Banking on

Public Disclosure Authorized Protected Areas Promoting sustainable protected area tourism to benefit local economies Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized © 2021 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org

This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or currency of the data included in this work and does not assume responsibility for any errors, omissions, or discrepancies in the information, or liability with respect to the use of or failure to use the information, methods, processes, or conclusions set forth. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Nothing herein shall constitute or be construed or considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved.

RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: [email protected]. editor Mark Mattson designer Sergio Andres Moreno Tellez cover photo Wandel Guides, Shutterstock.com SUPPORTED BY: Contents

Acknowledgements ...... 7 Executive Summary ...... 9 How was the study done?...... 10 What did the study find? ...... 11 What lessons can countries draw from the study?...... 13 Recommendation 1–Protect the Asset...... 13 Recommendation 2–Grow and Diversify the Business...... 13 Recommendation 3–Share the Benefits...... 14

1. Introduction...... 16 1.1. The State of Biodiversity ...... 17 1.2. Benefits of Protected Areas ...... 18 1.3. Protected Area Coverage ...... 20 1.4. Protected Area Challenges ...... 20 1.4.1. Protected Area Funding ...... 23 1.4.2. Community Benefits ...... 24 1.5. Rationale for the Study ...... 26

2. Assessing the Economic Impacts...... 30 2.1. Methodology...... 32 2.1.1 Estimating the Economic Impact of Tourism in Protected Areas ...... 32 2.2. Avenues for Economic Impacts of Protected Areas ...... 34 2.3. Lewie Model ...... 36 2.4. Data Collection ...... 37

3. Findings ...... 39 3.1. Country Context and Summary Statistics ...... 39 3.2. Key Findings From Country Case Studies...... 48 Effects of Protected Area Tourism on Local Economies ...... 48 Return on Government Spending ...... 52 Impact of Conflicts and Shocks...... 53 Impact of Government Policies...... 54 3.3. Study Limitations...... 57 4. Policy Recommendations...... 58 4.1. Protect Natural Assets...... 60 4.1.1. Formalize Protected Areas...... 60 4.1.2. Increase Public Investment in Protected Area Management...... 60 4.1.3. Build Capacity of Protected Area Managers...... 64 4.1.4. Regularly Assess the Effects of Visitor Spending...... 64 4.2. Grow and Diversify Tourism Businesses ...... 64 4.2.1. Diversify Tourism Offerings...... 64 4.2.2. Develop Concession Policies to Promote Tourism in Protected Areas ....65 4.3. Share Benefits with Local Communities ...... 68 4.3.1. Formalize Benefit Sharing Arrangements...... 68 4.3.2. Strengthening Income Multipliers...... 69 4.3.3. Mitigate and Compensate for Human-Wildlife Conflict...... 70 4.4. Green Recovery ...... 70

5. Conclusion...... 74 References...... 76 authors Banking on Protected Areas is the result of a collaborative effort between the World Bank (Urvashi Narain, Hasita Bhammar, Phoebe Spencer) and the University of California, Davis (Prof. Edward Taylor, Heng Zhu, Edward Whitney, Anubhab Gupta, Mateusz Filipski, Elisabeth Earley). We are also thankful to Jo Pendry and Laura Onofri for their contribution to the report. This global study synthesizes information from four country case studies. We are grate- ful to the co-authors of these studies:

BRAZIL Prof. Carlos Eduardo F. Young, Alexandre Kotchergenko Batista, Camila Rizzini Freitas (University of Rio de Janeiro); Sylvia Michele Diaz and Bernadete Lange (World Bank.

FIJI Prof. Stuart Kininmonth (University of South Pacific); Jessie McComb (IFC).

NEPAL Sindhu Prasad Dhungana (Government of Nepal); Tijen Arin (World Bank); Siddhartha Bajra Bajracharya (National Trust for Nature Conservation); and Sagar Raj Sharma (Kathmandu University).

ZAMBIA Iretomiwa Olatunji, Ngao Mubanga (World Bank) acknowledgements Country Teams ZAMBIA NEPAL FIJI BRAZIL Facility. was supportedbytheGlobalWildlifeProgramfunded Environment was fundedbyWAVES; theZambiastudy wasfundedbyPROFOR.Theglobalstudy trust funds:PROBLUE andWindow-3fundedtheBrazilFijistudies;Nepalstudy Finance forthefourcountrycasestudieswasgenerouslyprovided by thefollowing Wendy Li,OlgaGavryliuk,andElissonWright (World Bank). and JuhaSiikamäki(IUCN).Valuable feedbackwasalsoprovidedby:SusanPleming, McComb, AndreAquino, FeiDeng,Sylvia MicheleDiaz,DavidKaczan (World Bank), Rozenberg, BernadeteLange, Renato Nardello, LisaFarroway, Kasia Mazur, JessieF. Hughes, ShaunMann,JuanPablo Castaneda, MimiKobayashi, MauriceRawlins, Julie Peer reviewersincluded: RichardDamania,GiovanniRuta,KirkHamilton, Ross Crepin, CharlotteDeFontaubert,AnnJeannetteGlauberandValerie Hickey. Kemper, IainShuker, ChristianPeter, GaroBatmanian,Raffaello Cervigni,Christophe The teamisgratefulforthesupport,encouragement,andoverallguidance ofKarin zations whoarebankingonprotectedareastopromoteconservationanddevelopment. T PR his reportissupportedbypassionateindividualsacrossmanyinstitutionsandorgani-

OMOTING SU

Pinheiro, andThaisdeJesusCustodio. Guzenski Fioravanso, Patricia CamaradeBrito, MiguelÂngeloPortela Augusto MunizVideira,GabrielPabst daSilva,WilliamJohnHester, Aline Daniel SanderCosta,Rodrigo AbreuCarvalho, MarcosP. Mendes,João Costa, MairaL.Spanholi,Lucas Rolo Fares,Rodrigo FernandesGonçalves, The dedicatedandenthusiasticBrazilsurveyteamincludes:Lucas deA.N. Fontaubert (World Bank);andGuilhermeDutra(ConservationInternational). Montenegro, Wanessa Matos,EduardoRomao Rosa, andCharlotteDe (Brazilian MinistryofEnvironment);AdrianaMoreira,SergioMargulis, Paula Fichino, AmandaSilva,RicardoCastelliVieiraandRenata CarolinaGatti Fernando P.M. Repinaldo Filho(AbrolhosMarineNationalPark); Betania Christopher Chibwe, Keren Chakaba, andVincentKatowa. Bwalya, LiseliMoira Banda,MwilaLunda, MargretMbewe, ChipoShimoomba, Sarai Sinyolo, NozyenjiMwale, JanetMulla,ChilufyaChisanga, Memory Zambian surveyteamincluded: AlickBruceMakondo, Kenneth Mulenga, Camp); andGrantCumings(Chiawa Camp).Thededicatedandenthusiastic (PROFLIGHT Zambia);AdrianColey (FlatdogsCamp);Paul Barnes(Pioneer Ian Stevenson (ConservationLower Zambezi);Keira Langford-Johnson and BrianChild(UniversityofFlorida); Petros MuyundaandChoizya Mbewe; Mungaila (World Bank);ChiwalaMatesamwa(ChiawaGMA);AlexChidakel Saul Kaoma (Lower ZambeziNationalPark); NathalieJohnson,andHellen Wildlife, Government ofZambia);DonaldBanda(ChipataTown); Moses Dr. ChumaSimukonda, MiyandaGwaba(DepartmentofNationalParks and Gabriel JacobSelemaMara. Marama Tabuavuka Bulamaibau,RuthNaomiNarawa,ShilpaShupriyaLal, and Volau, Leba Tavo Miller, ArishmaArchnaRam, ShaneRicoHenry, AdiLosana Tony Tarivonda, GlenBule, NoleenLata Narayan,SimioneNaivalu,Solomone astic Fijisurveyteamincludes:ApimelekiYasawa Nasokitabua,Reshma Ram, Vueta, andGeorgeHenryStirrett (World Bank).Thededicatedandenthusi- Lasse Melgaard,CaryAnnCadman,JeremyWebster, SophieEgden,Luke (Mamanuca EnvironmentSociety);HelenSykes (MarineEcologyConsulting); Craig Strong, SarasSharma(MinistryofFisheries);MaricaVakacola Kathmandu University. Pralita Rana Magar, HrijataDahal,BidurPoudel andRikesh Prasainfrom Aashruti Tripathy, Pema Sherpa,MunaK.C.,RijanUpadhyay, SonuGurung, Shrestha, SaujanKhapung,JeenaMaharjan,ShikhaNeupane, PragyaJoshi, The dedicatedandenthusiasticNepalsurveyteamincludes: Animesh Nature Conservation);AnnuRajbhandari andSailjaShrestha,(World Bank). Saneer Lamichhane, UmeshPaudel, Tek BahadurGurung(NationalTrust for ST AINABLE PR OTECTED AREATO URISM TO BENEFITL OCAL ECONOMIES 7

Contents

Executive Summary

Globally, biodiversity is imperiled. The 2020 which speaks to both crises, addressing Living Planet Index reported a 68 percent economic losses and promoting recovery average decline in birds, amphibians, mammals, through actions which simultaneously support fish, and reptiles since 1970; one third of the biodiversity conservation. Such a view brings world’s terrestrial protected areas are under the world’s protected areas into much-needed intense human pressure and about two-thirds of focus, as they are key to any global effort to the world’s oceans suffer from human impact, as contain biodiversity loss. Their role in doing so habitat loss and degradation, pollution, exploita- will be deliberated at the CBD COP-15 this year, tion, climate change and invasive species drive where threats to biodiversity and their impacts catastrophic biodiversity losses. on development will be stressed, and countries will be encouraged to set aside more land and Biodiversity matters because of its intrinsic marine areas for conservation. worth, and because ecosystem services, which depend upon biodiversity, underpin human well- How can countries address both crises? Can being and support economic activity in a range countries afford to bring even larger areas of sectors. Our survival is, finally, impossible under protection when the need for economic without intact natural landscapes and sea- recovery is so pressing, fiscal spaces are tight, scapes. Land- and marine-based ecosystems and so many development challenges persist? provide food, oxygen, water, carbon seques- This study set out to make the case that it is tration, resilience in the face of climate change, possible. That by promoting sustainable and and a buffer against pandemics. They also inclusive tourism in protected areas, countries foster economic activities such as tourism, which can respond to these escalating crises, recov- attract eight billion visitors to protected areas in er from the economic fallout of the pandemic, a typical year. The need to protect these natural address longstanding development challenges, areas has never been greater. and conserve biodiversity. At the same time, the COVID-19 pandemic has While governments see protected areas as key led to a deep global recession in which much to addressing biodiversity loss, protected areas economic activity has declined and govern- are often overlooked in economic develop- ments face increasing fiscal constraints and ment plans and economic recovery strategies. challenges in allocating scarce resources to One reason for this is that data gaps make it support the health, security, and development difficult to demonstrate protected area tour- of their populations. The tourism sector too, has ism’s far-reaching stimuli to national and local suffered significant setbacks. In tourism-depen- economies, especially in developing countries. dent economies in Africa and the Caribbean, Banking on Protected Areas study therefore for example, GDP is projected to shrink by 12 set out to quantify the impacts of protected percent. Additionally, many biodiversity-rich area tourism on local economies to show that protected areas are located in far-flung, neglect- protected areas promote conservation and ed rural regions, in which poverty is persistent. development. Often, protected areas around these rural The study explores economic impacts on local communities help leverage tourism to provide economies, as local economic development is the few avenues available to support livelihoods a goal in-and-of itself, and community support and address development challenges. is a critical concern for protected areas and is These intersecting calamities – a pandemic in needed to secure their long-term integrity. It a time of biodiversity loss – call for a response therefore estimates protected area tourism’s Executive Summary 10 Source: Adaptedfrom Taylor andFilipski2014. figure es-1 BANKIG ONPR Indirect impactthrough b community projects Revenue sharing, a production linkages households spend HOUSEHOLDS their incometo Local incomes source goods Direct Impact Businesses pay taxes andfees increase; Economic ImpactPathways forProtectedAreas OTECTED AREAS b b,c Purchase goods for PA activities employs households Park hiresguardsor and services b a return oninvestments. protected areasbyprovidingestimatedratesof study arguesstronglyforpublicinvestmentin further fundingduetothepandemic.Thus, mirrored forprotectedareas,whichhavelost of US$598–US$824billionperyear, afigure figures showaglobalbiodiversityfundinggap in marineprotectedareas.Pre-pandemic predictor ofsuccessfulecologicaloutcomes funding hasbeenfoundtobethemostrobust grabs, andillegalmininglogging;likewise, sity throughpoaching,livestockincursions,land poorly financedprotectedareaslosebiodiver- areas islackoffinance. Research showsthat At thesametime, akey challengeforprotected increased andcostsreduced. munities, andexploreshowbenefitsmaybe economic costsandbenefitstolocalcom- Purchase food,

Protected Areas goods and

T T

PARK AUTHORITY, O services O AND BUSINESSES Terrestrial /Marine

U

U GOVERNMENT LOCAL FARMS

R R

I I

S S

T T a a

S c. b. a. Legend ofPathways ofInfluence

V Entrance Fee Pay aPark

Income andconsumptionlinkages Direct impacts Production linkages I S in tourismactivities

workers employed I T IN

Wages paidto G Spend moneyon lodging, tourist c activities a b a and services Source goods and taxes and consumptivefees Pay non-consumptive LODGES AND BUSINESSES TOURISM, Trade with outside/ non-local markets Environmental and globally, toenhancebuy-in andquality. were sharedwithstakeholders, bothin-country in thesocio-economiccontext.Study findings with localuniversitiesgroundedthecasestudies was gathered,andineachcountry, partnerships expenditure, andthelocationsoftransactions households. Informationonproduction,income, surveys oftourists,lodges,businesses,and sites, andlocalstudentsweretrainedtoconduct Governments wereconsultedtoselectstudy mix ofeconomies,environments,andcultures. Africa, SmallIslandStates, andAsia-covera is small,thecasestudies-fromLatin America, Fiji andBrazil.Whilethenumberofcountries Nepal, andtwoinmarineprotectedareas two interrestrialprotectedareasZambiaand Four countrycasestudieswereundertaken: thestudydone?How was Impact ment policies. ment policies. (4) estimatetheeffectsofgovern - economic conflictsandshocks, and areas, (3) understand impacts of areas, (3)understandimpactsof on publicinvestmentinprotected local economies,(2)clarifyreturns manner inwhichtourismstimulates allowing usersto:(1)describethe ed, directandspilloverimpacts, multipliers forarangeofsimulat- The modelattributesvaluestothese Economy-Wide ImpactEvaluation. model knownasLEWIE-Local impacts, andthestudyadoptsa model isneededtoestimatethese nomic impact.Ageneralequilibrium spending, andisameasureofeco- the localeconomythroughtourist incomes perunitofmoneyentering as thechangeinlocalhousehold income multiplier, whichisdefined and indirectimpactsconvergeonan other localbusinesses.Thesedirect activity byusingtheservicesof ployees furtherstimulateeconomic when tourismbusinessesandem- nesses; whileindirecteffectsoccur employment andsupportlocalbusi- leisure andrecreation,whichcreate ing onparkfees,hotels,transport, direct intheformofvisitorspend- Contributions totheeconomyare demand forgoodsandservices. and expenditureincreasethe activities expand,growingincome economic activities,andasthese Tourism inprotectedareastriggers

Source: World Bank Figure es-4 Source: World Bank figure es-2 Source: World Bank figure es-3

Percentage of Multiplier Income multiplier 2.50 0.50 2.00 0.00 Income multiplier 3.00 1.50 1.00 100% 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 1.2 1.8 1.6 1.4 60% 20% 80% 40% 0 2 0% 1 Lower Zambezi Zambia 1.82 Zambezi Zambezi Lower Lower Income Multipliers,2019 Income MultipliersbyHouseholdType, 2019 Normalized IncomeMultipliersbyHouseholdType, 2019 Zambia Zambia South Luangwa Zambia Luangwa Luangwa 1.53 South Poor South Poor National Park National Park National Park Chitwan Non-poor Chitwan Nepal Nepal Chitwan Nepal Non-poor 1.78 PR OMOTING SU Marine Park Marine Park Marine Park Abrolhos Abrolhos Brazil Abrolhos Brazil Brazil 1.74 Island Island ST AINABLE PR Mamanuca Mamanuca Islands Mamanuca Islands Fiji Fiji Islands 1.83 Fiji OTECTED AREATO URISM TO BENEFITL instances agriculture, livestock, and fishing. instances agriculture, livestock, andfishing. in sectorssuchasretail,services, andinsome for goodsandservicescatalyzed bytourism employed asaresultoftheincreased demand tour operators,andrestaurantworkers, and those study accountsforjobssuchas hotelemployees, the Mamanucasandadjoiningcoastalareas.The employing 13percentofthelocalpopulationin 8,304 jobs(throughdirectandindirectchannels), cent. Tourism inFiji’s MamanucaIslandscreated in Brazil’s coastalregionthisfigureis12per- 3 percentoftheworkingagepopulation,while jobs aroundChitwanNationalPark areheldby Parks, respectively. InNepal,tourism-related around theLower ZambeziandSouthLuangwa 14 and30percentofworkingagepopulations tourism inprotectedareasgeneratedjobsfor by thetourismsectorissubstantial.InZambia, of jobs,theshareemploymentsupported stimulating localeconomies.Beyondthenumber through tourismactivities,andindirectlyby cant jobopportunities.Jobsarecreateddirectly Tourism inprotectedareasalsocreatessignifi- case studiesbutone. poor residentsthanfornon-poorinallcountry the multipliersharesperresidentarehigherfor and non-poorresidents(FigureES-4)showsthat izing multipliersharesbypopulationsofpoor appears tobenefitthepoormore, asnormal- holds inmostinstances(FigureES-3),tourism the largermultipliersharesofnon-poorhouse- tourism sector. Study findingsrevealthatdespite businesses spendprofitsearnedthroughthe goods, andwhenhouseholdsspendwagesor operators hirelocalpeopleandbuy duction andincomelinkages-whentourism benefit directlyandindirectlythroughpro- indirectly linked withthesector. Households directly involvedinthetourismsectorandthose study revealsthattourismbenefitshouseholds Benefits arebroadandhelpthepoor. The tourist spendingandnumbersofvisitors. a varietyofcontexts,despitevariationsinper similar incomegainstolocalhouseholdsacross healthy protectedareatourismsectorprovides cases arealsoconsistent,suggestingthata considerable. Multipliersacrossthefourcountry income leakagefromlocaleconomiesisnot (Figure ES-2);themultipliersalsosuggestthat linkages arestrong,andamplifytouristspending in allcountrycases,showingthatlocalmarket multipliers fromtourismaregreaterthanone significant incomemultipliers.Income Tourism inprotectedareasgenerates What didthestudyfind? OCAL ECONOMIES 11

Executive Summary Executive Summary 12 Source: World Bank figure es-6

Source: World Bank figure es-5 BANKIG ONPR Spending, 2018–2019 Rate of Return 20 30 25 35 10 15 0 5 Lower Zambezi Zambia 16.7 Framework forSustainableTourism inProtectedAreas Annual EstimatedRate ofReturn onGovernment OTECTED AREAS losses wereestimatedatUS$1.8,1.2and2.9 National Park inNepal.Overthisperiod, these Park inZambia,and9percent aroundChitwan Park and11percentatSouthLuangwa National percent aroundtheLower ZambeziNational tion. In2019, wildlifecausedcroplossesof14 avoidance measuresandtimelycompensa- households whichshouldbemitigatedthrough can causecriticalshort-termincomelossto fishing restrictionsinmarineprotectedareas, conflict aroundterrestrialprotectedareas,and nities whichmustbemanaged.Human-wildlife Protected areascanimposecostsoncommu- South Luangwa Zambia 28.2 Marine Park Abrolhos Brazil 6.2 National Park Chitwan Nepal 7.6 is notviable. both touristhotspotsandareasinwhichtourism system inagivencountry, whichmaycontain do notrepresenttheentireprotectedarea cannot beeasilygeneralized,asindividualsites increase economicimpacts.Finally, theresults effects. Theseconstraints,whenaddressed,will el fromcapturingalleconomiclinkagesand tourism, andlackofdatapreventsthemod- neglects thewidereconomicadvantagesof protected areas,thefocusonlocaleconomies value ofotherecosystemservicessuppliedby areas. Also, themodeldoesnotaccountfor the economicbenefitsoftourisminprotected impacts oftourism,bothwhichmayreduce affect incomes,orthenegativeenvironmental for fluctuationsinnaturalresourceswhich the studyusesastaticmodel,itcannotaccount case studies,however. Forexample, because when drawinglessonsfromthefourcountry ic growthandcreatejobs.Cautioniswarranted tourism inprotectedareastostimulateeconom- ernments topromotesustainableandinclusive Together, thesefindingsmake thecaseforgov- able development. green economicrecoveryandsupportsustain- reveals thepotentialoftheseareastopromote government investmentinprotectedareas This accrualofeconomicbenefitsrelativeto $6.2–$-28.2 foreverypublicdollarinvested. of returnongovernmentspendingbetween local economies,whichinturngeneraterates triggers directandindirecteconomicimpactsin valuable economicassets.Asnoted,tourism cantly greaterthanone, makingprotectedareas of returnongovernmentspendingaresignifi- and generateshigheconomicreturns.Rates Public investmentinprotectedareaspaysoff, much-needed communitysupport. balances shouldberedressedinordertobuild be majorbeneficiariesoftourism,andtheseim- effects ofproximity toprotectedareasmaynot of livelihood.Often,thosesufferingthenegative income lossbyrestrictingfishing,amajormeans marine protectedareasmaycauseshort-term Chitwan NationalParks, respectively. Similarly, million inLower Zambezi,SouthLuangwa and from thestudy? What lessons cancountriesdraw and thiscapacitymustbebuilt. go beyondtheskillsofwildlifemanagement, commercial visitorservicesrequiresabilitiesthat and commercialentities.Forexample, managing and thebusinessneedsoftourismoperators understand protectedarealawsandpolicies, protected areashavequalifiedmanagerswho performance mustbeaddressed.Successful the underlyingfactorsassociatedwithpoor protected areasmustbewellmanaged,and To deliverthebenefitsdescribedinthisstudy, Build CapacityofProtectedAreaManagers. orative public-privatemanagementpartnerships. carbon finance, conservationbondsandcollab- resources suchasconservationtrustfunds, as innovativemechanismstotapprivatesector cial instrumentssuchaspublicbudgets,well to accomplishthis,itsupportstheuseoffinan- investment inprotectedareamanagement;and Management. Thestudyadvocatesstronglyfor Increase PublicInvestmentinProtectedArea tourism services. vation canstimulateprivatesectorinvestmentin and thisdemonstratedcommitmenttoconser- and reducethenegativeimpactsoftourism, governments toraiseenvironmentalstandards tection. Formalizationalsoconfersauthorityon stocks recoveranddisperseunderformalpro- such lossesmaybeoffset,asexploitedwild status. Evenifthisactionrestrictsresourceuse, natural assets,itisnecessarytoformalizetheir Formalize ProtectedAreas.To protectthese Protect theAsset recommendation 1 pandemic. assets andsupporteconomicrecoveryfromthe development outcomes,securebiodiversity Taken together, thesethreefactorscanenhance and sharebenefitswithlocalcommunitiesfairly. well, promotetourismanddiversifyitsofferings, the needtofundandmanageprotectedareas be tailored.Centraltoallefforts,however, is from diversesettingswhichpoliciescan plied toallprotectedareas,theyofferlessons While thefindingsofthisstudycannotbeap- PR OMOTING SU

ST AINABLE PR OTECTED AREATO URISM TO BENEFITL vesting inprotectedareas. and demonstratetheeconomicreturnsofin- communities, refinetourismbusinessmodels, policies, improvetouristservices,assistlocal tourism behavior. Suchinformationcanshape bers, touristspending,andseasonalchangesin tourism, andusesurveystocapturevisitornum- regularly assesstheimpactsofprotectedarea governments andconservationagenciesshould case forpublicspending,andtoaidplanning, Monitor VisitorsandImpacts.To make the support implementingagencies. concession operations,andlegalframeworksto ed economicbenefits,stakeholder inputinto proposed commercialactivities,demonstrat- area lawsandregulations,publicsupportfor programs shouldincludestrongprotected tal conditions,andfeesforaccess.Concessions such asduration,typeofoperation,environmen- key termsandconditionsforbusinessoperation, licensing, andsuchmechanismsshouldstipulate may includeleases,managementcontracts,and approaches tooutsourcetourismdevelopment activities, rentalequipment,andtransport.Similar accommodation, food,merchandise, recreational infrastructure, andprovidingservicessuchas park operationsthroughmanagingandfinancing is throughconcessioning,whichcanenhance means topromotetourisminprotectedareas Develop ConcessionsPolicies . Another pation andcommunitybenefits. optimal opportunitiesforprivatesectorpartici- through whichsitescanberanked toidentify on variousdesirabilityandfeasibilitycriteria areas forphasedtourismdevelopment,based selection ofanexpandednetworkprotected negative impacts,thestudyalsoadvocates local stakeholder interestintourism.To dilute security, biodiversity, landscapeattractions,and select prioritysitesonthebasisofroadaccess, pand thenumberofprotectedareasites,andto at well-knownsitesmakes itimportanttoex- tured inthisstudy, thisconcentrationofvisitors negative tourismimpacts.Inthecountriesfea- locations, whichconcentratebothpositiveand protected areatourismisfocusedonafewkey Diversify Tourism Offerings.Inmanycountries, Grow andDiversify theBusiness recommendation 2

