Rd October 2010 [a] Contents

A survey conducted in the early 1990s suggests that about half the world’s protected areas charged entrance fees (Lindberg, 2001) and this proportion has increased since. The arguments in favour of charging a user fee include: funds for conservation, local development and maintenance of tourist facilities; employment (in relation to collecting and administering fees); and as a method of controlling visitor numbers. The arguments against fee include: an exclusive rather than inclusive approach to biodiversity and conservation; and reducing local tourist orientated business opportunities by either reducing visitor numbers or reducing cash for purchases when high fees are charged.

The majority of global protected areas permit public access, exceptions being a few strict scientific reserves and some sacred sites that are also protected areas. Access to some of the more popular wilderness areas is restricted; it can take years to get a permit to raft down the Grand Canyon for example. Most protected area systems in Europe, North America and Australia, operate under a dual mandate to provide recreational opportunities while conserving natural resources (Reed and Merenlender, 2008). However it is worth mentioning that such a dual mandate is not always reflected in the skills of protected area management authorities. While it is understood that management authorities focus mainly on conserving natural resources, they too often miss any expertise on tourism development. Such a lack of expertise might be a major factor of tourism turning to be a threat in several protected areas instead of being an opportunity.

** In many coun­tries, such as Belize, Brazil, Costa Rica, Kenya, Madagascar, Mexico, South Africa, and Tanzania, biodi­versity represents the primary tourism attraction (Christ et al, 2003).

** Tourism is the largest foreign exchange generator in New Zealand, where at least 65 per cent of tourists visit at least one park. 10 per cent say their stay would be shorter if no park was visited and 12 per cent travel to the country exclusively to visit parks (SCBD, 2008).

** Protected areas represent one of the greatest tourism assets in Australia with over 40 per cent of all international visits including a visit to a national park (Parks Forum, 2008).

** Biodiversity hotspots in the South are experiencing very rapid tourism growth: 23 countries record over 100 per­ cent growth in tourism over the last 10 years (Christ et al, 2003).

** In China, tourism has been developed in about 80 per cent of the nature reserves since the early 1990s and is growing rapidly. During the development phase in the 1990s visitors to nature reserves rose by 87.8 per cent in three years (Li, 2004)

** It is only within national parks that people can get close to our closest living relatives, the mountain gorilla (Gorilla beringei beringei), whose tiny remaining populations live within four national parks in central Africa (AWF, 2009).

** Profits from ecotourism are not confined to the poorest countries; for example it is calculated that the presence of nesting ospreys (Pandion haliaetus) in Scotland bring an addition US$7 million per year into the area as a result of nature tourism (Dickie et al, 2006).

** In Caribbean and Pacific coast of Central America, 50 per cent of recreational dives, approximately 7.5 million annually, take place within MPAs (Howard and Hawkins, 2009)
[b]Future needs

The most fundamental question here is: can tourism and protected areas be mutually beneficial? It is clear from the discussion above that tourism, and in this context particularly nature-based and ecotourism, can provide multiple benefits to both the user and the provider in terms of economic benefits and, in ideal circumstances, related governance issues and cultural understanding.

Although principles, guidelines and standards are being developed, tourism in protected areas is still often failing to achieve its potential. An analysis of over 180 worldwide ecotourism case studies in 2005 reported both good and bad practices. 70 of the 180 case studies were classified as unsustainable, with negative impacts falling into the four major categories highlighted in table 12. When assessing these impacts from a habitat perspective the studies indicated that ecotourism was less sustainable in mountain regions and on islands, probably due to the higher fragility of these ecosystems and hence their lower carrying capacity for tourists. Lack of effective control and management of tourist numbers and distribution were the most important reasons for lack of sustainability (Krüger, 2005).

For those ecotourism projects which were regarded as having positive effects, the key success factor seemed to be the presence of viewable flagship species, e.g. charismatic birds or mammals (table 12). The other key success factor was the participation of the local community in the project. One of the benefits of ecotourism development is the fact that it forces people with different interest to plan together and develop common goals and objectives. Overall, ecotourism is most likely to benefit protected areas and the surrounding local communities if it is small-scale and locally operated or owned (Krüger, 2005). Recommendations for developing ecotourism, rather than simply nature-based tourism, at the Ngorongoro Conservation Area in Tanzania, for example, note that opportunities for local communities to capture the economic benefits of tourism must be structured in a way that is culturally appropriate, and therefore accessible to the target population. Communities can also usually only benefit from ecotourism if they have secure land tenure over the area in which tourism it takes place, as well as the ability to make land use decisions for that area (Charnley, 2005).

1. 
   Considering whether ecotourism is an appropriate option: Before beginning a community-based ecotourism project it is important to ensure that the conditions are appropriate.
   
2. 
   Planning ecotourism with communities and other stakeholders: It is important to consider the necessary structures and processes that should be in place to deliver the required social and environmental benefits.
   
3. 
   Developing viable community-based ecotourism projects: An appropriate business plan is very important to ensure the viability of an ecotourism venture.
   
4. 
   Strengthening benefits to the community and the environment: Specific measures can be optimised to ensure the required delivery of social and environmental benefits.
   

Guidelines for tourism and biodiversity have also been developed by the CBD (Tapper, 2007). The authors note that where tourism is established in protected areas the key management options are to find ways to minimise the damage caused by existing tourism to sensitive sites and to direct new tourism (and if possible to redirect existing tourism) to less sensitive sites.

“Human populations are growing, but the area of parks is not keeping pace. The area of land and water available for conservation outside protected areas is continually shrinking, so parks themselves are increasingly critical. Parks are assets for tourism, but they are not tourism assets.” (Buckley, 2009)

AWF (2009) www.awf.org/content/wildlife/detail/mountaingorilla, accessed 11the August 2009