Tourism and the World Parks Congress: Lessons learned, key trends and future directions
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
4 gefällt mir•920 views
Presentation at the International Conference on Contemporary Perspectives in Tourism and Hospitality Research: Policy, Practice and Performance, University of Brighton, UK
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Ähnlich wie Tourism and the World Parks Congress: Lessons learned, key trends and future directions
Ähnlich wie Tourism and the World Parks Congress: Lessons learned, key trends and future directions (20)
Mehr von Anna Spenceley
Mehr von Anna Spenceley (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Tourism and the World Parks Congress: Lessons learned, key trends and future directions
- 1. Tourism and the World Parks Congress Lessons learned, key trends and future directions Dr Anna Spenceley annaspenceley@gmail.com TPPP Conference, July 2015, Brighton, UK
- 2. • World Parks Congress held every 10 years. – Biggest global meeting on protected areas • Organised by IUCN and its WCPA – 2003 – Durban • 3000 delegates – 2014 – Sydney • 6000 delegates Tourism & the WPC © Eagles, 2014
- 3. • Not a main stream or cross-cutting issue • 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 Tourism at WPC 2014
- 5. 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%
- 6. 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%
- 7. • Case studies • Certification and standards (ISO18065: 2015; European Charter; GSTC; IUCN Green List) • Sustainability indicators • Best Practice Guidelines Sustainability & diversity
- 8. ii.Collaboration & poverty reduction • Quantify $ benefits to local people • Long-term technical & capacity support for communities • Generate enough $ to change behaviour that damages biodiversity Maluleke, 2014 Sinclair, 2014Sinclair, 2014 Maluleke, 2014
- 9. ii.Collaboration & poverty reduction Snyman, 2014 Sinclair, 2014 Wilderness Safaris paid USD 1.1 m in community lease fees in 2013
- 10. iii.Financing protected areas • Partnerships with NGOs managing PAs / collecting fees • Tourism concession tools: UNDP, IFC, SADC (TFCAs) • TFCA tourism (SADC): Tour de Tuli Vorhland, 2014
- 11. iii.Financing protected areas Eagles and Kajala, 2014 Sinclair, 2014 • Visitor number monitoring • Shift from state funding to tourism fees
- 12. Inspiring solutions Sinclair, 2014 • Health treatment • Building new markets Fauteux, 2014 Chong-Chun, 2014 Fauteux, 2014
- 13. What makes it work? Sinclair, 2014 Chong-Chun, 2014
- 14. Formal outputs 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.
- 15. Informal 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
- 16. Implications? Sinclair, 2014 Chong-Chun, 2014 • UN Resolution A/RES/69/233 on Sustainable tourism • Decision XII/11 on Biodiversity and Tourism Development
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Early in the planning process for the 2014 WPC, agencies and consortiums applied to IUCN to act as coordinators of specific streams. They were then tasked with designing a program that reflected the theme, and engaging with experts to present relevant material. A formal process whereby delegates could submit their ideas for papers to the IUCN and Stream leaders was made available online, where proponents suggested a title and abstract for their presentation. Among the hundreds of tourism papers proposed, although some caught the attention of stream leaders, it seems that the bulk were allocated slots as e-presentations. As e-presentations, speakers were allocated a short 5 minute period in which to present their paper (mainly to other people making e-presentations in the same slot). An official parallel event Global Eco, organized by Ecotourism Australia, was convened in Sydney on the theme of “Tourism and Protected Areas” on 12 November 2014. Perhaps due to the lack of transparency and clarity over the decision making process for acceptance of papers, and frustration with the process, a more informal application process took place in parallel to this. The informal process comprised of speakers and organisations lobbying directly with approachable stream leaders for space in the agenda; with institutions that had been allocated session slots; and also with exhibitors who had space for presentations in their exhibition hall booths. The TAPAS Group coordinated a “Tourism Journey” for the congress and parallel events, to advise delegates on events focused on tourism and visitation
- Presentations on tourism and visitation at the VIth WPC in 2014 were led by 91 individuals, with 13 of these involved in multiple papers during the congress. The majority of speakers were representatives of universities (27%), followed by NGOs (24%), protected area agencies (19%) and government departments (11%). Only a small minority was from the private sector (3%) or local communities (2%) The representatives from Oceania were almost entirely from Australia, and African participation was mainly from South Africa. While the dominance of Australia undoubtedly relates to the Sydney venue in 2014, the high proportion South Africans at the WPC may relate to the last congress having been held in Durban in 2003.
- Presentations made during the 2014 WPC and Global Eco on tourism issues were collected from online-databases of presentations and proceedings, from the organizers of tourism sessions, and also directly from the presenters. Of the 125 presentations identified, it was possible to obtain 107 for review. A simple content analysis was made of the WPC theme covered, key issues addressed, and any inspiring or notable experiences. Information on the lead author, their organization, and country of work was also noted and synthesized. All of the 8 official WPC streams were addressed by one or more tourism presentations, and on average, each presentation covered at least two of the WPC streams. It is not possible to establish whether the relative coverage of the stream themes relates directly to those that were proposed, or rather which presentations the coordinating groups accepted into their stream.