OCAL ECONOMIES 13

Executive Summary Executive Summary 14 BANKIG ONPR OTECTED AREAS Share theBenefits recommendation 3 fundamental tomanaginghuman-wildlifeconflict Conflict. Mitigationandcompensationare Mitigate andCompensateforHuman-Wildlife leakage andincreasemultipliers. strengthen linkagesinlocaleconomies,prevent ness diversification,andlocalprocurementto logistics; governmentsshouldalsosupportbusi- training, skillsdevelopment,creditservicesand the tourismeconomythroughentrepreneurship ments shouldassisthouseholdstoparticipatein protected areabenefitstocommunities,govern- tourism isthestrongestleverfordelivering Strengthen IncomeMultipliers.Because decision makingandcapacitybuilding. able utilizationofplantsandanimals,shared tourism businessesandpartnerships,sustain- area authorities,revenuesharingschemesfrom employment, revenuesharingbyprotected sharing approachesincludedirectandindirect put inplacetoenablethis.Advocatedbenefit and thestudyrecommendsthatpoliciesbe fairly byincludingthepooranddisadvantaged, importantly, thesebenefitsshould bedistributed taining protectedareaintegrity. Perhaps most poor andnon-poorhouseholdsiskey tomain- sharing benefitsinthesecommunitiesacross area neighborsareessentialstakeholders, and Formalize BenefitSharing.Asnoted,protected

protected areastakeholders. to developmentneeds,andlossesincurredby should distributeitsbenefitsfairlyinresponse awareness ofinequality, protectedareatourism responding toapandemicthathasheightened returns fromprotectedareainvestments.Andin ments andtheprivatesector, andyieldhigh post-pandemic revivalthatisdrivenbygovern- ism cantogetherbecompatiblewithagreen, that conservingbiodiversityandpromotingtour- sustainable development.Thisstudyreveals pandemic, conservebiodiversity, andpromote protected areasinordertorecoverfromthe champion sustainableandinclusivetourismin message ofthisstudyiscrucial–countriesmust threats tothebiosphere. Insuchacontext,the conservation sectoratatimeofunprecedented revenue, andaweakened, under-financed omies globally, leadingtolarge lossesintourism In conclusion,thepandemichasaffectedecon- losses andbuildpark-neighbor relations. fences andthecorrallingoflivestock,tomitigate level managementactions,suchasseasonal methods forestimatingcroplosses,andlocal also advocatesfurtherresearch,standardized as croplosses,isverydifficult,andthestudy determination oflossestoparkneighbors,such tion payoutsthataretimelyandtransparent.The stresses theneedforwell-managedcompensa- eficiaries andconservationallies.Thestudy from localcommunitieswhoarecriticalben- and helptosecuresupportforconservation PR OMOTING SU ST AINABLE PR OTECTED AREATO URISM TO BENEFITL OCAL ECONOMIES 15

Executive Summary Introduction 16 Introduction BANKIG ONPR 1 OTECTED AREAS Source: WWF2018 Reptiles and figure 1 billion people(World Bank2016b),overthree Forests andtreesprovidevitalresourcesto1.3 low-income countries(World Bankforthcoming). capital makes up23percentofthewealthin natural ecosystems,andrenewable livelihoods arelinked toanddependenton is importantfortheworld’s poorbecausetheir utilities rely. Moreover, conservingbiodiversity sectors suchasagriculture, fisheries,andwater so doesthehealthofecosystemsonwhichkey Development Goals.Asbiodiversitydeclines, livelihoods, andmanyoftheSustainable tem servicesunderpinhumanwell-being, value, andbecausebiodiversityecosys- Biodiversity mattersbecauseofitsintrinsic 2014 (IPBES2019). of theoceanwasfreefromhumanpressurein and 2016(WWF2020),whileonlythreepercent vertebrate speciespopulationsbetween1970 an averagedeclineof68percentinmonitored extinction. The2020LivingPlanetIndexreported that overonemillionspeciesarethreatenedwith Ecosystem Services(IPBES2019)-estimates - GlobalAssessmentReport onBiodiversityand on BiodiversityandEcosystemServices(IPBES) the IntergovernmentalScience-Policy Platform Wake andVredenburg 2008).Arecentreportof et al.2011;Ceballos,Ehrlich,andRaven 2020; this timecausedbyhumanactivity(Barnosky be inthemidstofitssixthmassextinctionevent, alarming rate. Scientistswarnthattheworldmay Biodiversity hasbeendeclininggloballyatan 1.1 thestate ofbiodiversity amphibians Mammals Fishes Birds Drivers ofSpeciesDeclineforAnimalGroups 0% PR OMOTING SU 20% ST AINABLE PR 40% OTECTED AREATO URISM TO BENEFITL 60% ecosystems include pollution, overfishing, and ecosystems includepollution,overfishing,and Figure 1) (WWF2020).Similarly, threatstomarine species, andclimatechange(IPBES2019)(see hunting, fishing,andlogging),pollution,invasive over-exploitation ofnaturalresources(including 2010). Otherthreatstobiodiversityinclude decline (Benítez-López,Alkemade, andVerweij and infrastructuredevelopmentonspecies al. 2014).Studies alsoshowtheimpactofroads in speciesrichnessandabundance(Newboldet rounding protectedareas,leadingtoreductions growing foodneedshasdegradedlandsur- 2020). Demandforagriculturallandtomeet 70 percentofglobalbiodiversityloss(WWF tion (IPBES2019).Land usechangehascaused from habitatloss,fragmentation,anddegrada- The greatestpressuresonbiodiversitystem es inhumans(Gibbetal.2020). spillovers i.e. theemergenceofzoonotic diseas- conversion ofthesesystemsincreasinglyrisks ecosystems mitigateclimatechange, whilethe and UNEP2020).Biodiversityhealthy are providedbytheformalforestsector(FAO (FAO 2020),andanestimated45millionjobs employed worldwideinfishingandfish-farming number ofjobs.Around60millionpeopleare ecosystem servicesalsounderpinasignificant fish (FAO andUNEP2020).Biodiversity extent onwildmeat,plants,mushroomsand and around1 billionpeopledependtosome biodiversity fortheirlivelihoods(UNDPn.d.) billion peopledependonmarineandcoastal 80% 100% Climate change Pollution Invasive species&disease Exploitation Habitat degradation/loss OCAL ECONOMIES 17

Introduction Introduction 18 BANKIG ONPR OTECTED AREAS year (Jambecketal.2015). tons ofplasticwasteenterstheoceansevery and itisestimatedthat4.8–12.7 millionmetric on everysquarekilometerofocean(UNDPn.d.) of 13,000 piecesofplasticlittercanbefound fisheries areoverfished (FAO 2020).Anaverage these impacts(IPCC2019).Over30percentof al. 2015),withclimatechangedrivingmostof impact between2008and2013(Halpernet oceans showedsignsofincreasedhuman 2018), whileabouttwo-thirdsoftheworld’s sion, grazing,andurbanization(Jonesetal. square miles—arethreatenedbyroadexpan- world’s terrestrialprotectedareas—2.3million These threatsaresignificant.Onethirdofthe to higherextinctionrates(Newbold2018). biodiversity loss,intensifyotherdrivers,andlead marine litter. Climatechangeisexpectedtodrive 1 areas providelandscapeimmunity areas (Edgaretal.2014).Inaddition,protected fourteen timesmoresharkbiomassthanfished have fivetimesmorelargefishbiomassand marine protectedareashavebeenshownto retention, andcarbonstorage. Well-managed services suchasfoodandwater, sediment et al.2014).Theseareasprovideecosystem Melillo etal.2016;Roberts etal.2017;Watson Geldmann etal.2013;Leverington etal.2010; (Duraiappah etal.2005;Edgar2014; ulations, andconferresiliencetoclimatechange biodiversity, maintainhabitatsandspeciespop- earth’s biodiversity. Protectedareasconserve effective means,” arecriticaltomaintainingthe resources, andmanagedthroughlegalorother diversity, andofnaturalassociatedcultural the protectionandmaintenanceofbiological of landand/orseaespeciallydedicatedto Protected areas,definedbyIUCNas“area[s] areas benefitsofprotected 1.2 ter 0.5 Pg Cannually—approximately one-fifth 2003). Terrestrial protectedareas alsoseques- areas fordrinkingwater(Dudley andStolton the world’s 100largestcitiesrelyonprotected providing cleanwaterissignificant,asathirdof ing urbanization,theroleofprotectedareasin likely (Reaser, Tabor, etal.2020).Withincreas- and wildlife, andfrom whichzoonosesareless of undisturbedhabitatswhichseparatepeople the immunefunction ofwildlifewithinanecosystem. J. Reaser etal.,(2020)define ‘landscapeimmunity’astheecological conditionsthat, incombination, maintain andstrengthen 1 intheform addressing globalbiodiversitydecline. protected areasinconservingbiodiversityand held in2021andwilldeliberatethekey rolesof threats. ThedelayedCBDCOP-15 willnowbe sity framework(CBD2019)toaddressgrowing and tonegotiateapost-2020globalbiodiver- progress towardtheAichiBiodiversityTargets aimed tobringcountriestogetherexamine and theirimpactsondevelopment.COP-15 were plannedtostressthreatsbiodiversity the ConventiononBiologicalDiversity(CBD), of theConferenceParties (COP-15) of conferences, includingtheFifteenthMeeting per year”forbiodiversity. Anumberof global The year2020waspositionedtobea“su- human well-being (Ban et al. 2019). human well-being(Banetal.2019). Van Beukering, andScherl2007),improved catches, benefitstohealthand women(Leisher, areas, too, reduce povertythroughimprovedfish Evans, andOldekop 2018).Marineprotected proportion oftheareawasprotected(denBraber, that thesebenefitsweregreaterwhenalarger reduce povertywithoutincreasinginequality, and A studyinNepalshowedthatprotectedareas on average(Ferraro, Hanauer, andSims2011). found toreducebothpovertyanddeforestation, healthier. Protectionofpoorareashasalsobeen being poorthanthosefartheraway, andwere wealthier, hada26percentlowerprobabilityof protected areaswereonaverage20percent protected areasarebetteroff;householdsnear countries andconcludedthatpeoplelivingnear dren and60,041 householdsin34developing socioeconomic andhealthdatafor87,033 chil- and Sims2011).Naidooetal.(2019)analyzed Evans, andOldekop 2018;Ferraro, Hanauer, to communitieslivingaroundthem(denBraber, ment,” becauseoftheireconomiccontribution are informallydubbedas“enginesofdevelop- Protected areasalsosupportdevelopmentand climate change(Roberts etal.2017). areas alsobuildresilienceagainsttheeffectsof tems (Melilloetal.2016).Fullyprotectedmarine of thecarbonsequesteredbyalllandecosys- Economy inAfrica Wildlife-Based box 1

this period.InRwanda,mountaingorillatrekking world (Taylor, Hardner, andStewart 2009)over creating thefastestgrowingeconomyin to a78percentgrowthinincomeoversixyears, al. 2009).IntheGalapagos,tourismcontributed areas isimportanttotheeconomy(Balmfordet ing countries,incomederivedfromprotected and communitydevelopment.Inmanydevelop- park feesandotherresourcesforconservation tels andhospitalityservices,butalsogenerates not onlycreatesjobsthroughemploymentinho- ing 1in10jobsglobally(WTTC 2019b).Tourism was arapidlygrowingeconomicsector, provid- pandemic, tourism,includinginprotectedareas, (Balmford etal.2015)andbeforetheCOVID-19 Protected areasreceive8billionvisitsayear able developmentgoalsthroughconservation. the singlestrongestlevertoachievesustain- of thisreport,suchtourismarguablyconstitutes ture-based tourism,andfromtheperspective Many countriesalsoreapthebenefitsofna- at US$1.1 billion. CITES*-listed specieswasestimated value ofSouthAfrica’s exportsof and between20052014,the fauna andflorawasUS$1.3million, (SANParks) revenuefromthesaleof 2018, SouthAfrican NationalParks about US$1.4billionperyear;in Medicine industryisvaluedat that theinformalAfrican Traditional wildlife economy. Itisestimated game farmingandgrowthinthe which hasledtoanincreasein may befarmedonprivateland, In SouthAfrica, forexample, wildlife described inTable 1. tive andnon-consumptiveuses,as et al.2021).Thisincludesconsump- economic development”(Snyman delivers sustainablegrowthand with conservationobjectivesand asset tocreatevaluethataligns and terrestrial),asaneconomic “wildlife, plantsandanimals(marine A wildlifeeconomyisdefinedas Source: Snymanetal.2021 PR OMOTING SU ST AINABLE PR Wildlife economysectorsandrelatedactivities Other Industry Trade and Health Forestry Fisheries Energy Tourism Agriculture SECTOR OTECTED AREATO URISM TO BENEFITL development. to usenaturalresourcespursuesustainable nature-based tourismofferscountriesameans tivities (seeBox 1)(Snymanetal.2021),andsuch employment andrevenuesthroughdiverseac- a burgeoningwildlifeeconomycontributesto visits toreefs(Spaldingetal.2017).InAfrica, year—the equivalentofabout70milliontourist coral reeftourismisvaluedatUS$36billionper ue-added tourismby2030(OECD2016).Global will doubletheircontributiontoglobalval- industries suchasmarineandcoastaltourism to theOECD, itisprojectedthatocean-based supports 64,000 jobs(Deloitte2017).According AU$6.4 billionperyeartotheeconomyand been valuedatAU$56 billion,contributes et al.2013).Australia’s GreatBarrierReef has generating US$200millionannually(Maekawa country’s largestsourceofforeignexchange, in theVolcanoes NationalPark isnowthe activities involving off-take; culturalactivities;religious Education; research,includingresearch services; realestate bon credits;otherpaymentsforecosystem products; bioprospecting;nature-basedcar- Commercial filmandphotography;wildlife Bioprospecting Timber; non-timberforestproducts subsistence fishing fisheries; aquacultureandfishranching; Multiple useofmarineresources;freshwater Hydro-electric; waveenergy recreation; sportfishing Wildlife-based tourism;coastal ing; cropsandlivestock and sale;croppingculling;wildharvest- Game farmingandranching;livecapture WILDLIFE ECONOMYACTIVITIES OCAL ECONOMIES 19

Introduction Introduction 20 BANKIG ONPR OTECTED AREAS 1.3 protected areacoverage protected 1.3 3 2 in valueonlybydrug,humantrafficking, est globalcriminalenterprise, exceeded The illegalwildlifetradeisthefourthlarg- outcomes (Hockings 2006). of protectedareasmayalsolimitconservation infrastructure, while thesizeanddesignation ed tolackofmanagementplans,equipmentand and wildlifemonitoring.Otherchallengesrelat- agement, patrolling,communityengagement, that thishamperedconservation,habitatman- quate staffandbudgets(Coadetal.2019), less thanaquarterofprotectedareashadade- Area ManagementEffectivenessreportedthat An analysisoftheGlobalDatabaseonProtected Pailler 2011;Tesfaw etal.2018). through downsizingordegazetting(Masciaand which mayleadtoalossofformalprotection of protectedareascanleadtodeforestation, managed (Burke etal.2011).Poor management only 1percentoftheseareaswereeffectively coral reefsinmarineprotectedareasfoundthat Pacific Ocean’s Coral Triangle, anassessmentof severely limittheirefficacy. Forexample, inthe protection, suchareasfacechallengeswhich While Figure3suggestssignificantareasunder areachallenges protected 1.4 vation measuresandintegratedintothewider areas andothereffectivearea-basedconser- tive andwell-connectedsystemsofprotected equitably managed,ecologicallyrepresenta- ecosystem services,througheffectivelyand of particularimportanceforbiodiversityand of coastalandmarineareas,especiallyareas of terrestrialandinlandwaterareas10% Target 11toconserveby2020:“atleast17% commitments totheCBDAichiBiodiversity In part,theseincreasesreflectcountries’ protection overthepastdecade(seeFigure 2). increased terrestrialandmarineareasunder in meetingthisgoal,severalcountrieshave and nature, andtheroleofprotectedareas In recognizingtheneedtoprotectbiodiversity Bank 2019a). that arenotcurrently pricedbythemarket, suchascarbonstorage, biodiversity, waterfiltration,andflood retention (World Morethan90percentoftheselosses are fromecosystemservicesthatforests,wildlife andcoastalresourcesprovide, and values (CBD, 2018). conservation ofbiodiversity, ecosystemfunctions andservices;and,whereapplicable, cultural,spiritual,andsocio–economic AnOECMisageographicallydefined areaotherthanaProtectedArea,managed toachievesustained,long-term,in-situ annually which areestimatedtobeoverUS$1trillion of illegallogging,fishingandtradeinwildlife small amountcomparedtotheestimatedcosts reduce poaching(World Bank2016a).Thisisa to protectedareamanagementasastrategy Asia, US$948millionofwhichwasdedicated combatting theillegalwildlifetradeinAfrica and more thanUS$2.35billionwasinvestedin study found thatovertheperiod2010–2016 umented (Bergsethetal.2018).A World Bank result ofpoorenforcementhasalsobeendoc- 2020). Poaching inmarineprotectedareasasa eastern Africa (Hockings,Dudley, andElliott of naturalresourcesinAsiaandsouthern reports ofincreasedpoachingandexploitation threat towildlifeinprotectedareas.Thereare (UNODC 2020). Wildlifecrimeisagrowing lation andlimitedlawenforcementcapacity combatting wildlifecrimeincludeweaklegis- and counterfeitingactivities.Challengesto (OECM) effective area-basedconservationmeasures conservation. Additionally, since2018, other aside morelandforprotectionandbiodiversity to beambitious,andcalloncountriesset Figure 3). Thepost-2020frameworkisexpected its oceans(UNEP-WCMC andIUCN,2020;see percent oftheplanet’s landand7.6 percentof icant progress,settingasideapproximately 15 not beenfullymet,countrieshavemadesignif- landscape andseascape.” Whilethistargethas the challengestoprotectedarea management. Competition overnaturalresourcesintensifies (FAO 2019). fish eachyear, equivalenttoUS$10–23billion responsible forthelossof11–26milliontons al. 2018). land andover273,000 km²ofocean(Dudleyet are 146OECMscoveringalmost61,000 km²of ed areanetworks.AsofSeptember2020, there achieve conservationtargetsoutsideofprotect- 2 3 havebeenrecognizedasessentialto (World Bank2019a).Illegalfishingis Figure 2 Growth in Protected Areas since 2010 PR OMOTING SU ST AINABLE PR OTECTED AREATO URISM TO BENEFITL OCAL ECONOMIES

Source: UNEP-WCMC and IUCN 2020 21

Introduction Introduction 22 ed-area estatesforcountries>25,000 km². Note: Thefigureisshowingtheincreaseinareacoverage(%)peryearformarine and terrestrialprotect- Source: AdaptedfromMaxwelletal.(2020),usingdataUNEP-WCMC andIUCN2020. BANKIG ONPR Figure 3 Terrestrial andMarine ProtectedAreaPercentages Per Country OTECTED AREAS Species densitydistributioncrosstheworld Source: Pirleaetal.2020 figure 4 Concentration ofBiodiversityintheTropics AMPHIBIANS MAMMALS BIRDS PR OMOTING SU ST AINABLE PR OTECTED AREATO URISM TO BENEFITL areas andarediscussedbelow. challenges tothemanagementofprotected support conservationarelikely themostcritical Lack offinanceandcommunityengagementto (Inskip andZimmermann 2009). species areatriskthroughhuman-wildlifeconflict 2002). Over75percentoftheworld’s felid port forconservation(Hill,Osborn,andPlumptre wildlife throughretaliation,anddiminishingsup- communities livingnearprotectedareas,lossof life conflict,leadingtolossoflivelihoodsfor Poor management canalsoincreasehuman-wild- protected areas(Geldmannetal. 2019). agricultural pressureincreasedby10percentin In Latin America,outsidetheAmazonbiome, the rateofcoverageinnon-protectedareas. protected areashasincreasedatnearlydouble sub-Saharan Africa, croplandcoverageinside across theworld’s protectedareasaswell.In ecosystems. Humanencroachmentisincreasing ment, cattleranching,andfiresthreatenfragile agricultural expansion,infrastructuredevelop- In Latin America,largescalehabitatlossfrom (Balmford etal.2004). be betweenUS$5andUS$19 billion peryear ering 20–30percentoftheseasisestimatedto a globalnetworkofmarineprotectedareascov- (Bovarnick etal.2010).Thefundingneededfor million annually, andthisfigureislikely togrow are under-fundedbyapproximately US$700 et al.2018).ProtectedareasinLatin America save iconicspeciesandlandscapes(Lindsey of US$1billionannuallymustbeaddressedto in Africa areinadequatelyfunded,andadeficit Watson etal.2014).Nearlyallprotectedareas al. 2017;IUCNESARO 2020;Waldron etal.2017; underfunded worldwide(Coadetal.2019;Gill gaps aremirroredforprotectedareas,which billion peryear(Deutzetal.2020),andthese hovers betweenUS$598billionandUS$824 Broadly, theglobalbiodiversityfundinggap logging. incursions, landgrabs,andillegalmining lose biodiversitythroughpoaching,livestock and thatpoorlyfinancedprotectedareas cess forecologicaloutcomes(Gilletal. 2017), that fundingisthemostrobustpredictorofsuc- Research inmarineprotectedareashasshown Protected1.4.1 Area Funding OCAL ECONOMIES 23

Introduction Introduction 24 Source: World Bank2018 figure 5 BANKIG ONPR Global DistributionofExtremePoverty OTECTED AREAS 4 chain analysisshowedonly37 percentretention cent (Sandbrook2010),whilein Botswana,value tourism leakagewasestimated atover75per- In Uganda’s BwindiImpenetrable NationalPark, leakage, mayfurther alienatelocalcommunities. nues fromlocaleconomies,knownasrevenue conservation, whilethelossoftourismreve- human-wildlife conflictareunlikely tosupport ea tourism,communitiesbearingthecostsof In theabsenceofbenefitsfromprotected-ar- costs ofhuman-wildlifeconflict(seeBox 2). tenure orgovernance, displacement, andthe diversity conservation,suchaschangesinland Local communitiesmaybearothercostsofbio- lead toalossofsupportforconservation. from protectedareas;intheshorttermthismay be preventedfromharvestingtheseresources sources forfood,fuel,andlivelihoods,may poor, ruralcommunitiesdependuponnaturalre- areas andpovertyis,however, complex.Many (Figure 5). Therelationshipbetweenprotected latitudes alsohavehighlevelsofpoverty et al.2018;Raven etal.2020).Areasinthese world’s biodiversity, asseeninFigure4(Barlow The tropicsarehometoalargeshareofthe CommunityBenefits 1.4.2 fees; andintangible benefits includecapacitybuilding,skills training,andculturalbenefits(Spenceley, Snyman, and Rylance 2019) . Benefitsharingmechanisms includetangiblebenefitssuch asjobs,directincome, andrevenuesharingfrom park entrance of benefit-sharingmechanisms Many governmentsrecognizetheimportance (Rylance andSpenceley2017). of tourismrevenuesinthelocaleconomy (Oldekop etal.2016). benefits andreducenegative livelihoodimpacts equalities, empowerlocalpeople, offercultural pursue co-management,reduceeconomicin- ic gainsaremorelikely whenprotectedareas 2019), andthatconservationsocioeconom- and conservationgoals(SnymanBricker ent benefit-sharingmayadvancedevelopment Research indicatesthatequitableandtranspar- by individualhouseholds(Munanuraetal.2016). areas accruecollectively, whilecostsareborne to notethatbenefitsoflivingaroundprotected disbursement andrecipients.Itisalsoimportant by elites,or(iii)lackofagreementonmeans costs ofconservation,arelow, orarecaptured mechanisms inwhichbenefitsdonotoff-set sive bureaucraticprocesses,(ii)poorlydesigned for reasonsincluding,butnotlimitedto(i)exces- benefits (Spenceley, Snyman,andRylance2019) even establishedmechanismsmayfailtodeliver (Spenceley, Snyman,andRylance2019),but to garnerlocalsupportforprotectedareas 4 (seeBox 3) from Tourism inProtected Efforts toShareBenefits Conflict Coststo Local Human-Wildlife Areas inAfrica Communities box 2 box 3

Service department (Weru 2007).In Tanzania, community projectsthroughtheir Community a percentageofparkfeesisinvested in In parksrunbytheKenya WildlifeService, Reserve, andSamburuNationalReserve. Mara NationalReserve, Lake BogoriaNational living nexttoprotectedareasincluding Maasai under theirjurisdictionstolocalcommunities proximately 19percentoftourism revenues In Kenya, localgovernments distributeap- Ashley 2009). distributed asdirectcashtransfers(Mitchelland typically investedinlocalprojectsratherthan with neighboringcommunities.Thesefundsare centage ofparkandprotectedareaentryfees have institutedmechanismstoshareaper- efits, governmentsinseveral African countries To work towardsapro-poordistributionofben- that theaveragefinanciallossforfarmersaround a surveyaroundKibaleNationalPark estimated (Acha, Temesgen, andBauer2018).InUganda, percent oflivestocklostoverathreeyearperiod caused bywildlifebetween2007–2011,with30 holds estimatedeconomiclossesofUS$75,234 National Park inEthiopia,astudyof145house- Macdonald 2006).AroundChebera-Churchura income duetolivestockpredation(Wang and equal to17percentofthetotalpercapitacash Park reportedayearlyaveragefinancialloss near theJigmeSingyeWangchuck National In or lossoflife. livestock depredation,damagetopropertyand/ limited to, lossoflivelihoodsfromcropraiding, human-wildlife conflictinclude, butarenot are nearprotectedareas.Theimpactsof agricultural andproductionlandscapeswhich Human-wildlife conflictstypicallyoccurin , a survey of 274 households living Bhutan, asurveyof274householdsliving PR OMOTING SU ST AINABLE PR OTECTED AREATO URISM TO BENEFITL communities. area authorities/tourism businessesandlocal ples ofrevenuesharingbetween protected (2019) describemanymoreAfrican exam- 2020). Spenceley, Snyman,andRylance meat, ordevelopmentprojects(IUCN ESARO vancies intheformofcashincomes, game percent ofrevenuesfromcommunity conser- Organizations (NACSO) receiveupto40 Based NaturalResource ManagementSupport of theNamibiaAssociationCommunity (Verdugo 2007),while inNamibia,members percent ofparkrevenuesthroughlocaldistricts National Parks, a2005schemedistributed 5 and trainingprograms(Mtui2007).InRwanda’s schools, clinics,bridges,waterinfrastructure, ties throughdevelopmentprojectssuchas tourism andhuntingbenefitlocalcommuni- revenue sharesof7.5–25 percentoffeesfrom Macdonald, andMacdonald2011). of wealthwhichenhanceresilience(Dickman, pacts becauselivestockandproduceareforms only partiallydescribesocialandculturalim- (Woodroffe etal.2005);and(iii)economiccosts (ii) individual/householdlossesmaybesevere (Thirgood, Woodroffe, and Rabinowitz 2005); are unevenlydistributedwithincommunities 2009). Thesestudiesrevealthat(i)directcosts economic impacts(InskipandZimmermann of studiesonthistopichavequantifiedits conflict arenotavailable, andonly10percent Global estimatesofthecostshuman-wildlife area (Mackenzie andAhabyona2012). maize waslosttoanimalsfromtheprotected rienced cropraidsinwhich45percentoftheir Approximately 73percentofrespondentsexpe- of medianhouseholdcapitalassetwealth). the parkoversixmonthswasUS$74(1.5percent OCAL ECONOMIES 25

Introduction Introduction 26 BANKIG ONPR objectives ofthereport objectives » » »

