1300 people since the WPC (e.g. tourism publication launch events, publicized on Facebook); while one sharing information on the launch of the new Best Practice Guidelines Visitor Management in Protected Areas (Leung et al, forthcoming) reached over 1900 people. In the future we should acknowledge the importance of meetings where participants are physically present, but also fully engage with the value of social media to exchange views and broadly share important information. JOST “ Tourism and the IUCN WPC” conference report (available free for next 18 mo on ResearchGate) New special edition on a “Decade of progress in PA tourism” – papers including issues emanating from WPC.
- Implications for the next decade, and the next WPC On the global stage, the importance of tourism is increasingly acknowledged. For example, in 2014 the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution recognizing the contribution of sustainable tourism to poverty eradication, community development and the protection of biodiversity (Resolution A/RES/69/233). The resolution calls on the UN to promote sustainable tourism, and ecotourism, as a tool for achieving global development goals (UN General Assembly, 2014). (10YFP) Also in 2014, the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Decision XII/11 on Biodiversity and Tourism Development was adopted that invited parties to “ . . . build the capacity of national and subnational park and protected area agencies, . . . to engage in partnerships with the tourism industry to contribute financially and technically to the establishment, operations and maintenance of protected areas through appropriate tools such as concessions, public-private partnerships . . .” (CBD, 2014). (CBD Manual . . .) Both of these decisions demonstrate the importance of tourism as a vehicle to promote biodiversity conservation in protected areas. They suggest that there will be an increasing demand in the future for technical expertise, knowledge, and initiatives on tourism and protected areas to realise them.
- INSERT PHOTOGRAPHS AT BOTTOM