Sustainable Use of Biodiversity — What We Can Learn from Ecotourism in Developing Countries

CIAO DATE: 8/00

Sustainable Use of Biodiversity — What We Can Learn from Ecotourism in Developing Countries

Petra Stephan

November 11-14 1999

1. Introduction

The General Assembly of the United Nations proclaimed the year 2002 as "The International Year of Ecotourism". Multilateral development institutions such as the World Bank, the Global Environmental Facility, governments in developing countries, the tourism industry as well as local non-governmental organizations all over the world count on ecotourism as a supposed panacea for development and biodiversity protection. With assumed annual growth rates from ten up to thirty percent, ecotourism is often praised as the most dynamic sector in the tourism industry. But some of the stakeholders in the tourism industry seem to use a very extended definition of ecotourism. It includes wildlife watching as well as adventure tourism. Tourism products that are advertised under the label "eco" often only have in common, that they take place in nature. A lot of these offers can be called "ecotourism-light". They only add visits to protected areas to regular package tours, for instance. The concept of "ecotourism" seems to share this fate with the concept of "sustainable development": everybody talks about it and everybody defines it in accordance with one�s own interests.

There are only few ecotourism projects which can really create opportunities for sustainable development within a region. Most of these projects are of a manageable size, and have been established in cooperation with or by non-governmental organizations (NGO) that are engaged in nature protection schemes. The affected local communities actively and intensively participate in the planning and implementation of these projects. A factor that is often decisive for the success of a project is the commitment of some dedicated individuals who push the projects against the many obstacles. But even projects with excellent starting conditions struggle with problems. This is not surprising. Having ecological, social, cultural and economical goals at the same time gives a lot of opportunities for ecotourism to fail. The different goals are not always compatible with each other.

Every project has its own character, develops its own dynamic, and needs an individual strategy. This strategy usually is based on the ecological, political, social and cultural uniqueness of a region.

In this article some of the challenges and shortcomings which seem to apply to most of the ecotourism-projects are discussed. These constraints seem to apply as well to other forms of sustainable use of biodiversity which include - apart from ecotourism - sustainable timber production, use of non-wood forest products (like rattan), agroforestry (e.g. the cultivation of coffee or bananas under coconut trees), wildlife utilization (hunting or domestication of wildlife), and biodiversity prospecting, which means the exploitation of biodiversity for commercially valuable genetic and biochemical resources for pharmacy, agriculture and industry.

2. International versus Regional Orientation

Most of the ecotourism projects in developing countries try to attract tourists from the North - at least in the long run. But for several reasons the planning and implemenation of eco-tourism projects for the international market remains a risky business. From the environmental and the management point of view a stronger focus on domestic or regional markets is more favorable for ecotourism projects as well as for bioresources-based enterprises.

2.1 The environmental aspect:

Most of the ecotourists depart in the North and travel by plane to their travel destination in the south. Even if they continued to travel by eco-friendly means of transportation in the country of destination this would not compensate for the ecological damage caused by the long-distant flight. Up to 97% of the primary energy that a tourist needs for transportation during his entire trip will be used up by the flight. Meanwhile researchers acknowledge the fact that emissions by aviation contribute to climate change and that in turn the predicted climate change will have major consequences on tourism itself. The promises of tour companies to plant trees in compensation for the emissions by airplanes might soothe the environmental conscience of the tourists, but it does not stop global climate changes. The northern tourist would theoretically reduce the impact of his "eco-sin" by expanding the duration of his stay. The longer the stay the better the eco-ratio.

It would be more favorable if the ecotourist started his travel within the region of his destination. This often means that he can travel more eco-friendly. Some developing countries already have a potential for domestic tourism. Typical for these countries is an advanced integration into the global economy that results in a higher level of social stratification and a strong middle-class when compared to poorer countries. The family income rises together with the number of working women, and the transport and communication sector has been improved. These factors strengthened domestic tourism in countries such as Brazil, Mexico, South Africa and China. In South Africa, the number of domestic tourists has risen from 4.2 million foreign visitors in 1995 to 7.9 million in 1997. In India 500,000 domestic eco-tourists visited the "Green Triangle" in the northeastern states Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Tripura, Meghalaya and Nagaland in 1996.

Figure 1: International versus regional orientation � The environmental aspect

It is obvious that the focus on regional markets and consumers lowers the environmental costs of transportation. But: In large countries with inadequate transport infrastructures domestic eco-tourists will still be forced to travel by plane. Furthermore: In developing countries in which the majority of people struggle to meet their daily needs there still is not enough demand for (comparably expensive) domestic ecotours. These countries can only attract ecotourists from the North. One has to bear in mind that even domestic tourism can include social, cultural and ecological risks for the destinations and that it demands a lot of regulations, monitoring and educational work.