To assesstheeffectsofprotected areatourismonlocaleconomies how thesebenefitscanbeimproved To estimatethebenefitsoftourism forlocalcommunitiesandtoexplore To assesstheimpactofCOVID-19 andpotentialforgreenrecovery OTECTED AREAS fits suchasjobstocommunitieslivingnear important levertodelivereconomicbene- Tourism inprotectedareasisarguablythemost often lackingindevelopingcountries. development goals.However, suchevidenceis area systems,andadvancesconservation investment innationalparksandotherprotected 2004). Suchevidencevindicatesgovernment estry, andfisheriescombined(ScholesBiggs generates revenuescomparabletofarming,for- southern Africa, nature-basedtourismreportedly Canada Agency2019).Incountriesacross investment ofapproximately US$1billion(Parks revenues ofalmostUS$0.4 billionforapublic ated returnstoGDPofUS$3.1 billion,andtax Koontz 2020).Similarly, Parks Canadagener- gateway communities(CullinaneThomasand to US$20billionGDPviavisitorspendingin its nationalparksystemwhichcontributesup for instance, investsUS$3billionannuallyin found wide-reachingbenefits.TheUnited States, investments aretracked, governmentshave In countrieswherereturnsonprotectedarea able developmentagendas. that protectedareatourismcanadvancesustain- protected areashelpseconomicgrowth,and demonstrate togovernmentsthatinvestingin conservation. Thus,itiscrucialtobeable and thatfundingprotectedareasfundsonly that protectedareas“donotpayforthemselves” not demonstrated,thisreinforcestheperception economies. Ifreturnsonpublicinvestmentare provided bysuchareastolocalandnational are unabletoquantifytheeconomicreturns be reluctanttoinvestinprotectedareasifthey and undersuchconditions,governmentsmay by limitedresourcesandcompetingdemands, Government spendingisgenerallydetermined rationale1.5 forthestudy Box 4),which addressesthistopic. port: ‘MobilizingPrivateFinance forNature’ (see scope ofthisstudy, wedrawattentiontothere- for biodiversityconservation.While beyondthe be key inaddressingsignificant resource gaps to managethem.Theroleofprivate financewill where possible, and offersrecommendations and thisstudydrawsattentiontotheseimpacts and pollution(NewsomeHughes2018), adverse impactssuchasdegradationofhabitats of protectedareatourismmayalsogenerate of infrastructure, or accessibility. Thegrowth some destinationsoutofconcernforsafety, lack all protectedareascanattracttourists,whoavoid cea forchallengesfacedbyprotectedareas.Not It isimportanttonotethattourismnotapana- improved andequitablydistributed. local economies,andhowthesebenefitscanbe ties, therippleeffectsthesebenefitsproducein to understandhowtourismhelpslocalcommuni- work. Thesecondmainobjectiveofthisstudyis climate co-benefits,isbeyondthescopeofthis biodiversity conservation,habitatsupport,and economies, includingecosystemservices, the otherbenefitsofprotectedareastolocal and assetsneededfordevelopment.Describing roads andotherformsofpublicinfrastructure in protectedareas,muchlike investmentsin ens theeconomiccaseforpublicinvestment 2020) (seeFigure 7).Suchevidencestrength- generated byprotectedareas(IUCNESARO for approximately 80percentoftheincome found thatnature-basedtourismaccounted Africa, Namibia,Eswatini,UgandaandEthiopia) and southernAfrica (Kenya, Tanzania, South 40 millionhectares,insevencountrieseastern analysis ofover240protectedareas,covering and sustained21.8millionjobs(WTTC 2019a).An US$120.1 billioninGDPtotheglobaleconomy In 2018,forexample, wildlifetourismcontributed designation oftheprotectedarea(seeFigure6). protected areasvarydependingupontheIUCN investment inconservation.Tourism activitiesin economies inordertoadvancethecasefor this reportistodescribethesebenefitslocal protected areas,andthus,amajorobjectiveof Source: World Bank2020c figure 6 Tanzania, and Uganda Note: Countriesincluded inthefigureareEthiopia,Eswatini, Kenya, Namibia, South Africa, Source: Adaptedfrom IUCNESARO 2020 figure 7 Protected AreasinEasternandSouthernAfrica Protected Area VI) ManagedResource Seascape V) ProtectedLandscape/ Management Area IV) Habitat/Species III) NaturalMonument II) NationalPark Ib) WildernessArea Ia) Strict NatureReserve Category* IUCN ProtectedArea revenue Tourism 81% IUCN ProtectedAreaCategories Other Tourism GeneratesApproximately 80%ofAllRevenues from 15% Revenue Hunting 2% values) (community, recreation, and ecological Sustainable useofnaturalecosystems values) (community, ecological, and recreation Landscape/ seascapeconservation and recreationvalues) intervention (ecological,community, Conservation throughmanagement community values) features (ecological,recreation,and Conservation ofspecificnatural community values) (ecological, recreation,and large-scale ecologicalprocesses Protection ofanecosystemandits ecological values) modified areas(wildernessand and conditionofunmodifiedorslightly Protection ofthenaturalcharacter (ecological andscientificvalues) Biodiversity orgeoheritageprotection Primary goalandprotectedvalue(s) Shop/ Merchandisesales 1% PR OMOTING SU ST photography Filming and 0% other PES biodiversity o sets, Carbon credits, 0% of naturalproducts Harvesting andsales 1% AINABLE PR • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Approach totourismandvisitoruse Commercial tourismcommon facilities andservices A rangeofrecreationopportunitiesisprovidedwithassociated objectives Recreation visitationandcommercialtourismcanbekey Commercial tourismcommon facilities andservices A rangeofrecreationopportunitiesisprovidedwithassociated Tourism isusuallyamanagementobjective Commercial tourismcommonforwildlifeviewing facilities andservices A rangeofrecreationopportunitiesisprovidedwithassociated management objectives Recreation visitationandcommercialtourismareusually feature protectionandpublicunderstanding Recreation opportunitiesaretypicallyprovidedtofacilitate Visitor useandexperienceisoftenamanagementobjective within protectedareas) marked differencesintheirattitudestotourismaccommodation zoning, facilitydevelopment,andvisitorservices(countrieshave A rangeofrecreationopportunitiestypicallyprovidedthrough Visitor useandexperienceisoftenamanagementobjective use permits) Tourism activitylimitedandhighlyregulated(e.g., throughspecial activity, etc. Restricted publicaccessintermsofamountuse, groupsize, objective Low-density, self-reliantvisitoruseisoftenamanagement science orvolunteerserviceprograms Public accessonlypossiblethroughorganizedscientific,citizen OTECTED AREATO URISM TO BENEFITL OCAL ECONOMIES 27

Introduction Introduction 28 Opportunities toMobilizePrivateFinanceforNature box 4. box 4. BANKIG ONPR

OTECTED AREAS financial losses which jeopardize protected area financial losseswhichjeopardizeprotectedarea fund basicconservationactivitiescanleadto demonstrated, over-dependenceontourismto et al.2020).Asthepandemichastragically stability oftheconservationsector(Peter Lindsey protected areamanagementandthefinancial and thus,itsdeclinewilljeopardizeconservation, financing (Spenceley, Snyman, andEagles2017), market-based contributortoprotectedarea of 4.4percent.Thetourismsectoristhelargest against aprojectedglobalaveragecontraction is projectedtoshrinkby12percent(IMF2020) economies inAfrica andtheCaribbeannations worldwide. TherealGDPfortourism-dependent conversation efforts,andhasimpactedtourism fallout oftheCOVID-19 pandemicis jeopardizing This studycomesatatimewhentheeconomic donors whowishtosupportprotectedareas. ism operators,civilsocietyorganizations,and Environment; toconservationpractitioners,tour- Finance, EconomicPlanning,Tourism, andthe countries, especiallyfromtheMinistriesof from policymakers inlowandmiddle-income The audienceforthisreportiswideranging, pathway forgreenrecovery. ic ontourisminselectedsitesandproposea to assesstheimpactofCOVID-19 pandem- an additionalobjectivewasaddedtothisreport: burdened withthelossofthesebenefits.Thus, poor, anddependonbenefitsfromtourism,are protected areas,manyofwhomareextremely conservation. Additionally, communitiesaround systems anddecades-longeffortstopromote Source: World Bank Group2020a funding shortfalls. Mexico) canbroadentheinvestorbaseandreduce metric coralreefinsurancepolicyinQuintanaRoo, impact bondsandinsurance(suchasthepara- financing mechanisms,includingenvironmental and tomanagethemmoreeffectively. Innovative new sourcesofrevenueforconservationprojects also workingwithpublicsectormanagerstoattract local communities.Privatesectorstakeholders are and sustainableagriculture, oftenworkingwith in thevoluntarycarbonmarket, tourismprojects, revenue streamssuchasthesaleofcarboncredits capital toconservationviadiversecommercial nature-based activities,orincreasetheflowof which blendconservationeffortswithcommercial conservation initiatives.ExamplesincludePPPs returns, andthesmallscaleheterogeneityof – namely, lackofsteadycashflows,below-market emerging toaddressthechallengesinvestorsface ty financing,andnotestheapproachesthatare interest in—andcapitalavailablefor—biodiversi- The reporthighlightsthegrowingprivatesector and economicrisksassociatedwithitsloss. understand thevalueofnatureandfinancial environment, toprovidedata,andhelpinvestors support anenablingandincentivizedregulatory report highlightstheroleofpublicsectorto is insufficientinthefaceofthischallenge, the ecosystem services.Whilepublicsectorfinancing on economiesoftherapidlossbiodiversityand private financetoaddressthesystemicimpacts Finance forNature A 2020World Bankreport,‘MobilizingPrivate ’, flagstheneedtoattract PR OMOTING SU ST AINABLE PR OTECTED AREATO URISM TO BENEFITL OCAL ECONOMIES 29

Introduction Assessing the Economic Impacts 30 Economic Impacts Economic the Assessing BANKIG ONPR 2 OTECTED AREAS MARINE PROTECTED AREAS table 1 similar studiesglobally. build localcapacity, andformalizemethodsfor the intentwastopilotarobustmethodology, logistical andtimeconstraints.At thesametime, on oneortwoprotectedareasduetofinancial, Furthermore, ineachcountry, thestudyfocused selecting thesitesareprovided(seeBox 5). consultation withgovernments.Thecriteriafor ties, andprotectedareasiteswereselectedin helped toalignthisstudywithexistingpriori- engagements onprotectedareasandtourism environments andcultures.OngoingWorld Bank These fourcountriescoveramixofeconomies, which isalsoavailableasastandalonereport. ings ofthefourcountrycasestudies,each Table 1).Thisglobalreportsynthesizesthefind- protected areas(MPAs) –inFijiandBrazil(see Zambia andNepal–twofocusedonmarine focused onterrestrialprotectedareas–in the previoussection.Two ofthesecasestudies pursue theobjectivesofreportasgivenin Four countrycasestudieswereundertaken to Protected AreaStudy Sites PR OMOTING SU Islands archipelago) Malolo (Mamanuca Tavarua, Navini,and FIJI Park, IUCNCategoryII Abrolhos MarineNational BRAZIL ST AINABLE PR OTECTED AREATO URISM TO BENEFITL TERRESTRIAL PROTECTED AREAS iv. iii. ii. i. CriteriaforSiteSelection Box 5. Manageable logisticsforsitevisits for thesite Government buy-inand/orrecommendation in theprocessofregistration Site isaformallydesignatedprotectedareaor purposes Tourism numbersaresufficientforsampling Park, IUCNCategoryII South LuangwaNational Park, IUCNCategoryII Lower ZambeziNational ZAMBIA IUCN CategoryII Chitwan NationalPark, NEPAL OCAL ECONOMIES 31

Assessing the Economic Impacts Assessing the Economic Impacts 32 Source: Revised fromMitchellandAshley2009 Table 2. BANKIG ONPR tourist destinations Measure impactsoftourismonpoorpeopleorlocaleconomiesat Describe thesizeoftourismsector tourism ontheregional/national(macro)economy Assess theeconomiceffects(direct,indirect,static&dynamic)of Primary ObjectiveofAnalysis Summary ofthePrimaryObjectiveAnalysisandCorrespondingResearch Methods OTECTED AREAS 2.1 methodology mate theeconomiceffectsoftourismatlocal A varietyofmethodshavebeenusedtoesti- services ofotherlocalbusinesses. further stimulateeconomicactivitybyusingthe occur whentourismbusinessesandemployees which createlocalemployment;indirecteffects fees, hotels,transport,leisureandrecreation, are directintheformofvisitorspendingonpark economic growth.Contributionstotheeconomy tourism’s directandindirectcontributionsto in protectedareas,itisnecessarytoassess To estimatetheeconomicimpactoftourism of Tourism inProtected Areas 2.1.1 EstimatingtheEconomic Impact Analyses, EcosystemServiceApproach Analysis, Local EconomicMappingandPro-poorValue Chain Applied GeneralEquilibrium,LivelihoodsAnalysis,Enterprise Tourism SatelliteAccounts Models General Equilibriummodels,Input-OutputModels,SAM multiplier Regression Analysis,SocialAccountingMatrices,Computable Research Methods with theirstrengthsandlimitations. studies thatusedmethodslistedabove, along lighted inTable 3,whichpresentstheresultsof Differences betweenapproachesarehigh- and socialcontextsinwhichtourismoccurs. must tailorapproachestotheenvironmental the impactsoftourism,andresearchinthisfield There isnosingle, standardmethodtostudy value chainanalysis(seeTable 2). tourism satelliteaccountingmodelling,and els, computablegeneralequilibriummodelling, multiplier models,socialaccountingmatrixmod- approaches areinput-outputmodels,Keynesian and nationallevels.Someofthemorecommon 5 Table 3. – (TEMPA) Protected Areas Model for Tourism Economic Equilibrium Model Survey +General Expenditure Tourism (SAM) Accounting Matrix Survey +Social Expenditure Tourism Table + Input-Output Expenditure Survey Tourism Method analyses arebuiltis the input-output(I-O) model. to calculatemultipliers forregionsofinterestandensures that theanalysisrepresents complete impact.Thefoundationuponwhich IMPLANeconomicimpact Approach usesIMPLAN multiplierstoscaleupestimatesfrom individualprotected areastonational levels.IMPLANleveragesgranular dataacrossindustries At aGlance:Key Studies onLocal orNationalEconomicImpacts based tool. data withaspreadsheet- to presenttourismspending managers andstakeholders was developedforproject protected areas,TEMPA impacts ofGEF-funded assess thesocio-economic As partofalargereffortto Hardner, andStewart 2009) income effects.(Taylor, consider directandindirect general-equilibrium models SAM andsmall-economy and householdsurveys. from tourist,business approach usingdata Micro economy-wide Thurlow 2013). (Chikuba, Syacumpi, and equal tototalexpenditures and ensuringrevenuesare activities andcommodities, distinguishing between country orotherentity, the realeconomyofa that usuallyrepresents A SAM isadataframework at nationallevel. impact oftouristspending to estimateeconomic between economicsectors) for goodsandservices intermediate demand flows accountingforthe a matrixofinter-sectoral with IOtables(basedon These arecombined tourists atbordercrossings. domestic andinternational visitor expendituresamong Survey conductedon Description PR OMOTING SU or over-estimated. sectors, whichmaybeoutdated the input-outputtablesofother Limitation: Useofmultipliersfrom restrictions. operating underbudgetandstaff field-based stakeholders park managers,andother of aparkbynon-economists, to calculatetheeconomicimpact Strength: Thetoolcanbeused (e.g., GAMS) andtraining. Requires specializedsoftware Limitations: Dataintensive. output pricestovary. allows factorsofproductionand Strengths: Sameasaboveand and outputpricesdonotvary. Limitations: Factorofproduction firms, andotherinstitutions. disaggregated byhouseholds, linkages. Impactscanbe brings inhouseholdconsumption Strengths: Sameasaboveand do notvary. of productionandoutputprices firms, orotherinstitutions.Factor disaggregated byhouseholds, linkages. Impactsnot consider householdconsumption are considered.Doesnot and indirectproductionlinkages Limitations: Onlydirectimpacts, revenue, andimports. added, wages,employment,tax and estimatesimpactonvalue characteristics, andsatisfaction; on touristexpenditures, Strengths: Providesinformation Strength/ Limitations ST AINABLE PR OTECTED AREATO URISM TO BENEFITL come fromdifferentsources. expenditures, andmultipliers,allofwhich namely, thenumberofvisitors,their The TEMPA toolrequiresthreekey inputs, (Damania etal.2019). generate benefits3to20timeshigher conservation andwildlifetourismcould Kenya -Everydollarinvestedin 2009). the island(Taylor, Hardner, andStewart most domestictouristsspendmoneyon increase intotalislandincome. because tourist expenditureresultsinaUS$429 US$218; US$1000increaseindomestic expenditure raisesislandincomeby US$1000 increaseinforeigntourist islands andUS$113.9millioninEcuador; million (2005US$)ontheGalapagos Ecuador –Tourism generatedUS$62.9 (Chidakel, Child,andMuyengwa2021). economy, andsupported~3,000 jobs in wagesandsalariestothecountry’s in value-added(GDP)andUS$19million contributed ~US$38million(2015US$) Zambia -Tourism inSouthLuangwa (Cullinane ThomasandKoontz 2020). $41.7 billioninnationaleconomicoutput income, $24.3billioninvalueadded,and total of340,500 jobs,$14.1 billioninlabor effects, NPSvisitorspendingsupporteda economy. Combinedwithsecondary billion ineconomicoutputthenational $10.7 billioninvalueadded,and$17.2 $6.3 billion(2019US$)inlaborincome, spending directlysupported204,800jobs, of theUSNPS: USA (World Bank2019b). 2019 (2019US$),or6.3%oftotalexports exports amountedtoUS$431millionin Uganda -Theanalysisshowsthattourist created (World Bank2007). 176,000 tourists.19,000 formaljobswere US$194 millionor3.1% of2005GDPforthe in Zambia2005,addinguptoatotalof tourist spentUS$1,100 (2005US$)pertrip Zambia -Theaverageprotectedarea Case studyexample –VisitorSpendingEffectModel 5 In2019, NPSvisitor OCAL ECONOMIES 33

Assessing the Economic Impacts Assessing the Economic Impacts 34 for securityorparkmanagementjobs, orwhencommunitiesreceive my. Similar outcomesarerealizedwhenparkauthoritieshirelocals country, orpotentiallyinothercountriesandnotforthelocalecono the localeconomywillcreatepositive linkagesforotherpartsofthe linkage effectsonthelocaleconomy. Inputspurchased fromoutside farms andbusinesses,thisincreaseindemandwillhavepositive hire workers locally, andpurchasegoodsservices fromlocal napkins, andworkers. To theextentthatlodgesand touroperators from ingredients(meat,fish,fruits,vegetables,etc.)tobeverages, ing andrestaurantmeals,creatinggreaterdemandforeverything linkages. Forexample, moretouristsincreasethedemandforlodg - first roundofindirecteffectsinthelocaleconomythroughproduction activities’ demandforintermediateinputswill change, producinga As tourismactivitiesexpandandresourceextractioncontracts,these Indirect ImpactsThrough Production Linkages scribing thecontributionsoftourismtolocaleconomies. local resources,andtheseeffectsshouldbeconsideredwhende effect ontheincomesofhouseholdsthatotherwisewouldrely By regulatingtheseactivities,protectedareascanhaveanadverse example, throughrestrictionsonhunting,fishing,orwoodgathering. behavior ofpeoplebyinfluencingtheirusenaturalresources,for Beyond tourismbenefits,protectedareasaffecttheeconomic economic impacts. and thuscaptureonlyafractionofprotectedareatourism’s local tional impactanalysisbasedontouristspendingwouldstophere, which touristscontributedirectlytothelocaleconomy from localbusinessesandhouseholdsistheonlychannelthrough or othertourismfacilities.Purchasinggoodsandservicesdirectly snorkeling andmanyotherservicesprovidedeitherthroughlodges es, andspendmoneyongamedrives,walkingsafaris,scuba-diving, Protected areasattracttouristswhopayparkentryfees,stayatlodg Direct Impacts Figure 8). consumption linkages(shownbyarrowscin (shown byarrowsbinFigure8andincome classified intotwotypes:productionlinkages channels. Indirectchannelscan,inturn,bebroadly direct (shownbyarrowsainFigure8)andindirect tected areascanimpactlocaleconomiesthrough businesses, andthegovernment.Tourism inpro- including households,tourismandnon-tourism the localeconomy(seeBox 6fordefinition), Figure 8describestheeconomicpathwayswithin avenues foreconomicimpacts areas ofprotected 2.2. BANKIG ONPR OTECTED AREAS . Aconven- the study. towns nearesttoeachparkwereincludedaspartofthelocaleconomyfor visited anearbymarket towntopurchasegoodsandservices,market sites. Moreover, becausevillagehouseholdsandbusinessesroutinely government. Section3.1 definesthelocaleconomyforeachofproject fluence asdeterminedbycommunitymembers,tourismoperatorsandthe communities whichliewithintheprotectedarea’s sphereofeconomicin- thus, forthepurposeofthisstudy, thelocaleconomyisdefinedby should incentivizesurroundingcommunitiestosupportconservation;and and benefits. To beeffective, managementplansforprotectedareas goals ofthestudy, andwiderareaswillcapturemoreeconomicactivities or evencountry. Thedefinitionof“localeconomy”willdepend on the A localeconomycouldbeavillage, acollectionofvillages,town,region, Box 6. - - - What isaLocal Economy? i.e., thedirectimpactsandbothchannelsofindirectimpacts. The generalequilibrium(GE)model willcapturealloftheseeffects of freshinfusioncashintotheeconomy throughtouristspending. multiplier, definedasthechangeinlocalhouseholdincomesperunit effect ofagrowingtourismmarket eventuallyconvergesto an income impacts becomesmallerandsmaller, andthetotal(directindirect) incomes, anddemandinthelocaleconomy. Successiveroundsof new roundsofdemand,income, andexpenditurefollow, elevating As localactivitiesexpandtomeetgrowinghouseholddemands, be negative. natural resourcestheindirectincomeeffectsofprotectedareasmay economy. However, whereconservationeffortspreventharvestingof into localhouseholdswhointurnfeedthisincomethe owned touristfacilitiesandthebusinesseswhichsupplythemflow indirect effectsbystimulatinglocalspending.Earningsfromlocally protected areasgenerateswagesandprofitswhichleadtopositive In addition,productioninlocaleconomiessupportedbytourism Consumption Linkages Indirect ImpactsThrough Incomeand these potentialinflationaryeffectsintoaccount. from protectedareas.Theestimationofindirectimpactsmusttake increase prices,reducingthereal,orinflation-adjustedincomegains new demand.Ifnot,growthindemandaroundprotectedareasmay the localsupplyofgoodsandservicescanexpandtomeet A criticalissuewhenanalyzingtheseproductionlinkagesiswhether only directandindirectimpactsthroughproductionlinkages. ic stimuli.An input-output(IO) analysiswould stophereandcapture hand, restrictionsonnaturalresourceusemayreducelocaleconom create positiveindirectimpactsonthelocaleconomy. Ontheother activities, andthosepromotedbycommunityprogramsexpand,they nomic activity. Whentouristservices,protectedareamanagement a shareofprotectedarea-relatedincomewhichstimulateslocaleco - - Source: AdaptedfromTaylor andFilipski 2014. figure 8 b community projects Revenue sharing, impact householdlivelihoods fish). Human-wildlifeconflictincidences common resources(forest,animals, also promoterecoveryofoverexploited (restriction onhuntingandfishing)but PA rulesa ectresourceexttraction a Economic ImpactPathways forProtected Areas households spend HOUSEHOLDS their incometo Local incomes source goods Businesses pay taxes andfees increase; b b,c Purchase goods for PA activities employs households Park hiresguardsor and services b a PR OMOTING SU Purchase food,

Protected Areas goods and

T T

PARK AUTHORITY, O services O AND BUSINESSES Terrestrial /Marine

U

U GOVERNMENT LOCAL FARMS

R R

I

Indirect impactthrough I

S S ST

T T AINABLE PR production linkages a a

S

V Entrance Fee Pay aPark

I S Direct Impact in tourismactivities

workers employed I T IN

Wages paidto G OTECTED AREATO URISM TO BENEFITL Spend moneyon lodging, tourist c activities a b a and services Source goods and taxes and consumptivefees Pay non-consumptive LODGES AND BUSINESSES TOURISM, c. Incomeandconsumptionlinkages b. a. Directimpacts Legend of Pathways ofInfluence

Production linkages Trade withoutside/ non-local markets Environmental OCAL ECONOMIES Impact 35

