WILDLIFE WATCHING and TOURISM a Study on the Beneﬁts and Risks of a Fast Growing Tourism Activity and Its Impacts on Species IMPRINT

Home , Hobby

WILDLIFE WATCHING AND TOURISM A study on the beneﬁts and risks of a fast growing tourism activity and its impacts on species IMPRINT

Published by United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Secretariat of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS).

Wildlife Watching and Tourism: A study on the beneﬁts and risks of a fast growing tourism activity and its impacts on species UNEP / CMS Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. 68 pages.

Produced by UNEP / CMS Convention on Migratory Species and TUI Author Richard Tapper, Environment Business & Development Group, E-mail: [email protected] Editing & Coordinator Paola Deda, CMS Secretariat, E-mail: [email protected] Publishing Manager Muriel M. Mannert Design Karina Waedt

© 2006 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) / Convention on Migratory Species (CMS). This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-proﬁt purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. UNEP would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source. No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from the United Nations Environment Programme.

DISCLAIMER The contents of this volume do not necessarily reﬂect the views of UNEP or contributory organizations.The designations employed and the presentations do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP or contributory organizations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area in its authority, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

Copies of this publication are available from the UNEP / CMS Secretariat United Nations Premises in Bonn Hermann-Ehlers-Str. 10 53113 Bonn, Germany Tel (+49 228) 815 24 01/02 Fax (+49 228) 815 24 49 E-mail: [email protected] www.cms.int

ISBN 3 – 93 74 29 – 07 – 7 Image on next page: Monarch butterﬂy, © Gene Nieminen / USFWS “We fundamentally depend on natural systems and resources for our existence and development. Our efforts to defeat poverty and pursue sustainable development will be in vain if environmental degradation and natural resource depletion continue unabated.“ Koﬁ Annan, In Larger Freedom. Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All, 2005. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many people helped me by discussing the issues surrounding wildlife watching tourism with various species and providing information. Although I have not been able to use all the information I have received, I am extremely grateful to all those people who have been generous with their time and information in helping me to prepare this report:

Bonnie Abellera, Fred Baerselman, Siddhartha Bajra Bajracharya, Roseline Beudels, Andre Brasser, Jens Brüggemann, Lauretta Burke, Tom Butynski, Janet Cochrane, Stroma Cole, Glyn Davies, Richard Denman, Ian Dickie, Sarah Durant, Gina Ebanks-Petrie, Xavier Font, Barbara French, Sue Gubbay, Sandra Hails, Carolyn Hayle, Michael Hitchcock, Jonathan Hodrien, Katherine Home- wood, Ali Hood, Trent Hreno, Corjan van der Jagt, Alex Kaat, Korie Klink, Cori Lausen, Ashley Leiman, Harvey Lemelin, Bert Lenten, Mark Manteit, Neca Marcovaldi, Pixie Maynard, Christa Mooney, Andy Moore, Mike Norton-Grifﬁths, John O’Sullivan, Agnieszka Okzanska, Rolph Payet, Art Pedersen, Margi Prideaux, Christoph Promberger, Ian Redmond, Bettina Reineking, Sibylle Riedmiller, Callum Roberts, Anton Roberts, Gerard Rocamora, David Rowat, Anne Russon, Margot Sallows, Chris Sandbrook, Christina Semeni- uk, Myra Shackley, Alison Shaw, Mark Simmonds, Mark Spalding, Colin Speedie, Andreas Streit, Rüdiger Strempel, Jamie Sweeting, Richard Thomas, Michael Thompson, Vanessa Williams, Liz Wil- liamson, Matthew Woods.

I also particularly want to thank Paola Deda, and her assistant Muriel Mannert, at the Convention on Migratory Species for their support and encouragement on this project.