2.2 The management aspect:

Especially ecotourism projects in developing or newly industrializing countries whose target groups are so far mainly domestic or regional tourists have difficulties in getting access to the international tourist markets in the North. The non-governmental organization Thai Volunteer Service (TVS) in Thailand had to make this experience.

Since 1994 TVS offers socially and ecologically responsible tours in cooperation with local NGOs. One of their main goals is an active participation of the visited communities in the planning and implemention process of the projects. In order to prevent local families to become economically dependent on tourism alone, NGOs see to it that money earned from tourism remains an additional income. The travellers stay with local families and participate in their daily activities. This project has hosted up to 700 visitors per year who were �distributed� over various regions in Thailand. Still, most of the visitors are Thais, but TVS tries to attract foreign tourists. In 1998, two small German tour operators offered TVS tours. Since only few German tourists seemed to be interested in these ecotours, the tour operators cancelled the tours in 1999. When asked for the reasons of this failure, one of the German tour operators answered that Thailand does not seem to be the right destination for organized ecotourism-tours. Instead, Thailand is reputed to be a bargain destination for individualist tourists. Now, TVS tries to offer these tours to foreign individual tourists within Thailand.

This experience is shared by the "Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit" (GTZ), the German development agency. A collaborator of the GTZ complained that it is very difficult to get German tour operators interested in their ecotourism projects. Often the destinations seem to be too exotic.

The two examples show how difficult it can be to obtain access to foreign markets. Tourism projects which meet the requirements of international markets, are often based on heavy capital investments. These investments are rarely available for local investors. Furthermore, it is a risky business to invest in attracting foreign tourists since tourism offers to international destinations are vulnerable to product substitution due to high competition among the destinations. Domestic and regional tourism projects whose target group is those of domestic tourists are in a better position: they are less susceptible to international political crises or economic recessions. Although domestic or regional tourism does not harvest hard currencies, it can help to halt an out-flow of foreign exchange by preventing national tourists to leave the country for vacations.

Figure 2: International versus regional orientation � The management aspect

Lessons for sustainable use of biodiversity in general

The above mentioned environmental and economical concerns regarding international tourist markets equally apply to other products deriving from bioresources. Products produced for local or nearby markets reduce transportation costs- and at the same time - emissions. Bioresources which are consumed within the region are therefore more eco-friendly. In some developing countries such as Egypt, South Africa and China there seems to be growing market for ecologically grown or manufactured products. The Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) points out that in China, for example, more and more people are asking for organically grown food. These people might also be interested in other bioresources related products. A regional orientation improves at the same time the opportunity for local people to satisfy their basic needs in rural areas.

Seen from the management perspective an initial focus on nearby markets seems to be the best strategy for profitable business with bioresources. A study in Nepal showed that locally made medicines deriving from forest ecosystems which had no chance on export markets show good prospects when produced and sold locally. In this example, nearby markets can be entered and monitored more easily and production for those markets requires only moderate capital investment. Furthermore, compared to international markets local markets for products made of bioresources are much more predictable in terms of product substitution.

3. The curse of success

Sustainable tourism projects can have only limited economical effects in the region. Rapid growth even of sustainable ecotourism projects soon exceeds the ecological and social carrying capacity of the region.

Pioneers of ecotourism are �among others � the Galapagos Islands in Ecuador and the Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve in Costa Rica. The Cloud Forest Reserve on the hills of the Cordillera de Tilarán in the northwestern part of Costa Rica has been visited by 400 tourists in 1974. Twenty years later this number has grown twenty fold. With annual receipts of 850,000 US-$, tourism contributes up to 70 % of the region's income. On the Galapagos-Islands, the number of tourists has grown from 4,500 in 1970 up to 60,000 in 1995. The receipts from the Galapagos-Islands account for half of the total tourism receipts of Ecuador. The number of tourists who were allowed to visit the archipelago increased along with the demand. But not only the growing numbers of tourists jeopardize nature and social structure within both of the protected areas. Numerous Ecuadorians from the mainland respectively Costaricans from other parts of their country migrate into the protected areas. They are attracted by supposedly good job opportunities in the tourism industry. The number of inhabitants on the Galapagos-Island has grown from 1,300 in 1950 up to 13,000 today. Less than one third of the today's inhabitants were born on the islands. In Monteverde, 25% of today's inhabitants have moved to the region within the last five years. Tourists and migrants overburden the capacity of the local infrastructure in both of the protected areas, and affect the habitats by overuse of the natural resources. Due to expanded tourism, the costs of living have risen in these areas.