Assessing the Economic Impacts Assessing the Economic Impacts 36 BANKIG ONPR econometric methods thattrytoemulateexperiments. Because baselinedatapre-dating protectedareasarerare, neitherare areas, RCTs arenotafeasiblewaytoquantifytheireconomicimpacts. “quasi-natural” experiments).Given thenon-randomlocationofprotected approaches (e.g., randomizedcontroltrials(RCTs) oreconometricIV spillover effectsofpublicinterventions usingconventionalexperimental Under thebestofcircumstances, it isdifficultandcostlytoestimate Box 7. Estimating EconomicImpactsofProtectedAreas OTECTED AREAS 2.3. lewiemodel 2.3. be consumedlocallyorsold.Thehousehold (corn, preparedmeals,aservice)whichmay of purchasedinputs)toproduceanoutput intermediate inputs(fertilizer, seed,andavariety (e.g., hiredlabor, familylabor, land,capital)and scribe howbusinessescombinevariousfactors and Jorgenson2012).Themodelsoffirmsde- long periodofGEmodelingineconomics(Dixon model ofthelocaleconomy, anddrawfroma These micro-modelsare“nested”withinaGE that arebothproducersandconsumersoffood. agricultural householdswithinlocaleconomies vey datatomodelfirms,households,and Squire, andStrauss, 1986),andusesmicro-sur- agricultural householdmodelling(e.g., Singh, LEWIE buildsuponeconometricmethodsof have alocalfocus. goal in-and-ofitself, andanadditionalreasonto threats. Local economicdevelopment isalsoa ment, poaching,illegalfishing,andother protected areasbydiscouragingencroach- and whosecooperationiscriticaltomaintain natural resources,sufferhuman-wildlifeconflict, households, whichareoftenunabletoharvest the potentialofprotectedareastobenefitlocal The focusonthelocaleconomyilluminates supplied inputs. local workers andpurchasingsomelocally owned bylocalsbuttypicallyemployingsome include locally-ownedbusinessesandthosenot model ofthelocaleconomyinwhichbusinesses actors (businessesandhouseholds)withinaGE structural approachthatintegratesmodelsof on localeconomies(seeBox 7);italsousesa “spillover”) effectsoftourisminprotectedareas methods toestimatethedirectandindirect(or (Taylor andFilipski2014).LEWIEusessimulation was usedacrossthefourcountrycasestudies economy-wide impactevaluation—LEWIE” For thisglobalstudy, aGEmethod called“local therefore requiresanappliedGEapproach. tourism inprotectedareasonlocaleconomies Quantifying thedirectandindirectimpactsof on publicinvestment. also providesanestimateofthe rateofreturn tourism impactandpublicinvestment inthepark the bestapproximation. Acomparison between economies wouldbe, butthismodelprovides know whatthecounterfactual of theselocal by thenumberoftourists.Thereisnowayto estimated bymultiplyingtheper-touristestimate of touristspending.Secondly, thetotalimpactis of theincomemultiplieranadditionaldollar economy issimulatedandprovidesanestimate the impactofanadditionaltouristonlocal local economyisestimatedintwosteps.First, The impactofprotectedareatourismona impacts tomarket-closure assumptions. was usedtotesttherobustnessofsimulated with theMonteCarlomethoddescribedabove, cal priceeffects.Sensitivityanalysis,combined certainty), andaccountfornonlinearitieslo- (i.e., market closure, whichisnotknownwith about whereandhowpricesaredetermined require judgements,basedonthesurveydata, for eachcountrycasestudy;thesesimulations the simulationsforeachparkwereconducted Filipski 2014).Forthisstudy, 500iterationsof ulated impactresultsasshownby(Taylor and construct confidenceintervalsaroundthesim- Carlo methodsareusedtotestsignificanceand parameters areeconometricestimates,Monte impacts onalocaleconomy. Becauseits The LEWIEmodelcanbeusedtoquantify ware usedtoprogramtheLEWIEmodel. (Generalized AlgebraicModelingSystem) soft- parameter estimateinterfacewiththeGAMS errors fortheseestimates.Theinitialvaluesand hold groupandsector, togetherwithstandard estimates ofmodelparametersforeachhouse- vices). Thedataarealsousedforeconometric household expendituresongoodsandser- in themodel(productioninputsandoutputs, tion. Theyprovideinitialvaluesforallvariables model andplaytwomainrolesinitsconstruc- Micro surveydataarerequiredasinputstothe inputs intooutputs. tions foreachactivityaretherecipesthatturn as wellinthelabormarket. Productionfunc- (e.g., fishing),retail,andotherbusinessactivities, and livestockproduction,resourceharvesting households participateinactivitiessuchascrop consumption/expenditure. Inatypicalmodel, household group’s production,income, and and household-farmmodelsdescribeeach Source: World Bank Figure 9: Survey DataCharacteristicsandElements analysis ofgovernmentspendingonprotected tourism andissimilartoapartialcost-benefit areas deliversdevelopmentoutcomesvia for theargumentthatinvestinginprotected on thepark.Thisexercise producesevidence obtain thelocalincomeimpactperdollarspent government spendingontheprotectedareato has beenestimated,itcanbecomparedto impact ofnature-basedtourismonlocalGDP fallout oftheCOVID-19 pandemic.Once the shocks totheeconomy–suchaseconomic economic impactsofgovernmentpoliciesand The modelcanalsobeusedtounderstandthe 6 (ODK) platformforAndroid. entered ontabletsusingtheOpenDataKit household andlocalbusinesssurveydatawere economy) wasgathered(seeFigure9).The (i.e., whethertheyareinside oroutsidethelocal expenditure, andthelocationsoftransactions holds. Informationonproduction,income, and resorts, localbusinesses,andhouse- ered throughsurveysoftourists,lodgesand To buildtheLEWIEmodel,dataweregath- data collection 2.4. Turistica –CostadasBaleias/BA,Brazil 2019andTheMinistryofTourism Internationaltouristdemand Studies 2012–2018). collected fromsecondary sourceswithlargerandmorerepresentative samples(SEBRAE’s Pesquisa dePerfil daDemanda to providetourismexpenditures.Expenditure shareswereobtainedfromthissample, whilepertouristexpenditureswere importance) offoreigntouristsinthesample. Reduced tourisminBrazil’s studyarearesulted insurveyswhichwereinadequate constructed usingknownratiosofinternational todomestictouristsfromthepreviousyear(2019)increaseweight (or Nepal’s studyareahaduncharacteristicallylowinternationaltouristnumbers,andso amorerepresentativesamplewas PR OMOTING SU ST AINABLE PR OTECTED AREATO URISM TO BENEFITL Tourist survey and developmentbenefitsitcreates. on theparkwillaffecttourismandeconomic to whatextentchangesingovernmentspending concerning attribution,inparticular, whetherand cost-benefit analysesfacethesamequestions Both themethodusedhere, andconventional these indirectimpacts(Taylor andFilipski2014). ventional cost-benefitanalysesdonotconsider tourism, includingindirecteffects,whereascon- simulations capturethetotalbenefitscreatedby conventional cost-benefitanalysisisthatLEWIE areas. Thedifferencebetweenthemodeland required additionalworktogeneratearepre- and BrazilwereimpactedbyCOVID-19, and of NepalandBrazil).Tourist surveysinNepal at hotelsinwhichtouristsstayed(inthecase available topassengersontheirflights),or Proflight Zambiamadethequestionnaire Visitor Survey),byatourismoperator(inZambia, country (asinthecaseofFiji’s International through questionnairesadministeredbythe

information wascollected with businesses. tered tohouseholds and thiswasadminis- about businesses, to gatherinformation included amodule The householdsurvey sion ofthecommunity. geographical disper- based onthesizeand hold samplingstrategy an every-n domly selectedusing households wereran- village, roughly45–55 a masterlist.Ineach domly selectedfrom economy wereran- that definedthelocal munities inthearea business survey, the Householdand sentative sample. OCAL ECONOMIES th house-

6 com- For 37

Assessing the Economic Impacts Assessing the Economic Impacts 38 BANKIG ONPR with questionnairesprogrammedontotabletsusingtheODK on howtoconductdetailedhouseholdandbusinesssurveys surveys. ThisincludedacourseontheLEWIEmethodologyand merators weretrainedtocarryoutthebusinessandhousehold In eachofthefourcountrycasestudies,ateamlocalenu Box 8. School ofMarineStudies, UniversityofSouthPacific, Fiji. Collaboration withProf. Stuart Kininmonth,SeniorLecturer atthe work forthisstudy. University ofSouthPacific weretrainedtocarryoutthefield- A teamof15Fijianstudents(7men and8women)fromthe FIJI this study. and recentgraduatesweretrainedtocarryoutthefieldworkfor A teamof15Zambianuniversitystudents(8menand7women) ZAMBIA Building CapacitywhiledoingResearch OTECTED AREAS expenditure onprotectedareas,including or usingsecondarysources.Government were collectedbythesurveyteamatlodges was voluntary. Tourism businesssurveys owner-operator participationinthesurveys was adopted.Asinthehouseholdsurveys, market townsanevery-other-businessapproach typically hadonlyafewbusinesses),whilein evident invillageswereapproached(villages tions. Lacking amasterlist,allsmallbusinesses business samples,andusedthesameques- were surveyedtosupplementthehousehold Businesses invillagesandnearbymarket towns - Professor, NationalUniversityof RiodeJaneiro. Collaboration withProf. CarlosEduardoYoung, Associate the fieldworkforthisstudy. Federal UniversityofRiodeJaneiro weretrainedtocarryout A teamof16Brazilianstudents(11 menand5women)fromthe Director ofNationalTrust forNatureConservation. Kathmandu UniversityandDr. SiddharthaBajracharya,Executive Collaboration withProf. SagarRaj Sharma,Dean,SchoolofArts, carry outthefieldworkforthisstudy. Kathmandu University, andthreeNTNCstaff weretrainedto A teamof14Nepalesestudents(6menand8women)fromthe weeks aroundeachprotectedarea. course andfieldwork.Surveyswereadministeredovertwo given certificatesofcompletiontheLEWIEsurveytraining platform. Theseskillswerefield-tested,andenumerators NEPAL BRAZIL these collaborations. University ofSouthPacific. Box 8elaborates on University ofRiodeJaneiro, andinFijiwiththe with Kathmandu University, inBrazil,withthe In Nepal,theWorld Bankteamcollaborated in thesocio-economiccontextofcountry. local universitiesgroundedthecasestudies in thesurveycollection,andpartnershipswith tries, localstudentsweretrainedtoparticipate Academic collaborations-ineachofthecoun was obtainedfromgovernmentoffices. maintain andmanagetheprotectedareas wage andnon-wageexpenditureneededto

3 Findings

3.1 country context and summary statistics

The following section provides a summary of the data from each of the four countries and an overview of protected areas and tourism in each country. ZAMBIA tourism protected area 1. study sites • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • GMAs Lower Zambezi NationalPark (NP)andadjacent 2018 11,161 visits weremadetoLower ZambeziNPin NP constitute thelocaleconomyfor Lower Zambezi Chiawa GMAandthemarket townofChirundu Airstrip islocatedinsidethepark 6 lodgesatLower Zambeziinsidethepark Category II Established in1983,designatedasIUCN available withinGMAssurroundingparks human settlements.Villagesandlodgesare (photo-tourism) withinthepark,butno accommodation, food,viewingsafaris number ofprivately-runlodgesthatoffer Protected areastypicallycontainalimited community resourceboardsinGMAs mandate sharingofrevenueswith Zambia’s protectedarearegulations (WEF 2019a) 7 andwasranked 113outof140countries Zambia scored3.2outofamaximum 2019b) 7% tourismcontributiontoGDP(WTTC and infrastructure staff, accommodation,parkmanagement Few visitorsduetolackoffundingforfield conservation Human-wildlife conflictreducessupportfor degradation agricultural expansionareleadingtohabitat population growth,demandforfueland Threats: Poor regulation,open access, hunting, etc. land usessuchasagriculture, forestry, settlement isallowedinGMAs,asareother national parksandopenareas.Human designated asbufferzonesbetween that aremostlycustomarilyownedlands GMAs areacategoryofprotectedareas Areas (GMA)and1birdsanctuary 20 NationalParks, 36GameManagement country’s landarea Protected Areascover~40%ofthe » »

hygiene Weaknesses –infrastructure, healthand competitiveness Strengths –naturalresources,price 2. SouthLuangwa NationalPark andadjacentGMAs • • • • • in 2018 43,469 visitsweremadetoSouth Luangwa NP South Luangwa NP town ofChipataconstitutethe local economyfor Upper andLower Lupande GMAandthe market entry The MfuweInternationalAirportisthepointof 21 lodgesatSouthLuangwa inside thepark Category II Established in1972,designatedasIUCN data Summary

Data Collected: • 800+ household and local business surveys • 20+ lodges /tourism business surveys • 226 tourist surveys

Poverty around both the parks is high: • 56% of households surveyed in Lower Zambezi were poor • 83% of households surveyed in South Luangwa were poor

Household income: • The most common source of income for households is agriculture, followed by livestock rearing, and wage employment • 40% of poor households in Lower Zambezi and 24% in South Luangwa had some form of wage employment • Tourism-related jobs include visitor services (restaurant work, employment at hotels/lodges and tour agencies), maintenance (repairs) and craft

Local Business: • 30% of households in Lower Zambezi and 25% in South Government revenues and expenditures: Luangwa owned and operated some form of business • The Government of Zambia received ~US$1.1 million in • In Lower Zambezi retail businesses make up almost visitor fees in 2018 between the two study sites 70% of household businesses • The largest single source of revenue from protected • In South Luangwa retail and services make up over 75% areas was animal/trophy hunting fees – ~US$2.5 million of household business types • Other consumptive and non-consumptive fees added US$1.6 million to the revenue generated by the park Tourists by Origin: • Government expenditure on the two parks was US$4.2 • The largest share of tourists was from the United million (54% wages, 41% payments to community Kingdom, and Europe resource boards and 5% non-wage expenditures) • Thus, these two protected areas generated a net of US$1.1 million

Tourist expenditures: Asia 4% • Majority of the visitors came for tourist activities • On average, tourists to Lower Zambezi spent US$2,904 Oceania per person and US$2,454 per person to visit South Luangwa. Average nights spent in Lower Zambezi was 12% UK 30% 3 and in South Luangwa 5 • The largest expenditure was on tourism packages that included lodging, meals, and park entry fees • Hotels purchase ~80% of their daily inputs locally Africa 13%

US/Canada Europe 22% 19% NEPAL tourism protected area Chitwan NationalPark study site • • • • • • • • • • • • • been rescindedforenvironmentalreasons concessions insidetheparkhaverecently available inbufferzonesbuthotel/lodge Locally-owned andoperatedlodgingis communities livinginbufferzones park incometobechanneledlocal Regulations allowfor30–50%of (WEF 2019b) and wasranked 102outof140countries Nepal scored3.3outofamaximum7 protected areas Over 45%oftouristsvisitthecountry’s (WTTC 2019b) 6.7% tourismcontributiontoGDP management face agrowingchallengeofsolidwaste such asvisitorcentersandtrails, Protected areaslacksufficientinfrastructure conservation barriers tocommunityengagementfor Land-use andhuman-wildlifeconflictare management and humanresourcesforprotectedarea degradation, andinsufficientfunding encroaching onprotectedareas,land Threats: Large infrastructureprojectsare 13 BufferZones Conservation Areas,1HuntingReserve and 12 NationalParks, 1WildlifeReserve, 6 country’s landarea Protected Areascover~23%ofthe by localbufferzoneusercommittees tracts coveringapproximately 11,000 ha managed The bufferzoneincludes70communityforests Designated asIUCNCategoryII Declared aUNESCOWorld HeritageSitein1984 » »

international openness Weaknesses –infrastructure, prioritization oftourism competitiveness, safety&securityand Strengths –naturalresources,price • • • wildlife conflict Communities arecompensated forhuman- 211,888 visitorstoChitwanin2019 the localeconomy Bharatpur, KhairahaniandRatnanagar constitute Chitwan NationalPark andthreemunicipalities– data Summary

Data Collected: • 596 household and local business surveys • 8 lodges/tourism business surveys • 67 tourist group surveys

Poverty: • In Khairahani and Ratnanagar 3.8% of households surveyed were poor • In Bharatpur 10.4% of households surveyed were poor

Household income: • Most households grow crops and roughly half own livestock • 25% of non-poor households own and operate some form of business, compared with 7–8% of poor households • Roughly half of all households have at least one wage worker Tourist expenditures: • Employment types include construction, agriculture, • On average, a tourist spends US$31.6* per day in hotels, restaurants, and tour operation Chitwan NP, a third of which goes to accommodation and food at a hotel or lodge Local Business: • More than 70% of tourists participated in jeep safaris, • 25% of households owned and operated some form followed by elephant safaris and the tharu dance and/or of business. Common business types included grocery cultural programs shops, and hotels, restaurants and bars • Construction related businesses were more prevalent in Bharatpur International Tourist Visits to Chitwan NP by Fiscal Year: • Most hotels (74%) purchase inputs locally Significant Tourism Rebound Since the 2015 Earthquake

Government revenues and expenditures: 250,000 • The Government of Nepal received ~US$1.7 million in visitor fees from Chitwan National Park in 2018–2019 200,000 • Other revenues (concessions, fees) totaled 150,000 US$784,000 • The total expenditures were US$5.7 million (58% were 100,000 wage expenditures) • The total expenditures incurred by the Government of 50,000 Nepal are more than double the revenues from the park 0 –  –  –  –  – 

* COVID-19 disrupted data collection, and international tourists only represent 12 percent of the sample and were therefore under-represented. To correct for this, a more representative sample was constructed using known ratios of international to domestic tourists from the previous year (2019) to increase the weight (or importance) of foreign tourists in the sample. FIJI tourism protected area the MamanucaIslands Three islands-Tavarua, Navini,andMalolo–partof study sites * • • • • • • • • • • • • • in exchange forvoluntary commitmenttodeliverexplicit(directorindirect)economicincentives. Formal orinformalcontractualarrangement topursueoceanorcoastalconservation goalsthroughtemporaryorpermanentno-fishingzones on allthreeislands Informal marineconservationagreements*exist reefs tourists duetotheirpristinewatersandcoral These islandsareapopulardestinationfor Navini) orinpart(Malolo) (“gazetted”) MPA status,eitherfully(Tavarua, All threesitesarebeingconsideredforformal environment Authority limitsabilitytoregulatethemarine Inadequate policyandlackofaMarinePark rights designation requiressurrenderoffishing Hesitation ofcommunitygroupsas harvesting ofcorals development, over-fishingandover- Threats: Marinepollution,coastal subsequently permittedinthearea issued toatourismenterprise. Nofishingis established whenaforeshoreleaseis De-facto protectedareascanbe Managed MarineArea(FLMMA)Network through partnershipswiththeFijiLocally communities andtourismoperators,or chiefs, throughagreementsbetween Tabu areasmayalsobedesignatedby in whichfishingrightsarerestricted in customaryfishinggrounds(qoliqoli),and indigenous communitiesasprotectedareas known astabu,whichareestablishedby There isaninformalnetworkofMPAs marine protectedarea percent hasbeenofficiallydesignatedasa areas bytheendof2020. However, only1 and offshoremarineareasasprotected designate 30%ofthecountry’s inshore The GovernmentofFijisetagoalto incentives forcommunities LMMAs ortabusdonotprovideeconomic an estimatedUS$904millionvisitingthecountry In the2018–19fiscalyear, 900,000 visitorsspent largest sourceofforeignexchange 34% tourismcontributiontoGDP(WTTC 2019b), • • • • 21% visitedNadi of those, 9%visitedtheMamanucaislandsand In 2019, closeto900,000 touristsvisitedFiji,and international airport) in andaroundNadi(alsothelocationof of VitiLevu andinparticular, totheeconomy These islandsareconnectedtothemainisland economy including itsmaincity, Nadi-constitutethelocal coastal regioninNadroga-Navosaprovince, The Mamanucaislands,andmainland-western require theright-holdertobecompensated of anysurfingareabypersonanddoesnot (2010) thatgrantsunrestrictedaccessanduse by regulations,mainly, theSurfingAreaDecree Formal benefit-sharingmechanismsarelimited data Summary

Data Collection • 527 household and local business surveys • 8 lodges/tourism business surveys (Tavarua and Navini islands have a single resort and Malolo has a few resorts*) • 11,465 Tourist group surveys (IVS 2019**)

Poverty • 19% of households on the mainland (main island, Viti Levu) and 9.5% of households on islands were poor

Household • 82% of households had at least one wage worker • A large percentage of households were engaged in agriculture, though the scale of farming was small and usually at a subsistence level

Tourists by origin • Around 75% of tourists come from Australia and New Zealand

Pacific Islands Japan Local Business 2% 1% China 2% • 24 to 36 percent of households own and operate some Canada 2% Rest of Asia form of business 1% UK 3% • Approximately 23% of hotel supply purchases are from outside the local economy of Nadroga-Navosa province Europe 5% Others 1% and the Mamanucas

Tourist Expenditures US 11% • The average tourist spend was US$167 per night • 61% of mainland non-poor workers, 64% of mainland poor workers, and 85% of island workers were employed by hotels, restaurants, or tour operators Australia 47% New Zealand 25%

* Due to the small number of hotels in Nadi and the Mamanucas, all hotels nearby were contacted for the survey. ** The International Visitor Survey (IVS) is administered by the Ministry of Commerce, Trade, Tourism & Transport and is undertaken on a rolling basis. BRAZIL tourism protected area Abrolhos MarineNationalPark study sites • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • (extending fromNovaViçosain thesouthto The Abrolhosregionincluding thecoastline tourism isseasonalasaresult Whale watchingisthebiggest attractionand of incomeisfromsmall-scalefishing estimated 20,000 fisherfolkwhosemainsource The marineareasupportsthelivelihoodsofan local fisherfolkhaveexclusive fishingrights Corumbau MarineExtractiveReserve (RESEX); Surrounding themarinenationalparkis Largest whalenurseryin theSouthAtlantic Established in1983,IUCNCategoryII 2019b) was ranked 32outof140countries(WEF Brazil scored4.5outofamaximum7and municipal governments ICMS providestaxrevenuestostateand communities; however, theEcological and concessionrevenueswithlocal Brazil hasnomechanismstosharepark attributed tothemarineprotectedareas purpose oftheirvisit,whichcaninturnbe respondents cited“naturalareas” forthe their beachesandculturalofferings,12%of While mosttouristsvisitcoastalareasfor National (Federal)andState Parks In 2016,16.8milliontouristsvisited209 (WTTC 2019b) 10.3% tourismcontributiontoGDP sector livelihoods dependentonthefisheries depleting fishstocksandjeopardizinglocal and lackoffisheriesmanagementare Overfishing, unsustainablefishingpractices management Insufficient financeforprotectedarea of aquatichabitatquality development, pollution,anddeterioration natural areasforaquacultureandcoastal of naturalresources,conversion Threats: lackofregulationsfortheuse 158 marineprotectedareas of marineandcoastalareas Marine protectedareascomprise26.82% » »

international openness Weaknesses –transportinfrastructureonland, price competitiveness Strengths • • • constitutes thelocaleconomy North) oppositeAbrolhosMarineNationalPark the south-westofCaravelasandtoPradoin from JulytoJanuary(whalewatching season) The peakseasonfortourismin Abrolhosruns protected area by thepristineenvironmentof the marine capacity. Somevisitorstothecoastareattracted Park, lessthan10%ofthemaximumallotted 8,044 touristsvisitedAbrolhosMarineNational 2019, mostofwhomweredomestictourists 1.2 milliontouristsvisitedtheAbrolhosregionin – naturalresources,culturalresourcesand data Summary

Data Collected • 590 household and local business surveys • 7 lodges/tourism business surveys • 12 tourist group surveys*

Poverty • 14.2% of households were poor

Household income • Over 65% of households had at least one wage earner, while around 22–23% of households fished • 53% of the poor were employed for more than 150 days in 2019, compared with 73% of the non-poor • 29% of poor households grew crops compared to 22% of non-poor households

Local Business • The majority of household businesses were vendors, grocery shops and other retail-type businesses that operated close to year-round Tourist Expenditures • Only 3% of the businesses surveyed were directly • The average tourist spent close to US$127 per day, • related to tourist activities mostly on hotels • Tourism businesses spend 20% of their operating Government Expenditures budgets purchasing inputs from outside the local • Total government expenditure on the Abrolhos Marine economy National Park was US$455,606 (~70% of which was on wages)

* COVID-19 travel restrictions made it difficult to collect tourist data. To mitigate this, we used data from “SEBRAE/BA (Brazilian Micro and Small Business Support Service), COMTUR and Bahia’s Tourism secretary in 2019, who surveyed tourists in the Whale coast region and had a sample size of 501. Findings 48 Source: World Bankdata figure 11 Source: World Bankdata figure 10 BANKIG ONPR (total realincome, 2019) Total income contribution (US$) 2000

2500 Total income contribution (USD) 1000 1500 500 Lower Zambezi Zambia 0 1,355 Disaggregation ofEconomicImpactbyHousehold,2019 Annual ContributiontoLocal IncomePer Additional Tourist Zambezi Lower OTECTED AREAS Zambia South Luangwa Zambia 1,045 Poor Luangwa 7 3.2 keyfindingsfrom country3.2 casestudies 9 8 7 and effectsofgovernmentpolicies. ment spending,impactsofconflictsandshocks, areas onthelocaleconomy, returnson govern- here relateto:impactsoftourisminprotected four countrycasestudies.Findingssynthesized The LEWIEmodelwasappliedineachofthe

South ries fortheLEWIEmodel inFiji. Due tothesmallsample sizeforislandhouseholds,these households arenotdisaggregated intopoorandnon-poorcatego - poverty wasalteredtothoselivingunder US$5.8/person/day. exchange ratefor allcountriesexcept Brazilwhere, becauseofthesmallsamplesizeforpoorhouseholds, thedefinitionof Poverty headcountcalculatedastheproportionofhouseholds withunder$1.90/person/day (pppadjustedusingppp Income figurespresentedinthesefindings areinflation-adjusted.Barsrepresent 95%confidenceinterval. National Park Chitwan Nepal 169 Non-poor National Park Chitwan Nepal Marine Park Abrolhos Brazil 357 Marine Park Abrolhos Brazil Island Mamanuca Islands 2,400 Mamanuca Fiji Islands Fiji and islandresidents. impacts thanpoorresidentsonthemainland receive alargershareoftheseeconomic and Fiji,wheremainlandnon-poorresidents Figure 11).TheoppositeistrueinNepal,Brazil, local economythannon-poorresidents(see the economicimpactoftouristspendingon in SouthLuangwa), receivealarger shareof households (56%inLower Zambeziand83% poor residents,whoarethemajorityofsurveyed households i.e., poor be disaggregatedbycategoryofbeneficiary The economicimpactofanadditionaltouristcan mid-value domestictourism. and nationaltourists,theBraziliansitesees the siteinNepalattractslow-valueinternational Zambia drawhigh-value, internationaltourists, ed areasinthefourcountries.SitesFijiand the typeoftourismortouristswhovisitprotect- US$100 inNepal.Thesedifferencesindicate tourist wasjustoverUS$200inBrazilandunder Mamanucas inFiji.Incontrast,spendingper in Zambia,andUS$1,311Nadroga-Navosa Park, US$683inSouthLuangwa NationalPark and Fiji:US$745inLower ZambeziNational hundreds orthousandsofUSdollarsinZambia Each additionaltouristspendsinthehigh substantially higherthaninNepalandBrazil. Zambia andFiji,wherepertouristspendingis all sites,thisimpactwassignificantlyhigherin tive economicimpactonthelocaleconomyat While anadditionaltouristgeneratedaposi- local incomesforthefourcountrycasestudies. economic impactofanadditionaltouriston goods andservices).Figure10summarizesthe in turnspendthisincomeonlocally-supplied or sourcegoodsfromlocalbusinesses,who (as whenlodgespaywagestolocalhouseholds, local businessesandhouseholds)orindirectly (as whentouristsbuygoodsandservicesfrom demand forgoodsandservices,eitherdirectly activity inthelocaleconomybystimulating An additionaltouristgenerateseconomic Local Economies Effects ofProtected Area Tourism on explaining inpartthecontrast with Zambia’s only 20%ofsurveyedhouseholdswerepoor, 9 8 Ineachofthesecases, andnon-poor. InZambia, Source: World Bankdata Error barsrepresent95%confidenceintervals figure 12 Income multiplier that fromagriculture(lessthan1percent). protected arearevenuesarelikely togrowfaster(4–5percentperyear)than of five, amultiplierclosetotheIMFestimates.Theirresults suggestthat revenues fromprotectedareasexceeded theirmaintenancecostsbyafactor expanding theglobalprotectedareatargetto30percentandnotedthat Similarly, Waldron etal.(2020)modeled the globaleconomiceffectsof industrial agriculturearelessthanone. improvement. Incontrast,theIMFestimatesthatmultipliersofspendingon up thepricespaidtoproducersfortheirgoodsandmotivatesproductivity of availablelandfollowingtheexpansionareasunderprotectionpushes vation sector, and(iii)increasedrevenuesinagriculturebecausethescarcity who supplementdomesticspending,(ii)stronglaborintensityintheconser- multipliers arearesultof(i)spendingprogramsmostlyfinancedbydonors seven dollarsinthemediumterm(5years)(Batinietal.2021).Thesehigh countries. Foreverydollarspentonconservation,thereisareturnofalmost those forconservation-incompatiblelanduseafterthefirstyearindeveloping ecosystem conservationorgreenlanduse-relatedspendingaregreaterthan According totheIMF’s latestworkingpaper, thecumulativemultipliersfor Box 9. Multiplier Results toGreenStimulus Multipliers 2.50 0.50 2.00 0.00 3.00 1.50 1.00 Lower Zambezi Zambia Strengthening theEconomic CasebyComparingour Annual Real Inflation-AdjustedIncomeMultipliers,2019 1.82 South Luangwa Zambia 1.53 non-poor residents. or indirectlinkagesoftourism are greaterfor operator businesses,indicating thatwagesand/ employed byhotels,hostels,restaurants, ortour workers and85percentofisland workers were percent ofbothpoorandnon-poor mainland the economicbenefitsfromtourism,over60 mainland non-poorhouseholdsreapmostof per touristtohouseholdincomes.InFiji,where arrangements andcontributesaroundUS$4.50 zone usercommitteeaspartofbenefitsharing In Nepal,parkrevenueissharedwithabuffer parks spendthelargestshareoftheirincomes. enterprises, whichiswherehouseholdsaround retail activitiesofmainlysmallfamily-owned in ZambiaandBrazil,thelargestimpactison case. Asdetailed inthecountrycasestudies, National Park Chitwan Nepal 1.78 PR OMOTING SU Marine Park Abrolhos Brazil 1.74 ST AINABLE PR Mamanuca Islands 1.83 Fiji OTECTED AREATO URISM TO BENEFITL while poorhouseholds receiveUS$0.30. US$1.44 isgeneratedfornon-poor households, dollar spentbyatouristinthe Abrolhos region, population thanpoorhouseholds. Foreach generated bytourism,andwhich arealarger increase productiontomeetgrowing demands non-poor householdswhicharebetterableto 0.18. InBrazilaswell,mostbenefits accrueto received 1.6 whilepoorhouseholdsreceived income multiplierof1.78, non-poorhouseholds higher thanthatforpoorhouseholds:ofthetotal accruing tonon-poorhouseholdswasmuch other hand,theshareofincomemultiplier ties nearNepal’s ChitwanNationalPark, onthe Parks, respectively(seeFigure13).Incommuni- in Lower ZambeziandSouthLuangwa National raised theirincomesbyUS$0.83 andUS$0.19 to non-poorhouseholds-eachdollarspent in SouthLuangwa NationalPark -compared in Lower ZambeziNationalPark andUS$1.34 dollar spentraisedtheirincomesbyUS$0.99 Zambia, poorhouseholdsbenefitedmore-each and near-tofar-fromaprotectedarea.In among householdsbothpoorandnon-poor, amine howanincomemultiplierisdistributed LEWIE methodologycanalsobeusedtoex- As withthecontributiontototalincome, the studies ofothersectors(seeBox 9). multiplier resultsaresimilartothosefoundin tourist spendingandnumberofvisitors.These a varietyofcontexts,despitevariationsinper similar incomegainstolocalhouseholdsacross active protectedareatourismsectorprovides four studiesareconsistent,suggestingthatan some leakageoccurs.Multipliersacrossthe the fourcasestudies,althoughitislikely that This doesnotappeartobethecaseinanyof to wherepurchasesoccurorareprocessed. income to“leakout”fromthelocaleconomy parts ofthecountryorfromabroad,causing demand ismetmainlybypurchasesfromother er oflessthanonewouldindicatethattourist by morethanadollar. Alocalincomemultipli- dollar spentbyatouristincreaseslocalincomes linkages arestrong,andthateachadditional is greaterthanone, signalingthatlocalmarket of thecasestudies.Inallcases,multiplier Figure 12showstheincomemultipliersforeach local economy. tional increasesinincomeanddemandthe household expendituresfollow, creatingaddi- new roundsofincreaseddemand,income, and activities growtomeethouseholddemands, communities istheincomemultiplier. Aslocal the impactoftouristsonlocaleconomiesand Another metricthatcanbeusedtocapture OCAL ECONOMIES 49