Richard Tapper

4 FOREWORD BY DR KLAUS TÖPFER, UNEP

It is a sign of the important place wildlife holds for people, that in place on wildlife watching tourism. There are many good ex- so many want to watch animals in their natural habitats, and that amples of what can be done to manage wildlife and tourism suc- the popularity of wildlife watching tourism continues to grow. cessfully. However, if tourism is allowed to grow uncontrolled, adequate protection of wildlife and the environment is difficult, As well as providing enjoyment for millions of people, wildlife if not impossible. watching tourism is a significant source of income and employment for a growing number of communities, particularly in In UNEP we are actively working with partners to promote Ideveloping countries, and underlines the value of conservation. sustainable tourism through a variety of international and regi- It also can help raise awareness of a whole range of pressing onal programmes. The Parties to the Convention on Biological environmental issues that face us, for the survival of wildlife in Diversity have adopted Guidelines on Biodiversity and Tourism its habitats is at risk from climate change, pollution and land con- Development, and the Caribbean Regional Sea Programme, par- version, just as we are. ticularly through its protocol on Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife (SPAW) works with the tourism industry to reduce envi- Tourism is one of the areas where the links between people, the ronmental impacts. Many other environmental conventions and global economy, and the environment are clearly visible. The agreements also involve work with the tourism industry. international tourist sees first hand the environmental, social and economic conditions of other countries and cultures. At its I firmly believe that within a framework of sound planning con- best, tourism can be a powerful way to promote understanding trols in destination countries, the tourism industry can make a between people and cultures. At its worst, tourism can result in significant contribution towards the achievement of the target the exploitation of people, social disharmony, and environmental set at the World Summit on Sustainable Development for rever- degradation. sing the rate of loss of biodiversity by 2010, as well as to poverty alleviation and community development. So I especially As tourism continues to grow and expand, more pressures on welcome the fact that this publication is a result of a partnership the environment and wildlife are inevitable. Without proper and between the CMS and TUI, the world’s largest tourism group, a effective management and protection, these pressures will de- founder member of the Tour Operators’ Initiative for Sustainable stroy the very things that people value, and which are key assets Tourism Development, and founder member of the CMS Friends for tourism. -a non-profit association created in support of the Convention on Migratory Species-, which I have the honour to chair. While tourism is expanding, there are limits on how much visitation animal populations can sustain. We must also find ways to control wildlife watching practices so that tourists can enjoy high-quality wildlife watching without damaging the survival of the animals they watch, or their habitats. This means setting firm limits, established through impact assessments, on numbers of tourists, on tourism development, and on the ways in which wildlife watching is conducted so as to minimise the disturbance it causes to wildlife. And it requires action by governments and the tourism industry.

This publication produced by the Convention on Migratory Spe- Dr. Klaus Töpfer, cies shows that action is needed now to put effective controls Executive Director of UNEP

5 FOREWORD BY ROBERT HEPWORTH, CMS

Wildlife watching activities play a significant and growing part This publication is very timely, as many of different international in the tourism industry, and create direct and indirect econo- forums are claiming that environmental protection is a prerequi- mic benefits for many countries and communities – especially site for a healthy community development. CMS wants to make amongst developing countries. Wildlife watching appeals to a sure the promotion of development is not done at the detriment much wider range of people than the more specialist forms of of the environment, and wishes to explore how, and if, a sector eco-tourism, and opportunities to participate in wildlife watching in rapid expansion like nature tourism can affect, in both positive are increasingly a factor in tourists’ holiday choices. and negative ways, the development of communities in develo- W ping and developed countries. Options to take short wildlife watching excursions – such as whale-watching days trips – are a significant and growing fea- Wildlife watching offers an excellent opportunity to analyze im- ture of mainstream tourism, and the market for specialist wildlife mediate benefits and impacts and produce a sophisticated and watching holidays continues to grow. The numbers of visitors honest assessment of pros and cons. I believe this publication is who took whale watching tours more than doubled between a balanced account of success stories and case studies pointing 1991 and 1998, and they spent over a billion US dollars a year on out limits, risks and adverse effects on wildlife and habitats that this activity, benefiting 495 communities around the world from need urgent attention. The potential of developing the activity is remote destinations to major tourism resorts such as the Canary growing exponentially, and CMS wants to be ready to provide Islands. But can tourism activities of this type contribute to the Governments and the tourism sector in general with recommen- conservation of wildlife? dations on the way forward.

This form of tourism can certainly make important contributions CMS is proud that this publication is the outcome of collabora- to conservation by raising awareness of the animals observed tion with the private sector, as this strengthens the message it and their habitats, by creating revenues for conservation, and by contains and shows that it is in the interest of both the United creating jobs for local communities. Nations and businesses to promote sustainable activities, producing economic, social and environmental beneﬁts in the long However, achievement of such contributions is not guaran- run. teed: wildlife watching activities need careful preparation and management by both the tourism sector and conservation managers, in order to avoid adverse effects on wildlife and local communities. Examples of problems that can arise include overcrowding and excessive disturbance, which as well as being damaging to animal populations, also detract from quality of the experience for tourists; and lack of economic beneﬁts for local communities or for conservation.