In the "Reserva Monteverde" in Costa Rica nature and biodiversity as well as local community values and institutions are threatened by the tourism development. In this area, there has been developed a traditional community live with communal decision making that helped nonviolent forms of conflict solution. These unique and valuable mechanisms are put at risk by rapid increase in the number of tourists and migrants and their lifestyles.

Figure 3: The Curse of success

Lessons for sustainable use of biodiversity in general

As shown before, tourism can become ecologically, socially and culturally destructive, when it becomes the only resource that the local or regional economy can rely on. This seems to apply to any other form of usage of biodiversity as well. It seems to be valid for most sustainable commercialized bioresources that they can only have limited economic effects in the region. This becomes evident in the case of bioprospecting. Intensive collection of plants for the pharmaceutical industry has put some species at the risk of extinction. A well known example is Rosy Periwinkle (Catharanthus roseus), a plant which is used against several kinds of cancer. Collected mainly in Madagascar, the species has become almost extinct on this African Island. Various examples from India, Nepal and Kenya could be added. Non-wood forest bioresources face the same risk. Rattan for instance is a tropical forest plant used in many ways by locals since decades. The plant has become an important export article in Malaysia and on the Philippines. Growing demand has already lead to overexploitation in some areas. Today, 35% of the rattan species are endangered in Malaysia.

4. Participation — not always a guaranty for success

Evaluations of (not only) ecotourism projects demonstrate that there is no way around the active participation of local communities for an ecologically and economically successful project. But even projects which are completely run by locals are not automatically successful as the following example of the Kuna-Indios in Pananma shows.

The 47,000 Kunas live on tiny islands along the Caribbean cost northeast from Panama City. They won the territorial rights to their homelands which consist of more than 365 islands in 1925. The trade with coconuts which accounted for more than 70 % of the regions total income in the 1960s is now declining. Also, the lobsters are over-fished, and they can no longer contribute effectively to the living of the community. Today, there are only a few sustainable options left for the indigenous people to earn their living � tourism being the most important one.

With support of the World Wide Fund of Nature (WWF), the Kunas established the protected areas "Nusagandi" and "Pemasky" in the Kuna highlands. These reserves aim at protecting the forests and its biodiversity and attracting scientists and ecotourists. The community passed tourism regulations in order to lessen negative consequences which might accompany this form of usage. The regulations cover the distribution of the profits as well as the participation of the community members. According to the regulations, tourism projects must be designed ecologically and socially appropriate. The tourist have to follow a special code of conduct. The accommodations are exclusively run by indigenous families and foreign investors are not welcome. The Kunas attacked and expelled North American investors who had opened a hotel on San Blas prior to the regulations.

Today, there are 13 hotels on the islands. A few are relatively successful, many are not. There are several reasons for the failures: The Kuna owners have little business experience, insufficient access to markets, and communication is difficult between the islands and the mainland. A tourism strategy which could help to maximize the profits for the local people does not exist. At present, for example, the hotels import most of their food from the mainland instead of promoting the local cultivation the food. The profit is generated elsewhere. There is an urgent need for education and training of the locals in order to become competitive.

Figure 4: Participation — not always a guarantee for success

Lessons for sustainable use of biodiversity in general

Lack of information and education along with little business experience of local communities seems to hamper the success of many bioresources-based enterprises. A recent study points out that for rural enterprises relying on non-wood forest products there is a special need for better education and information about markets and sustainable production. For the northern Indian state of Himachal Pradesh it was shown that once the local farmers received better information on nearby fruit markets and on how to determine sustainable harvests they could be convinced to shift from unsustainable field crops to sustainable forest species. The farmers learned that the value of sustainable fruit production per hectare is considerably higher than that of cereals.

But: simply transferring protection and usage strategies which work for ecosystems in the North into tropical ecosystems seems not to be a viable solution. In order to improve education, information and management strategies, indigenous knowledge and traditional techniques have to be combined carefully with modern management strategies. The latter ones have to be adapted to the conditions in southern ecosystems.

5. Profit-sharing — who gets a piece of the cake?

The destinations for ecotourists in developing countries are often located in economically marginal regions. In these areas where goods and services have to be imported tourism often depends on foreign investors and reduced chances for local profits. A significant part of the revenues from tourism flows away from the region either to the capitals in the South or to the industrial countries in the North. In Costa Rica, Nepal and Mexico, for example, less than 10 % of foreign visitors� expenditures remain within the communities next to the protected areas.

A problem which more and more developing countries are facing is the latest trend in the tourism-industry: all-inclusive offers. The tourist pays for everything in advance in the country where he books the trip. Generally, this is a country in the North. Local service companies such as cab services, restaurants and shops loose their opportunities to participate in the tourism business. The �big money� made with package tours stays with foreign run tourism ventures. The destination sells only its landscape and biodiversity as "raw material" to the tourist companies in the North. This form of tourism can generate only marginal benefits on the local level and completely fails to induce development in the region.