Findings Findings 50 2019 Source: World Bankdata Error barsrepresent 95%confidenceintervals figure 15 Source: World Bankdata figure 14 Source: World Bankdata figure 13 BANKIG ONPR poor Communities,2019 Total impact of tourism to local GDP, Percentage of Multiplier Income multiplier 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 100% 1.2 1.8 1.6 1.4 60% 20% 80% millions US$ 40% 0 2 0% 1 200 300 250 100 150 50 0 Annual IncomeMultiplierSharebyHouseholdType, 2019 Annual ImpactofProtectedAreaTourism onLocal Incomes, Annual DistributionofMultipliersAcrossPoor andNon- Zambezi Zambezi Lower Zambezi Lower Lower Zambia 15.1 OTECTED AREAS Zambia Zambia Luangwa Luangwa South Poor South South Luangwa Poor Zambia 45.4 National Park National Park Non-poor Chitwan Nepal Chitwan Nepal Non-poor National Park Chitwan Nepal 43.4 Marine Park Marine Park Abrolhos Abrolhos Brazil Brazil Island Marine Park Island Abrolhos Brazil 2.9 Mamanuca Mamanuca Islands Islands Fiji Fiji Mamanuca Islands 237.6 Fiji tourism sector. businesses spendprofitsearnedthroughthe goods, andwhenhouseholdsspendwages operators hirelocalpeopleandbuy duction andincomelinkages-whentourism benefit directlyandindirectlythroughpro- poor andnon-poorhouseholds.Households tourism sectorandthosenot,benefitting benefiting householdsdirectlyinvolvedinthe multipliers forhouseholdsinthelocaleconomy, In summary, touristspendinggenerates income Park inZambia. cases except aroundLower ZambeziNational higher forpoorresidentsthannon-poor, inall that themultipliershareperresidentisactually by theshareofpopulation;seeFigure14)shows residents (i.e., dividingtheshareofmultiplier shares bythepopulationsofpoorandnon-poor idents inallbutonecase. Normalizingmultiplier benefit poorresidentsmorethannon-poorres- households inmostcases,tourismappearsto Despite thelargermultipliersharesofnon-poor spending. nesses profitfromtherippleeffectsoftourist benefit morethanpooronesbecausetheirbusi- Finally, inFiji,non-poorhouseholds tendto trade-offs—if large numbersoftouristsdegrade Chitwan National Park, thesecomeswith stimuli forthelocaleconomyaround Nepal’s numbers. Whilethemodelgenerates significant despite lowtouristspending,due tohightourist on theotherhand,generateslarge revenues few touristsduetoalackofconnectivity. Nepal, and hunting,buttheseparkshaverelatively also seehightouristspendingonguidedsafaris the largevolumeoftourists.TheZambianparks the highamountoftouristspendingperdayand the localeconomyislargestinFijibecauseof The totalimpactofprotectedareatourismon impact inBrazil. study. Thisaccountsfortherelativelysmalltotal regional economicsbeyondthescopeofthis quantifying theseeffectsrequiresinformationon such ashealthierfishstocksandhabitats,but spillover effectsoftheAbrolhosMarine Park, Coast regioncanbeattributedtotheecological Brazil, sometourisminthesurroundingWhale area sitesforthefourcountrycasestudies.In rizes thetotalimpactoftourisminprotected who visittheprotectedarea.Figure15summa- the impactpertouristbynumberoftourists local incomescanbeestimatedbymultiplying The totalimpactofprotectedareatourismon THE LOCAL ECONOMY TOTAL IMPACT OFTOURISM ON Source: World Bankdata Error barsrepresent95%confidenceintervals figure 16 Jobs generated 25,000 20,000 35,000 30,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 Jobs GeneratedAnnuallybyProtectedAreaTourism, 2019 Lower Zambezi Zambia South Luangwa times thecurrentestimatedimpact. would increasetoUS$11.9million,almostfour season, thentheeconomicimpactoftourism If thePark operatedatfullcapacityduringpeak allowed capacity, whichis225visitorsperday. Park arelessthan10percentofthemaximum the 8,044 annualvisitstoAbrolhosMarine tourists donotvisittheparkitself. Furthermore, and maintainingahealthyecosystem,evenif rounding coastalareasbysupportingspecies Abrolhos MarinePark maybenefittourisminsur- tourists mayvisitinthefuture. Asnoted,the the naturalareathatisattractingthem,fewer Zambia Mamanuca PR Islands Fiji OMOTING SU Marine Park Abrolhos Brazil ST AINABLE PR National Park Chitwan Nepal OTECTED AREATO URISM TO BENEFITL Nadroga-Navosa andtheMamanucas. ploying 13percentofthelocalpopulationin (through directandindirectchannels),em- Fiji’s Mamanucaislandscreated8,304jobs 12 percentofthelocalpopulation.Tourism in to theAbrolhosMarinePark directly)represents 46,800 jobs(300ofthesecanbeattributed coastal region-theWhalecoast,atotalof of theworkingagepopulation,whileinBrazil’s Chitwan NationalPark areheldby3percent spectively. InNepal,tourism-relatedjobsaround Lower ZambeziandSouthLuangwa Parks re- percent ofworkingagepopulationsaroundthe ed areasgeneratedjobsfor14percentand30 areas issignificant.InZambia,tourisminprotect- employment supportedbytourisminprotected Beyond thetotalnumberofjobs,share livestock, andfishing. services, andinsomeinstancesagriculture, brought onbytourisminsectorssuchasretail, of increaseddemandforgoodsandservices workers, aswellthoseemployedaresult hotel employees,touroperators,andrestaurant jobs. Thiscoverstourism-relatedjobssuchas obtain thechangeinyear-roundequivalent and dividingitbythemedianannualwageto income fromtheLEWIEmodelsimulations are calculatedbytakingtheimpactonlabor economy (seeFigure16).Employmenteffects activities, andindirectlybystimulatingthelocal Tourism generatesjobsdirectlythroughtourism OCAL ECONOMIES 51

Findings Findings 52 Note: DataforFijiandBrazilunavailable Source: Governmentdata US$ Amounts table 4 2018/2019 Source: World Bank data Error barsrepresent95%confidenceintervals figure 17 BANKIG ONPR Surplus Rate of Return Expenditure Revenue 20 30 25 35 10 15 0 5 Annual GovernmentRevenues andExpenditures, 2018/2019 Lower Zambezi Zambia Annual EstimatedRate ofReturn onGovernmentSpending, 12 16.7 OTECTED AREAS Thus, theseprotectedareasareasourceof of currentinvestmentsinthepark(seeTable 4). other fees,andconcessions)exceed thevalue tourism inprotectedareas(parkvisitorfees, ment. InZambia,governmentrevenuesfrom agencies inchargeofprotectedareamanage- expenditures ofgovernmentdepartments/ detailed informationontherevenuesand The ZambiaandNepalcasestudiesprovide case studies. permit, assessed throughfinancialanalysis,wheredata investment outweighthecosts? Thisquestionis good fordevelopment.Doesthebenefitof whether publicinvestmentinprotectedareasis A key motivationforthisstudyistoassess Return on Government Spending 12 11 10 areas arenot‘self-financing’. Surplusrevenue sink andrefutetheassumptionthatprotected revenue forthegovernmentandnotafinancial South Luangwa Zambia Government expenditures forZambiaare2018,June2018–June 2019forNepal, and2019 forBrazil. Figures forZambia are for2018,whilefiguresNepal June2018–June2019. Note: Government expenditure data were notavailable for theFijicase study, andarate ofreturn could notbecalculated. 28.2

10 andeconomicanalysis,forthethree 4,242,227 5,373,327 Marine Park Abrolhos 1,131,100 Brazil Zambia 6.2 National Park Chitwan Nepal -3,142,984 5,726,025 2,583,041 7.6 Nepal 12

11

knock-on effects offsetleakageandmake a ments inprotectedareas.These far-reaching for favorablereturnsongovernment invest- stimuli anddevelopmentbenefitswhichmake and intolocaleconomies,offeringeconomic impacts, whichripplebeyondthetourismsector of protectedareatourism’s broad,andindirect In summary, theanalysisflagsimportance favorable returnstogovernments. for localeconomicdevelopment,andprovide are goodforbiodiversityconservation, ed areas.Thus,investmentsinprotectedareas returns ongovernmentinvestmentsinprotect- indirect benefitflowsthatleadtohigheconomic households. Itisthesumofthesedirectand a chainofbenefitsforlocalbusinessesand and servicesfromthelocaleconomy, triggering service providershirelaborandsourcegoods in thetourismsector, andbeyond,astourism services. Theseexpendituresbenefitboththose on hotels,meals,transport,souvenirsandother spend theirmoneyonparkentryfees,butalso tourists visitprotectedareas,theynotonly tained recreationalservicessuchastrails.When oceanscape, and/orbyprovidingwell-main- and culturalintegrityofthelandscape ing wildlifeandhabitats,preservingthenatural attractive totourists–forexample, byprotect- but alsohelpstomake protectedareasmore areas notonlyhelpstoconservebiodiversity, indicate thatpublicinvestmentinprotected area avaluableeconomicasset.Theseresults cantly greaterthanone, makingtheprotected rate ofreturnongovernmentspendingissignifi- In allcasesinwhichthiscouldbeassessed,the penditures bygovernmentsontheparks. impacts bythesumofwageandnon-wageex- were obtainedbydividingthesetotaleconomic on investmentsarepresentedinFigure17, and their broaderlocaleconomicimpacts.Thereturn which itisnecessarytocompareparkcostswith effects ofprotectedareasonlocaleconomies,for expenditures givesanincompletepictureofthe However, simplycomparingrevenueswith ed expensesincurredbythearmy. protection andmaintenance, whichalsoinclud- were significantlylessthanexpenditureonpark revenues fromvisitorfeesandconcessions in Nepal’s ChitwanNationalPark, government the protectedareanetwork.Onotherhand, used tosubsidizeinvestmentsinotherpartsof from protectedareasthatattracttouristscanbe Wildlife Conflictby Location andIncome, 2019 Source: World Bankdata Figure 19 Protected Areas,2019 Source: World Bankdata Error barsrepresent95%confidenceintervals Figure 18 Millions USD Lost Real income loss in millions US$ 2.5 0.5 2.0 0.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 0.5 3.5 1.5 1.0 1.5 0 2 3 1 Annual EstimatedLoss ofHouseholdEarningsfromHuman- Annual IncomeLosses fromHuman-Wildlife Conflictin Lower Zambezi Zambia Lower Zambezi 1.8 Zambia Poor households tourism activitiesoutsidethelocaleconomy. economy, andoveremphasize theleakagefrom pacts willunderestimatetheimpactsonlocal look onlyattourismexpenditurestoestimateim- on localeconomiessuggeststhatstudieswhich economic impactoftourisminprotectedareas direct andindirectmechanismstoassessthe able development.Theneedtoconsiderboth which canhelpgovernmentstopursuesustain- as potentiallyself-financingsourcesofrevenue compelling caseforinvestmentinprotectedareas South Luangwa South Luangwa Zambia Zambia 1.2 PR OMOTING SU Non-poor households ST AINABLE PR National Park National Park Chitwan Nepal Chitwan Nepal 2.9 OTECTED AREATO URISM TO BENEFITL area tourism. cially iftheyarenotbeneficiaries ofprotected destruction mayrequirecompensation, espe- losses; householdsmostvulnerable tocrop approaches toavoid,mitigate and compensate of impactshighlightstheneedforequitable thus sufferthegreatestlosses.Thisdistribution poor, largelyreliantonsubsistencefarming,and losses; whileinZambia,mosthouseholdsare ity, producemorecropsandthussuffermost non-poor households,whichareinthemajor- non-poor households(seeFigure19).InNepal, effects variesbycountry, andbetweenpoor in thethreestudycontexts,distributionof While householdssufferedsignificantlosses households livingnearterrestrialprotectedareas. dollars inlostincome, signalingacriticalissuefor pacts andshowsthatanimalscausedmillionsof local economies.Figure18presentstheseim- holds andsendnegativerippleeffectsthrough Crop lossescanhavemajorimpactsonhouse- was nohumanwildlifeconflict. what wouldtheincomeofhouseholdsbeifthere conflict isthereforeestimatedasacounterfactual: already reflectslosses.Thecostofhuman-wildlife time ofthesurvey, andthebasemodeltherefore LEWIE modelusesharvestdatareportedatthe around ChitwanNationalPark inNepal.The Luangwa NationalPark inZambia,and9percent Lower ZambeziNationalPark, 11percentatSouth farms causedcroplossesofalmost14percentat due tocroplosses.Wildlifeincursionsonto a localeconomyashouseholdincomeforgone negative impactsofhuman-wildlifeconflicton harm orkillhumans.Thestudyestimatesthe and livestockpredation,animalsmayalso and Nepal.Suchconflictoftenentailscroploss to human-wildlifeconflict,asseeninZambia Living nearterrestrialprotectedareascanlead reverse thesegains. vation, thecostsofhuman-wildlifeconflictmay can incentivizecommunitiestosupportconser- Just asthebenefitsofprotectedareatourism HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT COVID-19 pandemic. conflict, andbytheeconomicfall-outof assessed arethosecausedbyhuman-wildlife economic shocks.Thecategoriesofshocks can beusedtosimulatethelocalimpactsof tourism onlocaleconomies,theLEWIEmodel Besides estimatingtheeconomicimpactsof Impact ofConflictsandShocks OCAL ECONOMIES 53

Findings Findings 54 Source: World Bankdata Error barsrepresent 95%confidenceintervals Figure 20 BANKIG ONPR Income loss, millions USD 20 25 10 15 0 5 Lower Zambezi Zambia 1.3 Monthly IncomeLoss fromNoTourism, 2019 OTECTED AREAS South Luangwa Zambia 3.8 this study. a bio-LEWIEmodelandisbeyondthescopeof dium-term impactoftheprotectedarearequires support forconservation.Estimationoftheme- by 2019, leadingtoincreasedincomesand resulted inlargerandmoreconsistentcatches designated in2014seededadjacentareasand recorded inFiji,whereamarineprotectedarea and increasingcatchsizes.Thiseffecthasbeen grounds, acceleratingtherecoveryofstocks zones createspilloversintoadjacentfishing protections mayoffsettheselosses,asno-fish from fishingintheshortterm,environmental tected areasmayreducehouseholdincomes Additionally, whilethecreation of marinepro- for Brazilbutareunavailableduetolackofdata. compensated. Similarcomparisonsareneeded be and howthelossessufferedbyfisherfolkwill question ofhowtourismbenefitsareshared, income aresmall;nonetheless,theyflagthe the Mananucas,thesepotentiallossesinfishing the valueofMarineProtectedAreatourismin million) annually. However, whencomparedwith fishing incomeofabout FJ$ 89million(US$39 Fiji BureauofStatisticsa ) arefisherfolk,giving (2017Population habitants andHousingCensus, 57.9 percentofNadroga-Navosa’s 58,931in- catch valueofapproximately FJ$13,000; and data indicateanaverage, annualper-household ing orlimitingfishing.InFiji,householdsurvey cause incomelossintheshortrunbyprohibit- The creationofmarineprotectedareasmayalso National Park Chitwan Nepal 19.9 Marine Park Abrolhos Brazil 0.7 Mamanuca Islands 3.8 Fiji Impact ofGovernment Policies have lostthemosttourist-relatedincome. in Nepal,Fiji,andBrazil,non-poorhouseholds suffered thegreatestlosses,whilearoundthose the Zambianparks,poorhouseholdshave normally benefitthemostfromtourism-around losses arefeltmoststronglybyhouseholdsthat around protectedareas(seeFigure20).These tourism foronemonth onthelocaleconomies simulate theimpact of acompletelossof income, andthe LEWIEmodel canbeused to caused substantiallossesintourismand local economies.The COVID-19 pandemic has shocks producenegativeincomemultipliersin ing havepositivemultipliereffects,negative And asincreasesintourismandtouristspend- businesses supplyingtheirgoodsandservices. pacts employmentintouristfacilities,butalso beyond thesector, alossoftourismnotonlyim- Just astourismcanboostincomeswithinand COVID-19 IMPACT ONTOURISM representation in parkmanagement.Similarly, generate social benefitsthroughcommunity conservation, improvelocalincomes, and Luangwa. Thus,hiringstafflocallycanpromote at Lower ZambeziandUS$1,038 atSouth the localeconomytoamount ofUS$1,479 park guardincreasesthepark’s impacts on numbers (25percentofitscapacity),hiringa Parks andWildlifeisworkingatverylowstaff In Zambia,wheretheDepartmentofNational whereas afractionoftouristspendingdoes. park personnelgodirectlytolocalhouseholds, multipliers, becausewagespaidtolocallyhired multipliers arelargerthantouristspending multiplier ofUS$2.67. Theseparkemployment the governmentonparkwagescreatesalocal benefits, aseachadditionaldollarspentby guard. Thus,hiringtheguardproducesindirect pared tothecost-US$2,442ofemploying (see Table 5),asubstantialfigurewhencom- erates anincreaseinlocalincomeofUS$6,535 Chitwan NationalPark, hiringaparkguardgen- conservation stafffromlocalcommunities.In Jobs arealsocreatedwhengovernmentshire PROTECTED AREAMANAGEMENT WHEN LOCALS AREHIREDFOR simulations arepresentedbelow. tourism sector–andtheresultsofthesepolicy and increasedlocalsourcingofgoodsbythe hiring oflocalsforprotectedareamanagement local economy. Two policieswereconsidered– ulate theimpactofgovernmentpoliciesona Finally, theLEWIEmodelcanbeusedtosim- Source: World Bank data Figure 21: Businesses, 2019 US$ amounts Businesses, 2019 Source: World Bankdata table 6 Note: GovernmentexpenditureswerenotavailableforFiji. Source: World Bankdata table 5 US$ amounts economy incomes Changes inlocal

Income impact of 5% Total Real Non-poor

increased input, millions US$ Income additional worker Poor households Island 2.5 0.5 2.0 0.0 3.5 3.0 Poor 1.5 1.0 Annual EffectofGovernmentHiringa Local Park Ranger, 2019 Annual Impactsof5%IncreaseinLocal Purchasingfor Real Income households Cost tohire Annual Impactsof5%IncreaseinLocal Purchasingfor Non-poor Zambezi Lower 0.21 207,573 Zambezi 196,901 Lower Zambia 10,671 n/a Zambia Zambezi Lower Luangwa Luangwa South 0.35 352,894 South 1,479 260,175 92,720 567 978 911 Zambia n/a Luangwa National Park South 3,017,214 2,987,818 Chitwan PR National Nepal Chitwan 0.29 Nepal 1,038 29,395 Park 669 668 370 OMOTING SU n/a National Chitwan Nepal Park 102,045 2,442 5,887 Abrolhos 6,799 National Marine Park Marine Brazil 88,700 Abrolhos Park 13,345 Brazil 912 0.10 ST n/a AINABLE PR National Park Abrolhos Mamanuca Marine Brazil Islands 291,374 55,500 211,587 Mamanuca 24,287 Fiji 24,045 Islands 8,963 3.02 14,170 9,875 Fiji OTECTED AREATO URISM TO BENEFITL economic opportunities. due totheirlessercapacitytake advantageof households benefitlessthannon-poorones for poorhouseholds.Inallfourcountries, incomes byUS$88,700 comparedtoUS$13,345 to non-poorhouseholds,whichincreasetheir US$102,045; onceagain,mostbenefitsaccrue local purchasingboostsincomesby ly. Finally, inBrazil,a5percentincrease by US$55,500andUS$24,287, respective- the mainlandandofislandresidentsincrease 211,587); theincomesofpoorhouseholdson non-poor householdsonthemainland(US$ by US$291,374,withmostbenefitsaccruingto crease inlocalpurchasingboostsincomes non-poor households.InFiji,thefivepercentin- As inZambia,mostofthesebenefitsaccrueto local incomesbyUS$3.0 million(seeFigure21). five percentincreaseinlocalpurchasingraises inputs fromoutsidethelocaleconomy, anda In Nepal,hotelspurchase26percentoftheir poor householdsintheGMA(US$0.14 million). of benefitsin Lower Zambezigoestonon- South Luangwa (seeTable 6).Thelargestshare million inLower ZambeziandUS$0.35 millionin local sourcingboostsincomesbyUS$0.21 are low, asimulatedfivepercentincreasein terms) fromnon-localsources.Whileleakages chase 16percentoftheirdailyinputs(invalue In Zambia,forinstance, hotelsonaveragepur- outside thelocaleconomy. when goodsandservicesaresourcedfrom in protectedareasissignificant,leakagesoccur While theincomemultiplierforvisitorspending SOURCING GOODSLOCALLY income multiplierof2.7. the localeconomyoutweighscost,withan economic impactofanadditionalhirefrom Government HiringaLocal Laborer, 2019, the in Brazil,asshownTable 5:AnnualEffectof OCAL ECONOMIES 55

Findings Findings 56 BANKIG ONPR OTECTED AREAS the followingkey takeaways: To conclude, thefindingsfromfourcountrycasestudiescan besummarizedin • • • tourism’s economicimpacts areas, andlocallysourcinggoodsservices,canstrengthen Government programs,suchashiringlocalstoworkinprotected distribute benefitstolocalcommunities to compensatehouseholdswhichloseincome, andtoequitably There arehoweverwinnerandlosers,policiesrequired businesses andhouseholdsdirectlyinvolvedinthesector Benefits oftourisminprotectedareasgobeyond economic benefits,andsupportsignificantnumbersofjobs Protected areasarenaturalassetsthatprovidesubstantial tourism sector, andmultipleeffectsoneconomies The COVID-19 pandemichashadasignificantimpactonthe Investing inprotectedareasisgoodeconomics- Impacts aredifferentiatedbypoorandnon-poor in allfourcountries Economic impactsofprotectedareatourismoutweighitscosts resource sink In somecases,protectedareasareself-financingandnota 3.3 study limitations3.3 consider thecostsofadverseenvironmental nation’s economy/GDP. Also, thestudydoesnot to returnsongovernmentspendingandthe local economytoo. Boththesechannelsadd source goodsandservicesfromoutsidethe economy, andtourismbusinessesarelikely to ed areasalsospendmoneyoutsidethelocal have beenestimated. Tourists whovisitprotect- parks asonlybenefitstothelocaleconomy the fulleconomicimpactoftourismaround It isalsopossiblethatthisstudyunderstates economic values. are increasinglyrevealedtohavesignificant maintenance andsupplyofecosystemservices industry. Unmeasuredbenefits,suchasthe and demandofseaproductstothelocaltourist sustainability oftheirharvest,andthesupply which incorporatesdataonfisherystocks,the this includesdevelopinga“bio-LEWIE”model in protectedareas.Inmarineareas, further evidenceofthebenefitsinvestment methodology tofitadditionalneedscanprovide areas, arenotconsidered.ScalingtheLEWIE stocks, whicharecriticaltomarineprotected dynamic, andthus,varyingfactorslike fishery Critical tothispoint,theLEWIEmodelisnot the fulleffectsofprotectedareainvestment. mates remainconservative, andmaynotreflect links tosurroundingcommunities,suchesti- impacts provideabetterpictureofthesector’s While estimationsofdirect/indirecttourism PR OMOTING SU ST AINABLE PR OTECTED AREATO URISM TO BENEFITL can helptoovercomethisissue. more parksandcontextsinfuturestudies mendations. Scalingthismethodologytocover with ourcasestudiesbeforeadoptingrecom- assess comparabilityoftheirprotectedareas consider theresultsofthisstudy, theyshould apply tootherprotectedareas.Ascountries tected areaschosenforthisstudyandmaynot Finally, thesefindingsarespecifictothepro- needed tocastlightonthisissue. numbers isnotclear, andsite-specificdataare dence linkingprotectedareastatuswithtourist marine environments.Becauseofthis,theevi- areas irrespectiveoftheconservationstatus less directbecausevisitorsaredrawntocoastal protected areas,however, thesemotivationsare visited forreasonsspecifictothesite. Inmarine far-removed fromcompetingattractionsandare for visitsareusuallyclear, astheseareasare case ofterrestrialprotectedareas,thereasons another challengeforthiskindofstudy. Inthe status andthedesireoftouriststovisit-is Attribution -thelinkbetweenprotectedarea not considered. ditures madebyprotectedareamanagerswere impacts onthelocaleconomyfromexpen- ic linkagescanbecaptured;asanexample, in thereporthavemeantthatnotalleconom- environmental assets.Datalimitationsdetailed however, itrecognizesthattouristscandegrade impacts orexternalitiesassociatedwithtourists; OCAL ECONOMIES 57