CMS, in collaboration with TUI, a leading private sector travel firm which sold a total of 18 million holidays in 70 different countries around the world in 2004, decided to explore this tourism niche market, to identify benefits and limits of the activity and set some principles and guidance to the sector, in order to reduce Robert Hepworth, environmental impacts and maximize benefits, both to the com- Executive Secretary of the UNEP munities and the conservation of species. Convention on Migratory Species

6 FOREWORD BY DR. MICHAEL IWAND, TUI

Watching animals is an inspiring experience. People are exci- To achieve this requires a partnership between destinations and ted by seeing whales or turtles, spectacular bird life, elephants the tourism industry, who together share responsibilities for ma- or gorillas. Seeing these and many other species in the wild is king tourism more sustainable. International tour operators can not just memorable, but also is a very strong personal motivation set standards for the holidays they sell, and can work with their for conservation. suppliers in destination countries to improve performance. At TUI, we already do this, for example, working with local authori- Tourism today provides people with numerous opportunities to ties and local conservation organisations to raise the standards Wview animals that in the past they would have only read about of local operators providing whale watching tours in the Canary and seen in pictures and on TV or in zoos and aquariums at best. Islands. When conducting game safaris in East Africa or else- TUI and other tourism companies are ﬁnding a trend amongst where, TUI companies rely on ﬁrm conservation principles to tourists to go beyond traditional ‘sun and sand’ holidays and to support the wildlife and the people. look for more authentic experiences of culture and nature in the places they visit. But for these actions to be effective, there also needs to be a good framework of land use planning in destinations, that shows TUI is the world’s leading tourism group, and we are actively where and how much tourism can take place and which provi- committed to sustainable development for lasting economic des good protection for nature, through networks of protected growth and employment, sustainable use of natural resources areas and clear regulations. This framework can best be provi- and biodiversity and continuously improving the quality of life ded by governments and municipalities in destinations. for the people. We have therefore deliberately chosen to play a pioneering role for the industry. We see the unique potential of On behalf of TUI, I would like to say how pleased we are to be tourism, but also the need for tourism at destinations to be well co-producing this publication by the Convention on Migratory planned if it is to be sustainable and have a long-term future. Species on wildlife watching and tourism. It shows what can be done to manage wildlife watching well, but also that much more Everyone is aware of the problems of ecosystem loss and spe- needs to be done to control wildlife watching in the future in or- cies decline. It is vital for destinations to protect their natural der to protect the animals and their habitats on which it depends. assets, not just for tourism, but to prevent the high social and TUI looks forward to playing its part in this, and to ensure that economic costs that result from environmental damage. Tourism wildlife watching, and tourism generally, makes a strong contri- can create real value for nature, bringing funds and support for bution to conservation and community development. conservation as well as employment. However, to maintain the biodiversity, ecosystems and landscapes that attract tourists to holiday destinations, it is necessary to prevent uncontrolled development.

As this publication shows, the demand for new types of tourism experience in nature is growing fast. Well-planned and effective management is therefore needed to protect wildlife resources in destinations and to ensure that wildlife watching is carried out in ways that do not cause damage to the animals and environments that people want to see. This means that we have to understand Wolf Michael Iwand, the effects of tourism on wildlife better, and to provide better mo- Executive Director, Corporate Environ- nitoring, visitor management and controls on wildlife watching. mental Management, TUI-AG

7 CONTENTS

1. Introduction ...... 10 2. Economic and social benefits from ...... 24 wildlife watching 1.1 Definition of wildlife watching tourism ...... 10 2.1 Economic value of wildlife watching ...... 24 1.2 Relations hip of wildlife watching tourism ...... 10 to other types of tourism 2.2 Potential contributions to poverty reduction and ...... 26 community development 1.3 Tourism and increasing wildlife watching ...... 12 • CASE STUDY: Sea turtles and tourism in Brazil ...... 30 1.4 The range of wildlife watching activities ...... 14 • CASE STUDY: Little penguins in Phillip Island ...... 32 1.5 The demand for wildlife watching tourism: ...... 16 Nature Park, Australia market size and main market groups • CASE STUDY: The Monarch butterfly ...... 34 1.6 Key stakeholders in wildlife watching tourism ...... 18 Model forest in Mexico • CASE STUDY: Watching cheetahs in Serengeti ...... 20 • CASE STUDY: Bracken Cave & Congress Avenue ...... 36 National Park, Tanzania Bridge bat colonies, Texas, USA • CASE STUDY: Stingrays at the Sand Bar ...... 22 and Stingray City in the Cayman Islands