- Comparing the themes addressed at the Vth WPC in 2003, 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. Only a minority addressed heritage in relation to World Heritage Sites (3%), which is perhaps surprising given that World Heritage was a cross-cutting theme of the WPC. Notably, several papers discussed conservation education, but not in relation to heritage. Again, it is unclear whether the coverage reflects papers that were submitted or those that were selected by stream leaders. Considering the most dominant four themes from 2014, some of the pertinent experiences shared at the WPC are summarized next
- 3 main themes discussed no
- Theme 1: Sustainable use of natural and cultural diversity Sustainable tourism development was a dominant theme among the majority of presentations. For example, Lopez (2104) shared information on a new voluntary international standard, ISO18065:2015, which includes specifications for tourist services provided by protected area authorities for visitors, giving priority to conservation objectives. An new form of certification for protected areas launched was the IUCN Green List (Hockings, 2014). Although not directly related to tourism, the use of this system may influence people’s travel decisions, as a reflection of good management standards in conservation areas. The application of sustainability indicators within community-based ecotourism in Southern Africa, was promoted by Mearns (2014) as an early warning tool to detect potential problems and to establish a baseline (Mearns, 2014). The development of criteria for Health Promoting Parks were also described, where regular health programs, games and facilities are provided for local residents (Pang, 2014). Tourism standards and certification had also been addressed during the 2003 WPC (Honey, 2007; Foxlee, 2007), and it is interesting to see how these concepts have retained interest among practitioners, and even gained momentum during the intervening years. Further stressing the importance of sustainability, the TAPAS Group launched the 3rd edition of WCPA Best Practice Guidelines on sustainable tourism: Tourism and Visitor Management in Protected Areas: Guidelines for Sustainability (Leung et al, forthcoming). During the launch, it was noted that the 2nd edition (Eagles et al, 2002) had been the most frequently downloaded of all IUCN Best Practice Guidelines: a reflection of the global interest in this theme.
- Theme 2: Working with local stakeholders and industry, community development and poverty alleviation The issues of collaborating with local stakeholders, the tourism industry, community development and poverty reduction were often discussed in combination during the 2014 WPC (e.g. Bhartari, 2014; Bodtker et al., 2014; Collins, 2014a, 2014b; Delgado, 2014; Eagles, 2014; Khaled & Johnson, 2014; Maluleke, 2014; Mccann & Gerrard, 2014; Nsukwini, 2014; Paleczny, 2014; Reifschneider, 2014; Rylance & Spenceley, 2014; Telfer, 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). 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). 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).
- 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). For example, in 2013 the company paid over USD1.1 million in community lease fees (Snyman, 2014a). Furthermore, 93% of the company’s 2663 staff are citizens of the country, and over 75% are recruited from local communities (Snyman, 2014a).
- Theme 3: Sources of financial support for protected areas 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). 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). 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. 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).
- Theme 3: Sources of financial support for protected areas Several papers 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, 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). NOTE: German govt financing a meeting in Bremen, Germany in Sept this year – which will focus on financing PAs from tourism
- Tourism products that demonstrated ‘inspiring solutions’ at the 2014 WPC frequently involved local communities, partnerships, outreach, and addressed sustainable development. One particularly inspiring paper addressed an innovative way of tackling declines in the number of visitors to protected areas, by providing free ‘Learn to Camp’ lessons for emerging target markets in the Province of Ontario in Canada (Fauteux, 2014). It was noted that there was an aging population of traditional Canadian park users, and that young families were seldom leaving urban areas to spend time in natural areas. Ontario Parks embarked on a program to teach some families camping skills partnership with camping equipment companies. They shared information about the animals and plants that they could find in protected areas (and persuaded participants that raccoons were not as scary as they may have believed!) The program has managed to reduce barriers to camping and to inspire new visitors. A program evaluation found that a high proportion of people doing the course subsequently went camping in a protected area, and that they also told their friends and family about their experience with nature, leading to a modest snowball effect (Fauteux, 2014). Heard at Indaba that SANParks are about to replicate Learn to Camp – with camping etc in the FNB stadium in Soweto Another inspiring solution related to linking natural experiences in national parks with people with diseases caused by environmental factors (Chong-Chun, 2014). The program was initiated in 2009 with a pilot project, the program in Korea has been run nearly 180 times, with about 20,000 participants. Different formulations of the program had been devised, working with local health, education and environmental centres, with participants who are undergoing medical treatment for their illness, those with allergies, and some with severe medical problems (Chong-Chun, 2014).
- Some of the dominant principles relating to ‘what makes it work’ included approaches that incorporated partnerships and the participation of stakeholders in decision-making (particularly with local communities). Successful programs were multi-disciplinary and innovative; required commitment and dedication, patience and trust; had relevant, credible processes with high levels of transparency; engaged in effective communication; provided equitable benefits, and also ensured monitoring was linked to adaptive management. Several papers highlighted the value of volunteer tourists, and the importance of ‘citizen science’ (e.g. Brooks, 2014; Elmeligi & Nevin, 2014; Factor, 2014; Green & Wood, 2014; Sinclair, 2014). For example, Brooks (2014) described how a group of divers formed the Friends of Beware Reef Marine Sanctuary in Australia, and provide volunteer time to survey and map the underwater environment. Similarly, the Wildlife Tourism Australia’s Wildlife Research Network, engages with youth, tour operators, NGOs and researchers to collect research data (Green & Wood, 2014). The process enables young people to assist with conservation efforts, and provides environmental education through enjoyable experiences.
- 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). This included a call for the collaboration of tourism stakeholders and communities; that decision-makers work with conservationists and the WCPA TAPAS Group. Recommendation V.12 states, “ . . .visitation, recreation, and tourism are a critical component of fostering support for parks and the conservation of biological and cultural heritage. Careful and strategic implementation of policy together with pro-active and effective management of tourism is essential” (IUCN, 2003:1, cited in Staiff & Bushell, 2004). Other 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). Examples of text relating to tourism and visitation within the 2014 reports are outlined in Table 4. Tourism is only directly referred to five times in the formal outputs.
- 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.
- 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). 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). 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.