Findings Policy Recommendations 58 Recommendations Policy BANKIG ONPR 4 OTECTED AREAS there isgreatpotentialforprotectedareasto As countriesbegintorealizethesebenefits, the tourismsector, andothers. households, andforthosedirectlyinvolvedin providing employmentforpoorandnon-poor economic developmentinsurroundingareas, to conservebiodiversityandstimulatelocal ed areas,becausetheyattracttourists,areable the countrycasestudieshasshownthatprotect- As presentedintheprevioussection,analysisof Source: World Bank figure 22 Framework forSustainableTourism inProtectedAreas PR OMOTING SU ST AINABLE PR OTECTED AREATO URISM TO BENEFITL conservation (seeFigure22). can promotebothdevelopmentandbiodiversity nities fairly. Taken together, thesethreefactors offerings, andsharebenefitswithlocalcommu- areas well,promotetourismanddiversifyits forts, however, istheneedtomanageprotected which policiescanbetailored.Centraltoallef- they offerlessonsfromdiversesettings study cannotbeappliedtoallprotectedareas, biodiversity assets.Whilethefindingsofthis contribute todevelopmentgoalsandsecure OCAL ECONOMIES 59

Policy Recommendations Policy Recommendations 60 BANKIG ONPR OTECTED AREAS 13 are describedinTable 7below. broad categoriesofinvestments andactivities be developedorisnotsuitable. Someofthe subsidize otherparksinwhich tourismisstillto protected areaswithviabletourism canalso resources, andpromoteoutreach.Investingin tourism, managewildlifeandothernatural invest ininfrastructureforenforcementand management whenusedtohireandtrainstaff, et al.2012;Waldron etal.2013),andimprove natural assets(Waldron etal.2017;McCarthy Conservation spendingcanaddressthreatsto formance, andtoinvest intheirmanagement. underlying factorsassociatedwithpoorper- This requiresgovernmentstoaddressthe areas mustbeconservedandwellmanaged. cure thenaturalassetsvisitorsenjoy, protected To promotebiodiversityconservationandse- Protected Area Management Increase4.1.2 Public Investment in ecosystems, includingreefs. may reducetheimpactoftourismonfragile nesses topursueenvironmentalstandardswhich governments authoritytoworkwithlocalbusi- increased catchsizes.Formalizationalsogives adjacent areasinwhichfishermenbenefitfrom may causerecoveringfishstockstopopulate noted insection3.2,formalmarineprotection GMAs, bufferzonesandfavorablehabitats.As formal protectionanddisperseintosurrounding over-harvested wildpopulationsrecoverunder restrictions maybeoffsetinthemediumterm,as from fishing,hunting,orharvestingplants,such restricts resourceuse, andpreventslocalpeople areas onlocaleconomies.Evenifformalization arrangements andscaleuptheimpactsofthese protected areasinordertobuildbenefitsharing align theseareaswithformal(“gazetted”)marine edy thissituation,itisimportant,asafirststep, to areas havebeenformallyprotected,andtorem- malize protection.InFiji,forexample, fewmarine to conserveecologicalassets,itiscrucialfor- Biodiversity cannotberecoveredoncelost,and 4.1.1. Formalize Protected Areas 4.1 natural protect assets Fortoolsandresources ondevelopingtheseandotherforms ofnature-basedtourism, seeWorld Bank2020c. (Lindsey etal.2021). increased revenueretentionfor protectedareas more fundingthanstatebudgets allowfor, and 2018). Thisenablingenvironmenthasresultedin to privateornon-profitoperators(Baghaietal. delegates authoritytomanageprotectedareas approaches haveemergedinwhichthestate likely. InsomeAfrican countries,collaborative ment whichmakes privatesectorfundingmore in protectedareasdemonstratesacommit- sector responsibility, governmentinvestment While assetprotectionislargelyapublic topics (seeBox 10)(World Bank2020c). impacts fromtourism,amongotherimportant icies, improvevisitormanagement,andreduce promote sustainabletourismpracticesandpol- tourism practitionerstoprepareprojectsthat of toolsandknowledgetoguidenature-based A recentWorld Bankreportprovidesareview stakeholder buy-inandlocallytailoredactions. local communityparticipationandleadershipfor the industry. Eachofthesestrategiesrelieson may alsopromotelow-impactdevelopmentof tourism, ecotourism that generatemoreincome. Conservation low-volume tourismwhichattractsfewertourists economies, andoneapproachishigh-value can containimpactsonenvironmentsandlocal habitats. Targeted, system-wideinvestments ing, andscubadivingalsocompromisemarine Damage tocoralreefsfromboattraffic,anchor- areas areunsightly, andcanharmmarinelife. debris andaquaticlitterinmarineprotected visitors fromaroundtheworld.Similarly, plastic quality oftheveryenvironmentthatattracts and wastegeneratedbytouriststhreatenthe for construction,cookingandheatinginlodges, Nepal’s mountains,forexample, deforestation reducing thenetbenefittolocaleconomies.In may leadtothedegradationofnaturalassets, the environmentalfootprintofsectorand be considered.Highertouristnumbersincrease economies, therearealsotradeoffsthatneedto tourism generatespositiveimpactsforlocal While investinginprotectedareastogrow 13 , andrelatedactivities Table 7 Source: World Bank V. Partnerships Engagement IV. Community III. Tourism II. Policy Management I. ProtectedArea Categories List ofInvestmentsandActivitiesfromIncreasedPublicInvestmentinProtectedAreas Across Sectors Integrated Planning management natural resource community-based Governance and Livelihoods Development Tourism Training &Skills Strategy (“product”) Tourism Development Building Institutional Capacity Policy &Legal Reforms Species Conservation Monitoring, Research & Finance Operations Infrastructure areas Creation ofprotected Sub-categories PR OMOTING SU smart agriculture, climatechange, forestry, pollution,andwastemanagement). transport, andagriculture;efficiencyofcomplementarysectors(fisheries, climate- Landscape andseascapemanagement;cross-sector infrastructure, irrigation, awareness, andbehaviorchange. building oflocalcommunitymembers,indigenousknowledgesharing,governance, Sustainable resourcemanagement,landzoning,naturalmapping,capacity conservation-linked incentives,sustainableuse, andcommunityactionplans. improved livelihoods,conflictmitigation,“entrepreneurial”investments, ecotourism. tourism, educationprogramforlocalyouth,small-scaletourism/community-based to conservationactivities,traininglocalauthorities,employmentchoicesin Skills developmentforlocalstoentertourismsector, scholarships,sensitization and heritageconservation. tourism, feasibilitystudies,privatesectorinvestment,tourismopportunities,cultural marketing andbranding,improvingbusinessclimatei.e., awarenessofnature-based Technical assistancetodevelopabusiness planandstrategyforprotectedareas, nationally andinternationally. management, stakeholder analysis,research,informationandknowledgesharing Staffing, equipment,technicalassistanceandtraining,supportforadministration and compliance, andlawstocombatillegalwildlifetrade. Development ofconcessions,benefitsharingmechanisms,parkentryfees,CITES planning, andreefforestrestoration. remote sensingandgeospatialanalysisformonitoring,rehabilitation,marinespatial management, bufferzoneandcorridortrans-frontiercooperation, Implementation of-nationalandsitelevelwildlifesurveys,habitat incentive structuresforfunding,andfinancialmodeling. Capitalization ofconservationtrustfunds,designregulatoryframeworkfor anti-poaching initiatives,fireprotection,communications,andtechnology. Development ofbudgets,managementplans,training&equipmentforparkguards, connectivity ofprotectedareas,waterholes,wetlandmanagement. Infrastructure establishmentandsupportforvisitorcenters,roads,accessibility Creation andexpansionofprotectedareanetwork. Examples ofactivitiesinwhichinvestmentscanbemade ST AINABLE PR OTECTED AREATO URISM TO BENEFITL OCAL ECONOMIES 61

Policy Recommendations Policy Recommendations 62 listed below. rized bythebroadtopics and resourcescatego- gathered over360tools Nature-based Tourism,” and Resources for A recentreport,“Tools Box 10 BANKIG ONPR Tools andResources forNature-BasedTourism OTECTED AREAS communities, andtoappealincreasinglydiscerningconsumers. to marineconservationandtheeconomicdevelopmentofcoastal prove theirenvironmentalandsocialperformancesoastocontribute for marine-basedtours(2008)helpsmarinetouroperatorstoim- through socio-culturalapproaches.Apracticalguidetogoodpractice helps operatorsinprotectedareastopursuesustainability, including Toolkit for tourismoperators(2008)isaCanadianhandbookwhich ed totheconservationofglobalbiodiversity. Greenyourbusiness: provides casestudiesfromtourismcompaniesthathavecontribut- polar coasts,mountainenvironments).Conservationtourism(2010) impacts specifictocertainecosystems(e.g., marineenvironments, agement ofparticularactivities,suchashikingandcamping, of ecotourism(2004)reviewstheenvironmentalimpactsandman- balance itspositiveandnegativeoutcomes.Environmentalimpacts the environmentalimpactsoftourism,andtohelppractitioners 2) Reducing EnvironmentalImpacts.Severaltoolsexisttoreduce ciples oftourismandvisitormanagementinprotectedareas. nature-based tourism’s socialandculturalimpacts, andoutlinesprin- to generatewidereconomicbenefitsforcommunities,reviews ment inprotectedareas(2018)providesguidanceonusingtourism The IUCN’s BestPracticeGuidelinesonTourism andvisitormanage- congestion problems, focusing on national parks in the United States. approaches tomanagingcongestion,andtoolsaddressspecific of visitoruse. TheCongestionmanagementtoolkit(2014)provides develop long-termstrategiestomanagetheamountsandtypes (2019), whichhelpsprotectedareamanagerstocollaboratively such atool,andiscomplementedbytheVisitorcapacityguidebook negative impacts.TheVisitorusemanagementframework(2016)is pursuing theobjectivesofnature-basedtourismwhilemanagingits at adestination.Therearenumberoftoolsandtechniquesfor 1) VisitorManagement-managementtrackstouristbehavior TWO TOPICS HIGHLIGHTEDINTHISREPORT ARE: Source: World Bank2020c

Source: World Bank table 8 2017) canalsobeconsidered.Table 8provides payment forecosystemservices(Börneretal. impact bonds(WithersandZoltani2020), (Doinjashvili, Méral,andAndriamahefazafy2020), of financesuchasconservationtrustfunds bilize protectedareafinancing,othersources To reduceover-relianceontourismandsta- (CMP) Partnerships Management Collaborative mechanisms financing Innovative trade ofwildlife the saleand Revenues from payments Compensation recreation tourism and Revenues from Carbon Finance budget/revenues Government Trust Funds Conservation Instruments Financial InstrumentsforProtectedAreas PR OMOTING SU budgets forprotectedareamanagement(Lindseyetal.2021). median fundsthatare1.5,2.6 and14.6 timesgreater, respectively, thanbaselinestate financial andtechnicalsupport,co-management,delegatedmanagement -yield capacity toimproveprotectedareaperformance. ThethreemainCMPmodels- CMPs betweenstatewildlifeagenciesandNGOscanattractinvestment andtechnical Conservation Capital’s UmilikiInvestmentfund,amongothers. Conservation BondssuchastheRhinoImpactBond,Lion’s ShareFund,and capital whichfinancesconservationandpaysforresults.Theseinclude Wildlife Financial instrumentscandesignandincubatemechanismstoraise and investnew species conservation. fines, wildlifeauctions,loans,andin-situ-ex-situpartnershipscontributefundingto laws governandmonitorthelegalityofsuchtrade. Financingmechanismssuchas conservation. Internationalconventions,suchastheCITESandassociatednational Revenue comesfromthelegalsaleandtradeofplantswildlifeproductsfor banking andbiodiversityoffsets. fines forenvironmentaldamage, voluntaryandmandatorypayments,mitigation development costsandpertaintobioprospecting,royaltiesfromresourceextraction, conservation ofanother. Theyaretypicallycalculatedasapercentageofproject for-one compensation,theypayfortheuseofanaturalresourcebyinvestingin payments don’t necessarilyreflectactualenvironmentalimpactsorprovideone- environmental impacts,orevenvoluntarycontributions.Althoughcompensation collecting finesforpollution,royaltiesnaturalresourceuse, compensationfor their impactsonecosystemsandbiodiversity. Theyfinanceconservationby Compensation paymentsareinstrumentstoholdcompaniesaccountablefor channeled toprotectedareamanagement. and publiclandtourismconcessions,amongothers.Revenues shouldideallybe “green” safarifees,hotelandairporttaxes, touristandtourismoperatorcontributions, Mechanisms includeprotectedareaentryandrecreationfees,sporthunting inadequate tomeetfullmanagementcosts. Carbon markets serveasanewopportunityforprotectedareafundingbutareusually conservation, andgovernmentbonds. tourism, andoncommoditiessuchasgasoline, structureddebtreliefearmarked for or authorities’ publicbudgets.Theyalsoincludeearmarked governmenttaxes on Government revenueallocationscomefromlocal,regionalandnationalbodies,and/ funds canbeendowments,sinkingfunds,orrevolvingfunds. funding forconservationand/orprotectedareaagenciesthroughlocalgrants.Trust managed byanindependentboardofdirectors,whichprovidelong-term,sustainable Conservation Trust Fundsarelegallyindependentinstitutions(i.e., non-government) Description ST AINABLE PR OTECTED AREATO URISM TO BENEFITL tems approachtoprotectedareafinance. approaches intandem,workingtowardsasys- Robust strategiesmayinvolveseveralofthese biodiversity conservation(World Bank2020a). detailed guidanceonfinancingmechanismsfor report, “MobilizingFinanceforNature” provides an overviewoffinancialinstruments,andthe OCAL ECONOMIES 63

Policy Recommendations Policy Recommendations 64 Source: Thompsonetal.2014 Table 9. BANKIG ONPR • • • • • • • • • • Core competencies Integrity/Honesty Interpersonal Skills Attention toDetail Flexibility and Planning Individual Development Accountability Technological Skills Problem Solving Communication Oral andWritten Awareness Organizational Staff Competencies OTECTED AREAS yet 95 percent of tourismisclusteredaround form ofprotection,including20 nationalparks, 40 percentofthecountry’s land isundersome on theseregions.InZambia,for example, over centrating bothpositiveandnegative impacts clustered aroundkey protectedareas,con- In manycountries,nature-based tourismis investments thatgobeyondprotectedareas. sify tourismwillrequirepolicies,programs,and In thecountrieswestudied,togrowanddiver- Diversify Tourism4.2.1 Offerings grow anddiversifytourism businesses 4.2 number ofstaffneededtomanageconcessions level bytrainedparkmanagers.Secondly, the is bestaccomplishedattheprotectedarea the day-to-daymanagementofconcessions sion makers, andmorepolicyconsistency, while allows forbetteraccesstospecialistsanddeci- centralizing conservationatthenationallevel Experience frommanycountrieshasshownthat agement, andthiscapacitymustbebuilt. sets thatgobeyondknowledgeofwildlifeman- managing concessionprogramsrequiresskill operators andcommercialentities.Forexample, needs andobligationstoconservationoftourism and policies,alsounderstandthebusiness agers whoarewellversedinprotectedarealaws Successful protectedareashavequalifiedman- Managers 4.1.3 Build CapacityofProtected Area can cultivateandretaintheskillsoftheirstaff. education strategies,protectedareamanagers By developingtrainingandon-the-job Fundamental competencies • • • • • • • facilities areusedbyoperators Asset managementtrainingifgovernment Contract negotiationskills,and Business acumen Data collectionandanalysis Monitoring andevaluatingoperators instruments, andsolicitingbidsifapplicable Developing contractsorotherauthorizing applies tooperators Understanding thelegalframeworkthat by allstaffinconcessionmanagement. petencies refertokey technicalabilitiesneeded protected areamanagement.Fundamentalcom- apply todepartments/ministriesinchargeof ed byallstaffincommercialservicesandcould Core competenciesrefertogeneralskillsneed- agement personnel(seeTable 9). competencies areneededforconcessionman- and alegaladvisor. Andfinally, twotypesof member, facilitymanagementteammember team member, operationsandplanningteam pending uponthenumberofprojects),finance project developmentteammember(2–3de- level programwillrequireamanager, operational. However, ataminimum,national contracts thatareunderdevelopmentand/or agreements willdependonthenumberof lion visitors,followed byIguaçu(1.9million)and national parksin 2018wereTijuca,with2.6 mil- according toICMBio(2019),the mostvisited small numberofprotectedareas. Forexample, too, touristsareconcentratedinarelatively National Park, homeofMountEverest.InBrazil Area, ChitwanNationalPark, andSagarmatha (close toKathmandu), Annapurna Conservation tected areas:Shivapuri-NagarjunNationalPark Nepal, touristspredominantlyvisitonlyfourpro- Arts, Republic ofZambia2018).Similarly, in just five national parks(Ministryof Tourism and protected areas. strate theeconomicreturnsofinvestingin how theymaychangeovertime, anddemon- models, understandtheimpactsoftourismand assist localcommunities,refinetourismbusiness inform policies,improveservicestotourists, and touristspendingbehaviorcanbeusedto surveys andinformationonparkvisitornumbers Transport inpartnershipwiththeIFC.Visitor the MinistryofCommerce, Trade, Tourism and lar InternationalVisitorSurvey, whichisledby Among thecasestudies,onlyFijihadaregu- capture seasonalchangesintourismbehavior. and usevisitorsurveysonarollingbasisto assess theimpactsofprotectedareatourism, support planning,governmentsshouldregularly To make thecaseforpublicspending,andto Visitor Spending Regularly4.1.4 AssesstheEffectsof Source: World Bank Figure 23. Instruments toOutsourceTourism Activities Functions Private Operator Payment Duration and Description ( and privatesectorinclusioninthisprocess on Nepalprovidesguidancesiteselection development. ArecentWorld Bankpublication tions, andlocalstakeholder interestintourism access, security, biodiversity, landscapeattrac- and prioritysitesidentifiedwhichconsiderroad protected areanetworkneedstobeassessed, tourism potentialofnewsitesineachcountry’s to bettermanagetourism’s impacts.Thus,the the numberofprotectedareasitesinorder at well-knownsitesmakes itimportanttoexpand In thefourcountries,thisconcentrationofvisitors and PNFernandodeNoronha(0.1 million). do CaboExtrativistReserve (1.2millionvisitors) eral marineprotectedareasin2018wereArraial Jericoacoara (1.9million).Themostvisitedfed- roles (seeFigure22). al 2018;Thompsonet2014)mayplaysimilar management contracts,andlicensing(Leung et personnel), andofferingpublicservices. Leases, managing existinginfrastructure(mandate, skills, help toaddresstourisminfrastructurefinancing, ed areasisthroughconcessioning,whichcan Another meanstopromotetourisminprotect- Promote Tourism inProtected Areas Develop ConcessionPolicies to 4.2.2 see Box 1 1). restaurant, retail Accommodation, Ownership PA and operate. finance, maintain extend, build, Design, rehabilitate, revenue sharing) (could include 10-40 years,fee for management usually accountable investment andis responsibility for Concessionaire has user rights. Long-term CONCESSION PR OMOTING SU infrastructure Use offixed and provideservices Maintain, operate, fee More than5years, responsibility assumed operating leases facilityand Private operator Lease agreement. ST AINABLE PR LEASE OTECTED AREATO URISM TO BENEFITL infrastructure Use offixed contract Depends onthe fee performance-based fee, mightbe government pays <5 years, performance fee basedon of anexisting operator ofpayment Agreement with outlined. outlined. current policiesinthefourcountrycontextsare policies isdiscussedfurtherinBox 12,inwhich The regulatoryframeworkofconcessions 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. elements: in anycountryshouldincludethefollowing A commercialservices/concessionsprogram environmental conditions,andfeesforaccess. ate under, suchasduration,typeofoperation, and conditionsthatthebusinessmustoper- A concessionagreementstipulateskey terms to operateinsideaprotectedarea,forexample. Abusinesswillneedaconcessionagreement

MANAGEMENT necessary. Modifying theselaws/regulationswhen that areclearandthorough; Implementing thelawthroughregulations Socializing thedraftlaw agency tosetpolicydetails Legal frameworkallowingimplementing and thegeneralpublic tors/concessionaires, environmentalgroups, with stakeholders, includingpotentialopera- Commercial Service/Concessionlawsdrafted Demonstrated economicbenefit Public supportforcommercial activity inparks Strong protectedarealawsandregulations CONTRACT hunting. (license), guiding,canoeing, Vehicle-based tour Depends onthecontract permits paidbyoperator Up to10years,licenses/ legal activities are screened.Permit for illegal andwhereoperators otherwise beconsidered activities inPA that could License forundertaking LICENSE/ PERMIT OCAL ECONOMIES 65

Policy Recommendations Policy Recommendations 66 Source: World Bank2020b diversification potential. Chitwan (Province3)arerelativelymaturemarkets withlittle tions. Kathmandu valley(Province3),Everest1),and (Province 1)arenotranked ashighlyduetoaccesslimita- Far West Nepal(Province7)andEasterndestinations and Gaurishankar(Province3)havesimilarpotential,while and mid-rangemarkets. Mid-West (Province6)andLangtang and maybeabletodevelopdestinationsattracthigh-end offer thegreatestopportunitiesforprivatesectorengagement, In termsofthedesirability/feasibilitycriteria,Provinces4and5 be maximized. public resources,financingfordevelopmentandgrowthcan both leveragingtheprivatesectorandoptimizinguseof sector participationtocomplementscarcepublicfunds.By achieve conservation/developmentgoals,andrequiresprivate offerings iscriticaltomanagetourism’s negativeimpactsand profit-driven. However, theexpansionofprotectedareatourist as evenifsocialreturnsarehigh,privatesectorinvolvementis in orderfortheprivatesectortocontributedevelopment, ment impact.Suchsitesneedtoscorehighlyforbothcriteria above toidentifyoptimalsitesforhighprivatesectordevelop These destinationsmayberanked accordingtothecriteria in eachsector. versus risk-adjusted privatereturns(feasibility)ofinvestment bility canberoughlyequatedtosocialreturns(desirability) addressing constraintstothisgrowth.Desirabilityandfeasi- the desirabilityofgrowingkey sectorsandthefeasibilityof ranked accordingtoprivatesectoropportunities,basedon stakeholders (seeMapB11.1). Selecteddestinationscanbe newly-formed administrativeprovinces,inconsultationwith WBG hasidentifiedtwelvedestinationsacrosstheseven To diversifyandexpandnature-basedtourisminNepal,the Box 11. BANKIG ONPR Destinations inNepal Potential Tourism Map B11.1Map Selecting ProtectedAreaDestinationsforPhasedNature-BasedTourism Development Twelve OTECTED AREAS - protection ofculturalassets sustainability/protection and protection –Improvedenvironmental Cultural andenvironmental brand andappeal replicable, andimprovepositioning, the destination/touristactivity, be addition -Potential toaddvalue Product innovationandvaluechain accommodation e.g., ‘touristhotel’threetofive-star end tomid-rangemarket segment medium-size investor)inthehigh- investors (FDI,largeinvestorand - Potential toattractrelativelylarge Private sectorinvestmentpotential through directandindirectbenefits marginalized ethnicgroups/gender impact inaddressingpoverty, Impact oninclusiveness-Potential 5000+ jobs) than 500jobstohighpotentialof Potential over5years(e.g., fromless Employment creationpotential- Desirability Criteria and communities and privatestakeholders involvement oflocalpublic of localmandates& destination level-Clarity Empowerment at development policies and local/regional with nationalstrategies priorities -Alignment and localgovernment Alignment withnational development level andplanned Infrastructure availability, Access infrastructure- access activities, facilitiesand realized duetolackof present butnotfully spending touristsis - Demandfromhigher- spending byvisitors Potential formore destinations to othernatural&cultural - Competitiveinrelation visitors (market appeal) Potential formore Feasibility Criteria system include: tected area,bestpracticesforacommercialservices/concessions supportive relationshipwiththeconcessioningauthorityinpro government overseestheoperator/concessionaire. Inadditiontoa on governmentproperty, inwhichvisitorsarecustomersandthe concessions policieshavecometoresemblelicensesoperate use concessions,startingoveronehundredyearsago. Sincethen, The USNationalPark Servicewasthefirstnationalparkserviceto non-profits, communitygroupsorpartnerships. ic development.Concessionoperatorscanbeprivatecompanies, around protectedareasthroughemployment,training,andeconom- Private concessionscanprovideopportunitiestocommunities aged well,theybenefitthepark,community, andtheoperator. When concessionandcommercialserviceagreementsareman of thearea. and exploreparksinamanneralignedwiththeconservationgoals rather, provideservicesandactivitiesthatenablevisitorstoenjoy education centers,rangerstationsandrestrooms.Concessions, the operationofparkitself, like parkinfrastructure, trails,visitor tation services.Thesetypicallydonotincludeservicesneededfor merchandise, recreationalactivities,rentalequipment, andtranspor operations byprovidingservicessuchasaccommodation,food, their useandenjoymentofapark.Concessionsenhancepark ties andservicesprovidedtoprotectedareavisitorsfacilitate Commercial visitorservices,ortourismconcessions,arefacili table 10 Box 12 Dispute Resolution Annual andPeriodic Reviews Populations Economic Development/BenefittoIndigenous Reasonableness ofRates toVisitors Community Award ofConcessionContracts Franchise Fees Protection ofConcessionaireInvestment Standard ConcessionContractProvisions Unsolicited Applications Contracts Non-Competitive Award ofConcession Procedures Solicitation, Selection,Evaluation&Award enforceable Written Regulations andPolicies thatarelegally Activities Methodology forDeterminingAppropriate Contract Term Concession component Concessions Policies forProtectedAreas Authority, Law, orRegulation GoverningConcessionComponent PR OMOTING SU management plan Yes, procurement No, separatelaw No, separatelaw No, bycontract No, bypolicy No, bypolicy No, bypolicy No, relieson In contract By policy Brazil Yes Yes law No No - ST - AINABLE PR - Authority, law, orregulationgoverning component - and supportprotectedareamanagementstafftoupholdthem. protected areas,especiallyifgovernmentsprioritizethesepolicies Strong concessionspoliciesallowforsustainabletourismgrowthin zations) andUS$120MinNepal(with6,630 concessionscontracts). 11 concessionscontractsandover2,000 commercialuseauthori- ments fromcommercialconcessionstotalledUS$15MinBrazil(with existing lawsdonotprohibitconcessioning.Revenue togovern- concessions inprotectedareas.Fijihasnospecificlegislation,but ed inprotectedareaslaw, whileinBrazil,aseparatelawexistsfor the countries:inNepalandZambia,concessionspoliciesareinclud- to interestedparties(seeTable 10).Concessionslawsvarybetween tions inparks,regulations,andproceduresthatarepubliclyavailable reviewed withrespecttothelegalframeworksforcommercialopera- Concessions policiesfromBrazil,Fiji,Nepal,andZambiawere 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. concession activities,insupportofprinciplefour. Separate processing/managementanddecisionmakingof have processestopreventthese. Conflicts ofinterestshouldbeavoided,andagencies the process. Decision-makers mustbeidentifiable, andindependentfrom cial decisions. Explicit andtransparentcriteriashouldbeappliedtocommer- consistently. with commercialinterestssothatpartiesaretreatedfairlyand Well defined,transparentandconsistentprocesses OTECTED AREATO URISM TO BENEFITL N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes Fiji In process Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Never Nepal Law X X X X X X X management plan OCAL ECONOMIES No, relieson Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Zambia Yes todeal 67