Sporadically, ecotourism can generate considerable profit but only little of this profit trickles down to the locals or is invested in the protection of environment and nature. The public revenues from tourism are often transferred into the national budget. Often it is not secured that an adequate share is reinvested into the development of the region in which the income has been generated. Maasai Mara and Ambroseli, both very popular tourism destinations in Kenya, generate high revenues. Since 1961 both game reserves are under the control of local county councils. Meanwhile, they have gained experience in community-run tourism projects and revenue-sharing schemes. Jobs have been created in the tourism sector. But corruption prevented the equitable distribution of the profits and enriched only a handful of powerful politicians and businessmen. Only few community projects which aim at improving the living conditions of the population are visible. Examples from other destinations could be added.

Figure 5: Profit-sharing — who gets a piece of the cake?

"The Local Community" of the tourism destinations is rarely a homogenous group. Usually, one finds a complex net of social groups with varying interests. Even if most of the benefits generated by tourism remain within the community, not everybody will get a piece of the cake. Some of the locals, mostly local elites in association with urban business people, may receive most of the profit and therefore favor the development of tourism. Politically and socially weaker social groups will not get the opportunity to participate equally in the tourism business and will therefore reject this form of usage. Instead of benefitting from tourism, they are often negatively affected by rising prices, land dispossession and food shortages.

The experiences of the Taman Negara National Park in Malaysia underlines this observation. Only 30 % of the workers in the tourism sector of the park are locals from nearby communities. The majority are skilled workers who have been recruited from urban areas. Only communities close to the head quarter of the park receive remarkable revenues from tourism. Other communities hardly get revenues but are negatively affected by rising prices. The 400 indigenous people living in the park are "commercialized" by tour operators to attract tourists. Their traditional rights have been cut back according to the park regulations. A few of them got only unskilled jobs in the tourism sector. This development has created social tensions and envy among the communities and social groups.

Lessons for sustainable use of biodiversity in general

In most of the cases of biodiversity prospecting, the �big money� stays with international companies in the North and - to a lesser extent - with governments in the South. The earnings are rarely transferred back into the region in which bioprospecting has taken place. Therefore, it often cannot be ensured that the prospecting activities promote conservation and economic development of the region.

The deal between Merck, the world's number one drug company, and the Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad (INBio), a government-tied NGO in Cost Rica, has been praised as a "model" for biodiversity prospecting. But the Merck/INBio deal is not a model for all developing countries rich in biodiversity to follow. Merck has paid 1 million US $ in advance for INBio to sample, pre-screen and ship biotic samples to Merck's US laboratories for a period of two years. Part of this money and a share of possible royalties from products patented and marketed by Merck are being passed from INBio to the Costa Rican government for a state-run conservation program. INBio is using the funds to train local people in taxonomy. Compared with most countries that are rich in biodiversity, Costa Rica has a lot of favorable prerequisites: The country has a high literacy rate, an average per capita income of 1,500 US $ and an elaborate system of protected areas. Institutional and political conditions are suitable for such ventures. Other countries such as Nepal, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Indonesia and Kenya are keen to follow Cost Rica�s lead in biodiversity prospecting. But they are not as well prepared. Without the adequate technological and scientific capacities, they can only act as suppliers of raw material for the first screening process.

6. Conclusions

For the case of ecotourism it could be shown that:

starting ecotourism on the international market is a risky business;
economically successful ecotourism projects bear the risk to exceed the carrying capacity of the region;
the participation of local communities must be accompanied by an adequate education and training of the local people,
a significant part of the revenues arising from tourism leaks away.

Furthermore it could be shown, that all these challenges which most of the ecotourism projects face, seem to apply to other forms of sustainable use of biodiversity in general as well.

The mentioned constraints regarding ecotourism and other forms of the use of biodiversity lead to the conclusion, that an orientation towards domestic and/or regional markets is more favorable than an international orientation. Sustainable use of biodiversity which is compatible with nature protection seems to be limited to small up to medium sized projects which can be managed within the carrying capacity of the ecosystem. In order to be economically and ecologically feasible a variety of different bioresources should be made use of side by side within a region. Diversification in the usage of biodiversity seems to have the best chances for success since this helps to avoid unilateral dependence which is dangerous for nature and local communities. Ecotourism, for example, combined with wildlife utilization and agroforestry can supplement and support each other. In order to maximize the benefits for the local peoples out of the use of biodiversity their active participation within the projects must be accompanied by education and training.