Policy Recommendations Policy Recommendations 68 BANKIG ONPR OTECTED AREAS 4.3 sharebenefitswithlocal communities 4.3 table 11 lar toprovideongoingeconomicstimulilocal and thatdestinationsmustbesufficientlypopu- eas generatetourismrevenuesforcommunities, It isimportanttonotethatnotallprotectedar- ments asseeninTable 11. countries havedifferentbenefitsharingarrange- formalizes thisprocess,andeachofthefour stakeholders inconservation.Benefitsharing have anincentivetosupportparks,andbecome tected areas,particularlythroughtourism,they As noted,whencommunitiesbenefitfrompro- Arrangements Formalize4.3.1 Benefit Sharing Brazil Fiji Nepal Zambia Country Comparative BenefitSharingArrangementsintheFourCountries Benefit sharingarrangements communities livingadjacenttonational parks. Brazilian legislationmakes noprovisionto shareparkfeesandconcessionrevenueswith of Land requires thatlocalcommunitiesarecompensatedfortheirlossoffishing rights. are establishedwhenaforeshore lease isissuedtoatourismenterprise, theDepartment use oftraditionalfishinggroundsfortourism.However, inde-facto protectedareasthat and supersedesallotherformsoftitle, meaningthatcommunities cannotchargeforthe destination. Thedecreegrantsunrestrictedanduncompensatedaccess tosurfingareas the SurfingAreaDecree(2010)whichwasenactedtopromoteFiji as apremiersurfing in whichacommunitytrustfundreceives20Fijiandollarsperdiver; this isinpartdueto In Fiji,therearenoformalbenefitsharingagreements,apartfromthe Shark Reef Reserve lodge operators. their userights,andthusprecludesdirectpartnershipswithprivatesector concessionor The ForestActpreventscommunities’ forestusergroupsfrommortgagingortransferring land occupationandtreecutting,whichrestrictsconstructionoflodges inforests,while including locallyownedandoperatedaccommodation.Theregulations, however, prohibit community forestsinbufferzones,manyofwhichofferavariety tourist products, education, and10percentonadministration.Additionally, tourismisencouragedin 20 percentonincomegenerationandskillsdevelopment,10conservation percent oftheirannualfundsoncommunitydevelopment,30conservation, and naturalresourcemanagement.Theseregulationsallowusercommitteestospend30 to bechanneledlocalcommunitieslivinginbufferzonesforcommunitydevelopment The BufferZoneManagement Regulations (1996)allowfor30–50percentofparkincome in protectedareas. conservation. Thisservesasanothermechanismforcommunitiestobenefitfromtourism usually involvingreinvestmentinthecommunityformofschools,hospitalsand scouts forpatrols.Inaddition,lodgesinGMAsparticipatesocialresponsibilityprograms, toilets andschools);45percentforresourceprotection,primarilythroughemploying for CRBadministrativecosts;35percentcommunitydevelopmentprojects(boreholes, shared withlocaltraditionalleaders.Payments toCRBsaresplitthreeways:20percent hunting concessionsissharedwithcommunityresourceboards(CRB),and5percent revenue fromoutfitterlicenses,animalfees,andhunting20percentsafari consumptive tourism(hunting)mustbesharedwithcommunities-50percentofthe The ZambiaWildlifeAct(2015)statesthatrevenuefromconsumptiveandnon- communities. be usedbyparkauthoritiesindiscussionswith arrangements alongwithexamplesthatcan Table 12providesanoverviewofbenefitsharing the conservationanduseofnaturalresources. and itisimportantthatthesedifferencesinform and menlivinginprotectedareasOECMs, differences betweenincomeimpactsforwomen the benefitsarederived.Furthermore, thereare nities tosupporttheprotectedareasfromwhich among beneficiariesinorderforthesecommu- enues, theseneedtobeequitablydistributed economies. Evenwhentourismgeneratesrev- table 12 and capacitybuilding Shared decision-making plants andanimals Sustainable harvestingof and partnerships from tourismbusinesses Revenue sharingschemes area authorities mechanisms ofprotected Revenue sharing employment Direct andindirect Arrangement Benefit Sharing Benefit SharingArrangementswith Local Communities Table 13: strengthens incomemultipliers. to providegoodsandservicestouristsalso strengthening thecapacityoflocalcommunities can moreeasilyvisitlocaltownsandvillages; some areas,transportisneededsothattourists with localcommunitiescanachievethis,andin Providing opportunitiesfortouriststointeract mented tostrengthentheireconomicimpact. and programscanbedesignedimple- have beenunderstood,governmentpolicies an incomemultiplier. Oncethesemechanisms rect andindirectlinkages,maybeexpressedas the economicimpactofthisactivity, throughdi- spurred bytouristsvisitingprotectedareas,and Communities benefitfromtheeconomicactivity Multipliers Strengthening Income 4.3.2 Indirect Direct Tourism Impact Examples to startsmallbusinessesandconservationenterprises. Local consultationontourismdevelopmentandprotectedareaaccess,supportforcommunities sustainable harvestingoftheseresourcescanimprovecommunitysupportforprotectedareas. Many communitiesdependuponnaturalresourcesfortheirlivelihoods.Allowingaccesstoand through WildlifeTourism” (Twining-Ward etal.2018). of theseapproachesaredetailedintheWorld Bankreport,“SupportingSustainableLivelihoods community partnerships.Informationonroles,responsibilities,challengesandlimitationsforeach community-owned-and-run enterprises,community-privatepartnerships,andpublic-private- Approaches orpartnershipmodelsincludepublic-communityinitiatives,public-privatepartnerships, protection, etc.(Spenceley, Snyman,andRylance2019). initiatives suchasschools,clinics,smallscaleinfrastructure, energyprojects,environmental through organized/formaltrustsandusedtofinancelocalpublicgoodscommunitydevelopment hunting feesand/ortaxes whichareallocatedtolocalcommunities.Suchfundsmaybedistributed Refers totourismrevenuesfromconcessionsandpartnerships,incomelevies,permits, Indirect: Construction,food/goodsforrestaurantsetc. Direct: restaurantemployees,waitstaff, gardeners,taxi/boatdrivers,parkguides,andhandicraft. Opportunities toIncreaseBenefitsfor Local CommunitiesAroundProtectedAreas PR OMOTING SU • • • • • • • • • • Avenues/Opportunities toincreasebenefits supply goodsand services Provide agriculturalextensionand increasecapacityoflocalcommunitiesto Offer smallgrantsforbusinesses and enterprises Strengthen market linkages Encourage localsourcingofgoods bytourismestablishments Hire locallaborfortourismandprotected areamanagement Pursue inclusivegovernance Reduce human-wildlifeconflictthroughmitigationand/orcompensation Promote sustainableuseofnaturalresources Build capacityanddevelopskills Formalize revenue-sharingmechanisms ST AINABLE PR OTECTED AREATO URISM TO BENEFITL are presentedinTable 13. taged. More opportunitiesforbenefitsharing more fairlybyincludingthepooranddisadvan- multipliers. Thesebenefitsmaybedistributed prolong circulationofmoneyandthusincrease economies, driveproductionandemployment, procurement tostrengthenlinkagesinlocal also supportbusinessdiversificationandlocal gistics, amongothers.Governmentsshould skills development,creditservicesandlo- economy throughentrepreneurshiptraining, assist householdstoparticipateinthetourism governments shouldinvestinprojectswhich local peoplelivingnearthem.Forthisreason, gest singleleverfordeliveringthisvalueto of protectedareasandisarguablythestron- the mosttangibledemonstrationofvalue Employment inandthroughtourismprovides OCAL ECONOMIES 69

Policy Recommendations Policy Recommendations 70 BANKIG ONPR OTECTED AREAS Human-Wildlife Conflict Mitigate andCompensate for 4.3.3 Department, and theUSArmy(seeBox 13). Service, the NationalParks Service, theLabor ment-wide partnershipbetween the Forest thrives tothisday. The initiativewasa govern- jobs, infrastructure, andanindustrywhich lished during theGreatDepression, andcreated Civilian ConservationCorps(CCC)wasestab- ery andresilience. In the United States, the create jobsand boosteconomicrecov- Large-scale investments in protectedareas can tion objectives. development outcomesalignedwithconserva- sector participationtodelivereconomicand recovery fromthepandemicandattractprivate protected areascanplayaroleineconomic persuade governmentsthat,throughtourism, making sucharguments,evidenceisneededto means towardsagreeneconomicrecovery. In make thecaseforprotectedareatourismasa net. Theyalsoindicatetheaddedimperativeto ernance, built-inresilience, andasocial safety nonetheless, theyflagtheneedforstronggov- sector, butrathertheeffectsofpandemic; These lossesdonotsignalavolatileorrisky industry previouslyknownforitsglobalgrowth. and incomefollowingdeclinesintourism,an each site, thepandemichasresultedinlostjobs 2020), showedthegreatestmonthlylosses.In over one-thirdofthecountry’s economy(WTTC all studysites.Fiji,wheretourismaccountsfor far-reaching, withmonthlylossesrecordedin The economicimpactsofCOVID-19 are greenrecovery 4.4 ened byoperationalandfinancialweaknesses, other benefit-sharingmechanismsmaybeless- human-wildlife conflicts.Thepositiveeffectsof payouts, whichdonotcoincidewithpeaksin munities arisesthroughdelaysinthetimingof distrust betweenparkauthoritiesandcom- appropriate manner. InZambia,forinstance, do notreceiverevenuesharesinatimelyor communities expressedconcernthatthey tion payoutsisimportant,andsomestudied However, themanagementofcompensa- in communitiessurroundingprotectedareas. and tosecureconstituenciesforconservation to themanagementofhuman-wildlifeconflict, Mitigation andcompensationarefundamental for laterevaluation. data onsocial,ecologicaland tourism impacts period willgiveparkauthorities timetocollect tem-wide approaches.Similarly, thelowdemand that prioritizelong-term,sustainable, andsys- binding, followingtestingofnewoperations demand returns,systemscangraduallybecome for whatsustainabletourismmaylooklike. As ers timetotrial,consultandlayafoundation (due tolowerdemand),whichwillgivemanag- can bedevisedthatarenotimmediatelybinding demand andusepressurearelow. Frameworks management settingsandsystemswhile dow-of-opportunity forcountriestodevelop The COVID-19 pandemicprovidesawin- communities. maximize benefitstoprotectedarea-adjacent start their protectedareatourismsectors to could benefitfromCCC-like schemes tokick- tourism sectors,suchasthoseinthisstudy, with potentialtogrowtheirnature-based (The WhiteHouse2021).Similarly, countries lands andwater, andaddressingclimatechange through conservationandrestorationofpublic Climate CorpsaimstoputAmericanswork has repurposedthisinitiative. ThenewCivilian it wasin1933.Thisyear, theU.S. Government as relevantagreenrecoverymodelnow large-scale unemployment,makingtheCCC unprecedented, andCOVID-19 hasresultedin features: pressuresontheenvironmentare The worldcurrentlyfacesacrisiswithsimilar ized methodsfortheestimationofcroplosses. further researchisneeded,alongwithstandard- corrals, etc.),andwhilethesemaybeeffective, local levelstrategies(seasonalfences,livestock approaches tomitigationincludeinvestmentin cover onlyasmallfractionoflosses.Other from thesixbufferzonesindicatethatpayments of cropdamageisverydifficult,andsurveys losses throughcashtransfers,buttheestimation compensate farmersforaportionoftheircrop resources. Bufferzoneusercommitteegroups and thus,conflictsariseoverlanduse resources inbufferzonecommunityforests, In Nepal,overamillionpeopledependon communities. or lackoftransparencyinthetransferfundsto in nineyears. and stateparksfrom3.2to20.4 million increased visitornumberstonational all ofAmerica’s nationalparks,and invested intheinfrastructureforalmost the nationwidestateparkssystem.It led tothecreationandexpansionof of whichpersisttothisday. TheCCC landscape design,forexample, some age businessesinconstructionand labor, trainingthemtobuildandman- million people)asskilledandunskilled of theUSmaleworkforce(aboutthree it employedapproximately 5percent During theCCC’s nine-yearoperation, a foundationforeconomicgrowth. and investedinphysicalcapital,laying deforestation andlanddegradation, years offorestrymismanagement, It restorednaturalcapital,correcting more thanacash-for-workprogram. with generatingemployment,was New DealProgram,andwhiletasked CCC wasestablishedaspartofthe radation, andrampantsoilerosion.The drought, forestfires,severelanddeg- and Americahadenduredyearsof about 25%ofAmericansunemployed, In 1933,theGreatDepressionhadleft Context box 13 from theCivilianConservationCorps:aGreenEconomicRecovery Initiative Transforming Landscapes, CreatingJobsandLaying theFoundationforLong-Term EconomicGrowth-Learning PR OMOTING SU • • • • • • • • internship program recruited throughthe College studentswere employed andtrained administrators –also geologists, ecologists, historians, foresters, architects, engineers, Professionals -landscape aged 18–25years Mostly urbanrecruits, 3 months 250,000 hiredinthefirst male workforce) people (~5%oftheU.S. Employed ~3million The CCCbecameamodelforfutureconservationprograms day Some oftheentrepreneurstrainedthroughCCCcreatedbusinesses thatexisttothis Expansion ofU.S. Recreation andHeritageTourism Sector » » »

JOBCREATION levels, engagingyoungadultsincommunity serviceandconservationactivities More than100present-daycorpsprogramsoperateatlocal,state, andnational generating US$41.7 billionineconomicoutput US$21 billioninlocalgatewayregions,supportingmorethan340,500 jobs, Today, parksreceive over320millionvisitorsperyearwhospendanestimated Visitors tonationalandstateparksincreasedfrom3.220.4 millioninnine years ST AINABLE PR OTECTED AREATO URISM TO BENEFITL • • • • drainage control, irrigation,and Investments inflood re-vegetation) check dams,terracing, > 20 millionacres(e.g., Erosion arrestedon fires person-hours fighting constructed, 4,235,000 97,000 milesoffireroads 3,470 firetowersbuilt, 3.5 billiontreesplanted ECONOMIC LEGACY ACHIEVEMENTS RESTORATION ECOLOGICAL • • • • • TOURISM DEVELOPMENT museum and buildingofthetourist sculptures, excavation, the construction,artwork, the US.CCCinvolvedin the largestreservoirin (21 000men)fromCCC; with fundingandlabor Hoover Damwasbuilt Parks Grand CanyonNational iconic Yellowstone and infrastructure forthe Investments in established 711 stateparks 63,000 visitorbuildings trails 28,000 milesofhiking OCAL ECONOMIES 71

Policy Recommendations Policy Recommendations 72 BANKIG ONPR Box 14. Box 14. public conservationlands, in tourismbysupporting to creategreenjobson engaging 5,500scouts nature-based tourism conservancies and which willimprove NEW ZEALAND $200 million 160 community Green Recovery InitiativesinTourism andConservation $18 million is investing is investing KENYA OTECTED AREAS land andwaterconservation. to restoreparksandsupport approximately 100,000 jobs by investinginnatureand It isexpectedtocreate expanding itsnational 200,000 jobs parks network aims tocreate PAKISTAN $3 billion will invest USA ea-based tourismsector. environmentally sustainableprotectedar- and topromoteamoreinclusive, pro-poor, and dress thefailuresandchallengesofindustry, A window-of-opportunityisnowopentoad- in surroundingareas. a sustainablesourceofincomeforhouseholds park infrastructurecan growtourismandcreate ments), patrol protectedareas,and improve accessibility (e.g., roadnetworkimprove- nologies. Jobs created, forexample, to improve to diversifyoperations,anduseofdigitaltech- loans, fast-track financing, technicalassistance port canbegiventolocalbusinesses through spending inlocalcommunities. Additionally, sup- cies inandaroundnaturalareas, and encourage medium-sized firmsthroughconcessionspoli- ture-based tourismcan empowersmall-and Box 14).Astheglobaleconomyre-opens, na- policies aspartoftheirrecoverystrategies(see Globally, manycountriesseek toinvestingreen PR OMOTING SU ST AINABLE PR OTECTED AREATO URISM TO BENEFITL OCAL ECONOMIES 73

Policy Recommendations Conclusion 74 Conclusion BANKIG ONPR 5 OTECTED AREAS PR OMOTING SU ST AINABLE PR act wiselyandsustainablyinresponse tothesechallenges. ed areasandthetouristswhovisitthemasanopportunityto vital importance–theyaskthatdecisionmakers viewprotect- sphere. Insuch acontext,theconclusionsofthisreportare conservation fundinginthefaceofdirethreatstobio- opment gains,crippledthetourismindustry, andshrunk COVID-19 hasledtoaglobalrecession,reverseddevel- income multipliers,andmanagehuman-wildlifeconflict. and arguesstronglytoformalizebenefitsharing,strengthen neighbors arecrucialconservationalliesandbeneficiaries, of globalinequalities,thereportnotesthatprotectedarea response toapandemicwhichhaslaidbarethepersistence through concessionsandsimilarinstruments.Finally, andin attracts privateinvestmentandstrengthensitsoperations of protectedareastohostadiversifyingtouristsectorwhich negative impacts,thereportcallsforanexpandednetwork ment’ istoberealized.Inaddition,anddilutetourism’s support formanagersiftheirroleas‘enginesofdevelop public andprivateinvestment,closemonitoring,capacity that conservationareasreceiveformalprotection,increased To securethesepotentials,however, thereportrecommends the pandemicviagreenerdevelopmentpathways. promising meanstoprotectbiodiversityandrecoverfrom valuable economicassets,high-returninvestments,anda over-generalizing findings,protectedareasprovetobe While cautioniswarrantedininterpretingresultsand ty reduction,andattractivereturnsonpublicinvestment. local economies,jobcreation,highincomemultipliers,pover- cludes thatprotectedareatourismisassociatedwithgrowing among poorandnon-poorhouseholds.Thisresearchcon- and supplywhichsupportgrowingsharesofemployment ism catalyzesexpandingpatternsofcross-sectoraldemand report drawsonsurveydataandmodellingtoshowhowtour- case studiescoveringamixofeconomiesandcontexts,the tected areaspromoteconservationanddevelopment.From economic impactsofprotectedareatourismtoshowthatpro- To backthisargument,thereportquantifiessomeof recovery, andaddress longstandingdevelopmentchallenges. for countriestoarrestbiodiversityloss,assistpost-pandemic inclusive, sustainabletourisminprotectedareasoffersaway The report’s answertothisquestionis‘yes’ –thepromotionof while somanydevelopmentchallengesremainintractable? protected areanetworksundersucheconomicduress,and was posed:cancountriesaffordtomaintainandexpandtheir conservation growingeverlarger. Inthiscontext,thequestion with tourismdwindlingworldwide, andthefundingdeficitfor tourism andconservationsectorshavesufferedsetbacks, jeopardy tothebiosphere. Inthewake ofthepandemic, while atthesametime, biodiversitylossposesagrowing The COVID-19 pandemichas ledtoaglobalrecession, OTECTED AREATO URISM TO BENEFITL OCAL ECONOMIES - 75

Conclusion References

Acha, Alemayehu, Mathewos Temesgen, and Hans Bauer. 2018. “Human–Wildlife Conflicts and Their Associated Livelihood Impacts in and Around Chebera-Churchura National Park, Ethiopia.” Society & Natural Resources 31 (2): 260–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2017.134797 4. Baghai, Mujon, Jennifer R. B. Miller, Lisa J. Blanken, Holly T. Dublin, Kathleen H. Fitzgerald, Patience Gandiwa, Karen Laurenson, James Milanzi, Alastair Nelson, and Peter Lindsey. 2018. “Models for the Collaborative Management of Africa’s Protected Areas.” Biological Conservation 218 (February): 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.11.025. Balmford, Andrew, James Beresford, Jonathan Green, Robin Naidoo, Matt Walpole, and Andrea Manica. 2009. “A Global Perspective on Trends in Nature-Based Tourism.” PLOS Biology 7 (6): e1000144. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000144. Balmford, Andrew, Pippa Gravestock, Neal Hockley, Colin J. McClean, and Callum M. Roberts. 2004. “The Worldwide Costs of Marine Protected Areas.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101 (26): 9694–97. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0403239101. Balmford, Andrew, Jonathan M. H. Green, Michael Anderson, James Beresford, Charles Huang, Robin Naidoo, Matt Walpole, and Andrea Manica. 2015. “Walk on the Wild Side: Estimating the Global Magnitude of Visits to Protected Areas.” PLOS Biology 13 (2): e1002074. https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002074. Ban, Natalie C., Georgina Grace Gurney, Nadine A. Marshall, Charlotte K. Whitney, Morena Mills, Stefan Gelcich, Nathan J. Bennett, et al. 2019. “Well-Being Outcomes of Marine Protected Areas.” Nature Sustainability 2 (6): 524–32. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0306-2. Barlow, Jos, Filipe França, Toby A. Gardner, Christina C. Hicks, Gareth D. Lennox, Erika Berenguer, Leandro Castello, et al. 2018. “The Future of Hyperdiverse Tropical Ecosystems.” Nature 559 (7715): 517–26. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0301-1. Barnosky, Anthony D., Nicholas Matzke, Susumu Tomiya, Guinevere O. U. Wogan, Brian Swartz, Tiago B. Quental, Charles Marshall, et al. 2011. “Has the Earth’s Sixth Mass Extinction Already Arrived?” Nature 471 (7336): 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09678. Batini, Nicoletta, Mario Di Serio, Matteo Fragetta, Giovanni Melina, and Anthony Waldron. 2021. “Building Back Better: How Big Are Green Spending Multipliers?” IMF Working Paper WP/21/87. International Monetary Fund. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/ Issues/2021/03/19/Building-Back-Better-How-Big-Are-Green-Spending-Multipliers-50264. Benítez-López, Ana, Rob Alkemade, and Pita A. Verweij. 2010. “The Impacts of Roads and Other Infrastructure on Mammal and Bird Populations: A Meta-Analysis.” Biological Conservation 143 (6): 1307–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.02.009. Bergseth, Brock J., Georgina G. Gurney, Michele L. Barnes, Adrian Arias, and Joshua E. Cinner. 2018. “Addressing Poaching in Marine Protected Areas through Voluntary Surveillance and Enforcement.” Nature Sustainability 1 (8): 421–26. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0117-x. Börner, Jan, Kathy Baylis, Esteve Corbera, Driss Ezzine-de-Blas, Jordi Honey-Rosés, U. Martin Persson, and Sven Wunder. 2017. “The Effectiveness of Payments for Environmental Services.” World Development 96 (August): 359–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. worlddev.2017.03.020. Bovarnick, Andrew, Jaime Fernandez-Baca, Jose Galindo, and Helen Negret. 2010. “Financial Sustainability of Protected Areas in Latin America and the Caribbean: Investment Policy Guidance.” United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC). https://www.cbd.int/financial/finplanning/g-planscorelatin-undp.pdf Buckley, Ralf. 2004. Environmental impacts of ecotourism. https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/27855 Buckley, Ralf. 2010. Conservation Tourism. https://www.cabi.org/bookshop/book/9781845936655/

Burke, Lauretta, Katie Reytar, Mark Spalding, and Allison Perry. 2011. Reefs at Risk Revisited. https:// www.wri.org/publication/reefs-risk-revisited. CBD. 2018. Decision Adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity: 14/8 Protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures. CBD/COP/DEC/14/8. Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt. https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-14/cop- 14-dec-08-en.pdf CBD. 2019. “Biodiversity Year in Review.” Convention on Biological Diversity. 2019. https://www.cbd. int/article/2019-12-20-16-57-49. Ceballos, Gerardo, Paul R. Ehrlich, and Peter H. Raven. 2020. “Vertebrates on the Brink as Indicators of Biological Annihilation and the Sixth Mass Extinction.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117 (24): 13596–602. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1922686117. Chidakel, Alexander, Brian Child, and Shylock Muyengwa. 2021. “Evaluating the Economics of Park- Tourism from the Ground-up: Leakage, Multiplier Effects, and the Enabling Environment at South Luangwa National Park, Zambia.” Ecological Economics 182 (April): 106960. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.106960. Chikuba, Zai, Malunga Syacumpi, and James Thurlow. 2013. “A 2007 Social Accounting Matrix (SAM) for Zambia.” Lusaka, Zambia; and Washington, D.C.: Zambia Institute for Policy Analysis and Research; and International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). https://www.ifpri.org/ publication/2007-social-accounting-matrix-sam-zambia. Coad, Lauren, James E.M. Watson, Jonas Geldmann, Neil D. Burgess, Fiona Leverington, Marc Hockings, Kathryn Knights, and Moreno Di Marco. 2019. “Widespread Shortfalls in Protected Area Resourcing Undermine Efforts to Conserve Biodiversity.”Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 17 (5): 259–64. Conservation International. 2008. A practical guide to good practice for marine-based tours. http:// cpps.dyndns.info/cpps-docs-web/planaccion/docs2011/oct/turismo_biodiv/Doc.18.Best- practice-tourism-galapagos.pdf Cullinane Thomas, Catherine, and Lynne. Koontz. 2020. “2019 National Park Visitor Spending Effects: Economic Contributions to Local Communities, States, and the Nation. Natural Resource Report.” NPS/NRSS/EQD/NRR—2020/2110. Fort Collins, Colorado: National Park Service. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/socialscience/vse.htm. Damania, Richard, Sebastien Desbureaux, Pasquale Lucio Scandizzo, Mehdi Mikou, Deepali Gohil, and Mohammed Said. 2019. “When Good Conservation Becomes Good Economics : Kenya’s Vanishing Herds.” Washington D.C.: World Bank. https://openknowledge.world- bank.org/handle/10986/33083. Deloitte. 2017. “At What Price? The Economic, Social and Icon Value of the Great Barrier Reef.” Brisbane, Australia: Deloitte Australia. den Braber, Bowy, Karl L. Evans, and Johan A. Oldekop. 2018. “Impact of Protected Areas on Poverty, Extreme Poverty, and Inequality in Nepal.” Conservation Letters 11 (6): e12576. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12576. Deutz, Andrew, Geoffrey M. Heal, Rose Niu, Eric Swanson, Terry Townshend, Zhu Li, Alejandro Delmar, Alqayam Meghji, Suresh A. Sethi, and John Tobin-de la Puente. 2020. “Financing Nature: Closing the Global Biodiversity Financing Gap.” The Paulson Institute, The Nature Conservancy, and the Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability. https://www. paulsoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/FINANCING-NATURE_Full-Report_Final- Version_091520.pdf. Dickman, Amy J., Ewan A. Macdonald, and David W. Macdonald. 2011. “A Review of Financial Instruments to Pay for Predator Conservation and Encourage Human–Carnivore Coexistence.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108 (34): 13937–44. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1012972108. Dixon, Peter, and Dale Jorgenson. 2012. “Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling.” Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling. Elsevier. https://econpapers. repec.org/bookchap/eeehacgem/1.htm. Doinjashvili, Pikria, Philippe Méral, and Fano Andriamahefazafy. 2020. “Sustaining Protected Areas through Conservation Trust Funds: A Review.” International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 0 (0): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2020.1762257. Dudley, Nigel, Holly Jonas, Fred Nelson, Jeffrey Parrish, Aili Pyhälä, Sue Stolton, and James E. M. Watson. 2018. “The Essential Role of Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures in Achieving Big Bold Conservation Targets.” Global Ecology and Conservation 15 (July): e00424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2018.e00424. Dudley, Nigel, and Sue Stolton. 2003. Running Pure : The Importance of Forest Protected Areas to Drinking Water. World Bank/WWF Alliance for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Use. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/15006. Duraiappah, Anantha Kumar, Shahid Naeem, Tundi Agardy, Neville J. Ash, H. David Cooper, Sandra Diaz, Daniel P. Faith, et al. 2005. “Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis; a Report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.” https://experts.umn.edu/en/ publications/ecosystems-and-human-well-being-biodiversity-synthesis-a-report-o. Edgar, Graham J., Rick D. Stuart-Smith, Trevor J. Willis, Stuart Kininmonth, Susan C. Baker, Stuart Banks, Neville S. Barrett, et al. 2014. “Global Conservation Outcomes Depend on Marine Protected Areas with Five Key Features.” Nature 506 (7487): 216–20. https://doi. org/10.1038/nature13022. FAO. 2019. “Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing.” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2019. http://www.fao.org/iuu-fishing/en/. ———. 2020. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ ca9229en. FAO and UNEP. 2020. “The State of the World’s Forests 2020.” Rome: FAO and UNEP. https://doi. org/10.4060/CA8642EN. Ferraro, Paul J., Merlin M. Hanauer, and Katharine R. E. Sims. 2011. “Conditions Associated with Protected Area Success in Conservation and Poverty Reduction.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108 (34): 13913–18. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1011529108. Fiji Bureau of Statistics. 2017. Population and Housing Census. Geldmann, Jonas, Megan Barnes, Lauren Coad, Ian D. Craigie, Marc Hockings, and Neil D. Burgess. 2013. “Effectiveness of Terrestrial Protected Areas in Reducing Habitat Loss and Population Declines.” Biological Conservation 161 (May): 230–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biocon.2013.02.018. Geldmann, Jonas, Andrea Manica, Neil D. Burgess, Lauren Coad, and Andrew Balmford. 2019. “A Global-Level Assessment of the Effectiveness of Protected Areas at Resisting Anthropogenic Pressures.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116 (46): 23209–15. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1908221116. Gibb, Rory, David W. Redding, Kai Qing Chin, Christl A. Donnelly, Tim M. Blackburn, Tim Newbold, and Kate E. Jones. 2020. “Zoonotic Host Diversity Increases in Human-Dominated Ecosystems.” Nature 584 (7821): 398–402. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2562-8. Gill, David A., Michael B. Mascia, Gabby N. Ahmadia, Louise Glew, Sarah E. Lester, Megan Barnes, Ian Craigie, et al. 2017. “Capacity Shortfalls Hinder the Performance of Marine Protected Areas Globally.” Nature 543 (7647): 665–69. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21708. Halpern, Benjamin S., Melanie Frazier, John Potapenko, Kenneth S. Casey, Kellee Koenig, Catherine Longo, Julia Stewart Lowndes, et al. 2015. “Spatial and Temporal Changes in Cumulative Human Impacts on the World’s Ocean.” Nature Communications 6 (1): 7615. https://doi. org/10.1038/ncomms8615. Hill, Catherine, Ferrel Osborn, and Andrew Plumptre. 2002. Human-Wildlife Conflict: Identifying the Problem and Possible Solutions. Albertine Rift Technical Reports Series. Vol. 1. Hockings, Marc. 2006. Evaluating Effectiveness: A Framework for Assessing Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas. IUCN. Hockings, Marc, Nigel Dudley, and Wendy Elliott. 2020. “Editorial Essay: COVID-19 and Protected and Conserved Areas.” PARKS, no. 26.1 (June): 7–24. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN. CH.2020.PARKS-26-1MH.en. IMF. 2020. “Regional Economic Outlook. Sub-Saharan Africa: A Difficult Road to Recovery.” ISBN 9781513557601. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund. https://www.imf.org/-/media/ Files/Publications/REO/AFR/2020/October/English/text.ashx. Inskip, Chloe, and Alexandra Zimmermann. 2009. “Human-Felid Conflict: A Review of Patterns and Priorities Worldwide.” Oryx 43 (1): 18–34. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060530899030X. Interagency Visitor Use Management Council. 2016. Visitor Use Management Framework: A Guide to Providing Sustainable Outdoor Recreation. https://visitorusemanagement.nps.gov/con- tent/documents/lowres_VUM%20Framework_Edition%201_IVUMC.pdf Interagency Visitor Use Management Council. 2019. Visitor Capacity Guidebook: Managing the Amounts and Types of Visitor Use to Achieve Desired Conditions. https:// visitorusemanagement.nps.gov/Content/documents/IVUMC_Visitor_Capacity_Guidebook_ newFINAL_highres.pdf IPBES. 2019. Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Edited by E. S. Brondizio, J. Settele, S. Díaz, and H. T. Ngo. Bonn, Germany: IPBES Secretariat. https://ipbes.net/global-assessment. IPCC, 2019. “IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate.” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/. IUCN ESARO. 2020. “Closing the Gap. The Financing and Resourcing of Protected and Conserved Areas in Eastern and Southern Africa.” Nairobi, Kenya: IUCN ESARO; BIOPAMA. https://por- tals.iucn.org/library/node/49045. Jambeck, Jenna R., Roland Geyer, Chris Wilcox, Theodore R. Siegler, Miriam Perryman, Anthony Andrady, Ramani Narayan, and Kara Lavender Law. 2015. “Plastic Waste Inputs from Land into the Ocean.” Science 347 (6223): 768–71. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1260352. Jones, Kendall R., Oscar Venter, Richard A. Fuller, James R. Allan, Sean L. Maxwell, Pablo Jose Negret, and James E. M. Watson. 2018. “One-Third of Global Protected Land Is under Intense Human Pressure.” Science 360 (6390): 788–91. https://doi.org/10.1126/science. aap9565. Leisher, Craig, P.J.H. Van Beukering, and Lea Scherl. 2007. “Nature’s Investment Bank. Marine Protected Areas Contribute to Poverty Reduction.” The Nature Conservancy, January. Leung, Yu-Fai, Anna Spenceley, Glen Hvenegaard, and Ralf Buckley (eds.). 2018. “Tourism and Visitor Management in Protected Areas: Guidelines for Sustainability.” Gland. https://www. sprep.org/attachments/VirLib/Global/tourism-protected-areas.pdf. Leverington, Fiona, Katia Lemos Costa, Helena Pavese, Allan Lisle, and Marc Hockings. 2010. “A Global Analysis of Protected Area Management Effectiveness.”Environmental Management 46 (5): 685–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9564-5. Lindsey, P., M. Baghai, G. Bigurube, S. Cunliffe, A. Dickman, K. Fitzgerald, M. Flyman, et al. 2021. “Attracting Investment for Africa’s Protected Areas by Creating Enabling Environments for Collaborative Management Partnerships.” Biological Conservation 255 (March): 108979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.108979. Lindsey, Peter A., Jennifer R. B. Miller, Lisanne S. Petracca, Lauren Coad, Amy J. Dickman, Kathleen H. Fitzgerald, Michael V. Flyman, et al. 2018. “More than $1 Billion Needed Annually to Secure Africa’s Protected Areas with Lions.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115 (45): E10788. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1805048115. Lindsey, Peter, James Allan, Peadar Brehony, Amy Dickman, Ashley Robson, Colleen Begg, Hasita Bhammar, et al. 2020. “Conserving Africa’s Wildlife and Wildlands through the COVID-19 Crisis and Beyond.” Nature Ecology & Evolution 4 (10): 1300–1310. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41559-020-1275-6. Mackenzie, Catrina A., and Peter Ahabyona. 2012. “Elephants in the Garden: Financial and Social Costs of Crop Raiding.” Ecological Economics 75 (March): 72–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolecon.2011.12.018. Maekawa, Miko, Annette Lanjouw, Eugène Rutagarama, and Douglas Sharp. 2013. “Mountain Gorilla Tourism Generating Wealth and Peace in Post-Conflict Rwanda.”Natural Resources Forum 37 (2): 127–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-8947.12020. Mascia, Michael B., and Sharon Pailler. 2011. “Protected Area Downgrading, Downsizing, and Degazettement (PADDD) and Its Conservation Implications.” Conservation Letters 4 (1): 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00147.x. Maxwell, S. L., Cazalis, V., Dudley, N., Hoffmann, M., Rodrigues, A. S. L., Stolton, S., Visconti, P., Woodley, S., Kingston, N., Lewis, E., Maron, M., Strassburg, B. B. N., Wenger, A., Jonas, H. D., Venter, O., & Watson, J. E. M. 2020. Area-based conservation in the twenty-first century. Nature, 586 (7828), 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2773-z. McCarthy, Donal P, Paul F Donald, Jörn PW Scharlemann, Graeme M Buchanan, Andrew Balmford, Jonathan MH Green, Leon A Bennun, Neil D Burgess, Lincoln DC Fishpool, and Stephen T Garnett. 2012. “Financial Costs of Meeting Global Biodiversity Conservation Targets: Current Spending and Unmet Needs.” Science 338 (6109): 946–49. Melillo, Jerry M., Xiaoliang Lu, David W. Kicklighter, John M. Reilly, Yongxia Cai, and Andrei P. Sokolov. 2016. “Protected Areas’ Role in Climate-Change Mitigation.” Ambio 45 (2): 133–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0693-1. Ministry of Tourism and Arts, Republic of Zambia. 2018. “Zambia Tourism Master Plan 2018-2038.” https://www.mota.gov.zm/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Zambia-Tourism-Master-Plan.pdf. Mitchell, Jonathan, and Caroline Ashley. 2009. “Tourism and Poverty Reduction: Pathways to Prosperity.” Tourism and Poverty Reduction: Pathways to Prosperity, December, 1–157. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849774635. Mtui, Elibariki. 2007. “Towards Initiating and Implementing Incentives for Pro-Poor Tourism in Tanzania.” In Tourism and Development: Agendas for Action, 85–110. Nairobi, Kenya: SNV East & Southern Africa. https://land.igad.int/index.php/documents-1/countries/kenya/ investment-3/669-tourism-and-development/file. Munanura, Ian E., Kenneth F. Backman, Jeffrey C. Hallo, and Robert B. Powell. 2016. “Perceptions of Tourism Revenue Sharing Impacts on Volcanoes National Park, Rwanda: A Sustainable Livelihoods Framework.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 24 (12): 1709–26. https://doi.org/10. 1080/09669582.2016.1145228. Naidoo, R., D. Gerkey, D. Hole, A. Pfaff, A. M. Ellis, C. D. Golden, D. Herrera, et al. 2019. “Evaluating the Impacts of Protected Areas on Human Well-Being across the Developing World.” Science Advances 5 (4): eaav3006. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aav3006. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2016. Congestion Management Toolkit. https:// parkplanning.nps.gov/showFile.cfm?projectID=97506&MIMEType=application%252Fpdf&- filename=NPS%5FCMS%5FToolkit%2Epdf&sfid=440147. Newbold, Tim. 2018. “Future Effects of Climate and Land-Use Change on Terrestrial Vertebrate Community Diversity under Different Scenarios.”Proceedings. Biological Sciences 285 (1881). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.0792. Newbold, Tim, Lawrence N. Hudson, Helen R. P. Phillips, Samantha L. L. Hill, Sara Contu, Igor Lysenko, Abigayil Blandon, et al. 2014. “A Global Model of the Response of Tropical and Sub-Tropical Forest Biodiversity to Anthropogenic Pressures.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 281 (1792): 20141371. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.1371. Newsome, David, and Michael Hughes. 2018. “The Contemporary Conservation Reserve Visitor Phenomenon!” Biodiversity and Conservation 27 (2): 521–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10531-017-1435-4. OECD. 2016. The Ocean Economy in 2030. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264251724-en. Oldekop, J. A., G. Holmes, W. E. Harris, and K. L. Evans. 2016. “A global assessment of the social and conservation outcomes of protected areas.” Conservation Biology 30 (1): 133–41. https://doi. org/10.1111/cobi.12568. Parks Canada Agency, Government of Canada. 2019. “Economic Impact of Parks Canada - Parks Canada Agency.” June 3, 2019. https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/agence-agency/bib-lib/ rapports-reports/econo2011. Pirlea, A.F., U. Serajuddin, D. Wadhwa, M. Welch, and A. Whitby. 2020. “Atlas of the Sustainable Development Goals 2020: From World Development Indicators.” 2020. https://datatopics. worldbank.org/sdgatlas/. Raven, Peter H., Roy E. Gereau, Peter B. Phillipson, Cyrille Chatelain, Clinton N. Jenkins, and Carmen Ulloa Ulloa. 2020. “The Distribution of Biodiversity Richness in the Tropics.” Science Advances 6 (37): eabc6228. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abc6228. Reaser, Jamie, Brooklin E. Hunt, Manuel Ruiz-Aravena, Gary M. Tabor, Jonathan A. Patz, Daniel Becker, Harvey Locke, Peter Hudson, and Raina Plowright. 2020. “Reducing Land Use- Induced Spillover Risk by Fostering Landscape Immunity: Policy Priorities for Conservation Practitioners.” EcoEvoRxiv. https://doi.org/10.32942/osf.io/7gd6a. Reaser, Jamie, Gary M. Tabor, Daniel J. Becker, Philip Muruthi, Arne Witt, Stephen J. Woodley, Manuel Ruiz-Aravena, Jonathan Alan Patz, Valerie Hickey, and Peter J. Hudson. 2020. “Land Use- Induced Spillover: Priority Actions for Protected and Conserved Area Managers.” Roberts, Callum M., Bethan C. O’Leary, Douglas J. McCauley, Philippe Maurice Cury, Carlos M. Duarte, Jane Lubchenco, Daniel Pauly, et al. 2017. “Marine Reserves Can Mitigate and Promote Adaptation to Climate Change.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114 (24): 6167–75. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1701262114. Rylance, Andrew, and Anna Spenceley. 2017. “Reducing Economic Leakages from Tourism: A Value Chain Assessment of the Tourism Industry in Kasane, Botswana.” Development Southern Africa 34 (3): 295–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2017.1308855. Sandbrook, Chris G. 2010. “Putting Leakage in Its Place: The Significance of Retained Tourism Revenue in the Local Context in Rural Uganda.” Journal of International Development 22 (1): 124–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.1507. Scholes, Robert, and Reinette Biggs. 2004. “Ecosystem Services in Southern Africa: A Regional Assessment,” January. Singh, Inderjit, Lyn Squire, and John Strauss. 1986. Agricultural Household Models : Extensions, Applications, and Policy. World Bank. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/ pt/621291468739297175/pdf/multi-page.pdf Snyman, Susan, and Kelly S. Bricker. 2019. “Living on the Edge: Benefit-Sharing from Protected Area Tourism.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 27 (6): 705–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582. 2019.1615496. Snyman, Susan, Daudi Sumba, Francis Vorhies, Elizabeth Gitari, Christina Ender, Albert Ahenkan, Aurelie Flore Koumba Pambo, and N Bengone. 2021. “The State of the Wildlife Economy in Africa.” Kigali, Rwanda: African Leadership University School of Wildlife Conservation. https://sowc.alueducation.com/ state-wildlife-economy-africa-report-south-africa-country-case-study-published-2/. Spalding, Mark, Lauretta Burke, Spencer A. Wood, Joscelyne Ashpole, James Hutchison, and Philine zu Ermgassen. 2017. “Mapping the Global Value and Distribution of Coral Reef Tourism.” Marine Policy 82 (August): 104–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.05.014. Spenceley, Anna, Susan Snyman, and Paul Eagles. 2017. Guidelines for Tourism Partnerships and Concessions for Protected Areas: Generating Sustainable Revenues for Conservation and Development. Report to the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity and IUCN. https://www.cbd.int/tourism/doc/tourism-partnerships-protected-areas-web.pdf. Spenceley, Anna, Susan Snyman, and Andrew Rylance. 2019. “Revenue Sharing from Tourism in Terrestrial African Protected Areas.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 27 (6): 720–34. https:// doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1401632. Taylor, J. Edward, and Mateusz J. Filipski. 2014. Beyond Experiments in Development Economics: Local Economy-Wide Impact Evaluation. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Taylor, J. Edward, Jared Hardner, and Micki Stewart. 2009. “Ecotourism and Economic Growth in the Galapagos: An Island Economy-Wide Analysis*.” Environment and Development Economics 14 (2): 139–62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X08004646. Tesfaw, Anteneh T., Alexander Pfaff, Rachel E. Golden Kroner, Siyu Qin, Rodrigo Medeiros, and Michael B. Mascia. 2018. “Land-Use and Land-Cover Change Shape the Sustainability and Impacts of Protected Areas.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115 (9): 2084–89. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1716462115. The White House. 2021. “FACT SHEET: President Biden Takes Executive Actions to Tackle the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, Create Jobs, and Restore Scientific Integrity Across Federal Government.” The White House. January 27, 2021. https://www.whitehouse.gov/ briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/01/27/fact-sheet-president-biden-takes-executive- actions-to-tackle-the-climate-crisis-at-home-and-abroad-create-jobs-and-restore-scientific- integrity-across-federal-government/. Thirgood, Simon, Rosie Woodroffe, and Alan Rabinowitz. 2005. “The Impact of Human–Wildlife Conflict on Human Lives and Livelihoods.” InPeople and Wildlife, Conflict or Co- Existence?, edited by Alan Rabinowitz, Rosie Woodroffe, and Simon Thirgood, 13–26. Conservation Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511614774.003. Tourism Industry Association of Canada, Canadian Tourism Commission and Parks Canada. 2008. Green your Business: Toolkit for Tourism Operators. https://tiac-aitc.ca/_Library/documents/ green_your_business_toolkit.pdf. Thompson, A., P.J. Massyn, J. Pendry, and J. Pastorelli. 2014. “Tourism Concessions in Protected Natural Areas: Guidelines for Managers.” United Nations Development Programme. Twining-Ward, Louise, Wendy Li, Hasita Bhammar, and Elisson Wright. 2018. Supporting Sustainable Livelihoods through Wildlife Tourism. World Bank, Washington, DC. https://doi. org/10.1596/29417. UNDP. n.d. “Goal 14: Life below Water.” UNDP. Accessed June 9, 2021. https://www1.undp.org/ content/singapore-global-centre/en/home/sustainable-development-goals/goal-14-life-be- low-water.html. UNEP-WCMC and IUCN. 2020. “Protected Planet: The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA).” Protected Planet Digital Report. 2020. www.protectedplanet.net. UNODC. 2020. “World Wildlife Crime Report 2020: Trafficking in Protected Species.” Verdugo, Dominique. 2007. “An Analysis of Government Incentives for Increasing the Local Economic Impacts of Tourism in Rwanda.” In Tourism and Development: Agendas for Action, 57–84. Nairobi, Kenya: SNV East & Southern Africa. https://land.igad.int/index.php/ documents-1/countries/kenya/investment-3/669-tourism-and-development/file. Wake, David B., and Vance T. Vredenburg. 2008. “Are We in the Midst of the Sixth Mass Extinction? A View from the World of Amphibians.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (Supplement 1): 11466–73. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0801921105. Waldron, Anthony, Vanessa Adams, James Allan, Andy Arnell, Juliano Palacios Abrantes, Scott Atkinson, A. Baccini, et al. 2020. “Protecting 30 Percent of the Planet: Costs, Benefits and Economic Implications.” https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.19950.64327. Waldron, Anthony, Daniel C Miller, Dave Redding, Arne Mooers, Tyler S Kuhn, Nate Nibbelink, J Timmons Roberts, Joseph A Tobias, and John L Gittleman. 2017. “Reductions in Global Biodiversity Loss Predicted from Conservation Spending.” Nature 551 (7680): 364–67. Waldron, Anthony, Arne O Mooers, Daniel C Miller, Nate Nibbelink, David Redding, Tyler S Kuhn, J Timmons Roberts, and John L Gittleman. 2013. “Targeting Global Conservation Funding to Limit Immediate Biodiversity Declines.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (29): 12144–48. Wang, Sonam, and David Macdonald. 2006. “Livestock Predation by Carnivores in Jigme Singye Wangchuck National Park, Bhutan.” Biological Conservation 129 (May): 558–65. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.11.024. Watson, James E. M., Nigel Dudley, Daniel B. Segan, and Marc Hockings. 2014. “The Performance and Potential of Protected Areas.” Nature 515 (7525): 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1038/ nature13947. WEF. 2019a. “Country Profiles.”Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index 2019 edition. https://wef. ch/30jMj2Q. ———. 2019b. “The Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report 2019.” https://www.weforum.org/ reports/the-travel-tourism-competitiveness-report-2019. Weru, James. 2007. “Government Incentives for Boosting Impacts on Pro-Poor Tourism in Kenya.” In Tourism and Development: Agendas for Action, 15–32. Nairobi, Kenya: SNV East & Southern Africa. https://land.igad.int/index.php/documents-1/countries/kenya/ investment-3/669-tourism-and-development/file. Withers, Oliver, and Tenke Zoltani. 2020. “Chapter 37 - Leveraging Support for Pangolin Conservation and the Potential of Innovative Finance.” In Pangolins, edited by Daniel W. S. Challender, Helen C. Nash, and Carly Waterman, 579–95. Biodiversity of World: Conservation from Genes to Landscapes. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/ B978-0-12-815507-3.00037-X. Woodroffe, Rosie, Peter Lindsey, Stephanie Romañach, Andrew Stein, and Symon M. K. ole Ranah. 2005. “Livestock Predation by Endangered African Wild Dogs (Lycaon Pictus) in Northern Kenya.” Biological Conservation 124 (2): 225–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biocon.2005.01.028. World Bank. 2007. “Zambia: Economic and Poverty Impact of Nature-Based Tourism.” Washington, D.C.: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/7553. ———. 2016a. “Analysis of International Funding to Tackle Illegal Wildlife Trade.” 2016. http://appso- lutelydigital.com/WildLife/chapter3.html. ———. 2016b. “Why Forests Are Key to Climate, Water, Health, and Livelihoods.” Text/ HTML. World Bank. 2016. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2016/03/18/ why-forests-are-key-to-climate-water-health-and-livelihoods. ———. 2018. “Poverty Data.” 2018. https://data.worldbank.org/topic/11. ———. 2019a. “Illegal Logging, Fishing, and Wildlife Trade : The Costs and How to Combat It.” Washington D.C.: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/han- dle/10986/32806#:~:text=Illegal%20wildlife%20trade%20directly%20causes,the%20 deterioration%20of%20ecosystem%20functions.&text=The%20national%20risk%20 assessment%20tools,and%20other%20natural%20resources%20crimes. ———. 2019b. “Statistical and Economic Analysis of Uganda’s Tourism Expenditure and Motivation Survey 2019.” Washington D.C.: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/ handle/10986/34754. ———. 2020a. “Mobilizing Private Finance for Nature.” Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. http://pub- docs.worldbank.org/en/916781601304630850/Finance-for-Nature-28-Sep-web-version.pdf. ———. 2020b. “Sustainable Tourism Development in Nepal.” Washington D.C.: World Bank. ———. 2020c. “Tools and Resources for Nature-Based Tourism.” Report. World Bank, Washington, DC. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/34433. ———. forthcoming. “The Changing Wealth of Nations 2021: Managing Assets for the Future.” Washington D.C.: World Bank. WTTC. 2019a. “The Economic Impact of Global Wildlife Tourism.” https://wttc.org/Portals/0/ Documents/Reports/2019/Sustainable%20Growth-Economic%20Impact%20of%20 Global%20Wildlife%20Tourism-Aug%202019.pdf?ver=2021-02-25-182802-167. ———. 2019b. “Travel and Tourism Performance, 2019.” 2019. https://wttc.org/Research/ Economic-Impact. ———. 2020. “Fiji 2020 Annual Research: Key Highlights.” London: World Travel & Tourism Council. https://wttc.org/Research/Economic-Impact. WWF. 2018. Living Planet Report - 2018: Aiming Higher. Edited by M. Grooten and R.E.A. Almond. Gland, Switzerland: WWF. WWF. 2020. “Living Planet Report 2020- Bending the Curve of Biodiversity Loss.” WWF. https://liv- ingplanet.panda.org/en-us/. References 86 BANKIG ONPR OTECTED AREAS