8 3. Conservation beneﬁts from ...... 38 4. How to address risks to the ...... 50 wildlife watching sustainability of wildlife watching

3.1 Raising revenue for conservation management ...... 40 4.1 Effects of disturbance from tourism on wildlife ...... 51

• CASE STUDY: Bunaken National Marine Park, ...... 42 4.2 Risks from variations in visitation and ...... 52 Indonesia expansion of tourism

• CASE STUDY: Viewing cranes in Müritz ...... 44 4.3 Managing visitors to minimise impacts on wildlife ...... 52 National Park, Germany 4.4 Planning approaches for zoning and visitor ...... 54 • CASE STUDY: Watching whale sharks ...... 46 management in the Seychelles 4.5 The importance of planning for sustainable ...... 55 • CASE STUDY: Gorilla watching tourism ...... 48 wildlife watching tourism in Africa • CASE STUDY: Managing tourism on ...... 56 the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador

• CASE STUDY: Whale watching, ...... 58 Península Valdés, Argentina

5. Conclusions and recommendations ...... 60 on the way forward

5.1 Making wildlife watching tourism sustainable ...... 61

6. Notes and References ...... 64

9 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Definition of wildlife watching relatively large ranges, and where their behaviour and manage- tourism ment is essentially wild, but to exclude animals kept in confined conditions. What is wildlife watching and how does it relate to tourism? Wildlife is a general term that technically covers both flora and fauna, although in popular use, wildlife is mostly used to refer to animals in the wild. Perhaps a classic image of wildlife for many 1.2 Relationship of wildlife watching people is a large mammal or a flock of wild birds, but the term is tourism to other types of tourism widely used to cover all types of animals, including all kinds of insects, and marine life. Wildlife watching tourism overlaps with many other aspects of tourism. Sometimes wildlife watching may be undertaken by WWildlife watching is simply an activity that involves the watching tourists who have purchased a specialist package – such as a of wildlife. It is normally used to refer to the watching of animals, birdwatching holiday – with the specific objective of seeing cer- and this distinguishes wildlife watching from other forms of wild- tain kinds of wildlife. Equally, there are tourists who engage in life-based activities, such as hunting and fishing. Watching wild- wildlife watching as part of activities that focus on adventure in life and animals is essentially an observational activity, although wild places, and for whom watching animals is an added attrac- in some cases it can involve interactions with the animals being tion but not necessarily their main motivation. watched, such as touching or feeding them. Wildlife watching particularly overlaps with ecotourism, which Wildlife watching tourism is then tourism that is organised and is a form of tourism based on the principles2 of making an active undertaken in order to watch wildlife. This type of tourism has contribution to the conservation of natural and cultural heritage; grown dramatically in recent years, and a quick search on the involving local and indigenous communities in its planning de- Internet provides many examples of tourism companies that velopment and operation, and contributing to their well-being; either market specific wildlife watching tours, or promote their and interpreting natural and cultural heritage to visitors. Ecotou- products by highlighting wildlife watching as an optional activity rism is often based on relatively low levels of tourism in an area, that their clients can enjoy. and is therefore particularly suited to organised tours for small groups, and also for independent travellers. The tourism industry tends to use the term ‘wildlife tourism’ rather than wildlife watching tourism. In may cases, the two Wildlife watching can also include appropriately operated mass terms are identical, but wildlife tourism is sometimes also used tourism activities. One example is the ‘Penguin Parade’ on Phil- to refer to hunting or fishing tourism, and in a few cases to the lip Island, close to Melbourne in Australia, where over 425,000 viewing of captive wildlife in zoos or confined parks where the visitors a year watch Little Penguins come up the beach each animals no longer live a wild existence1. evening to their nesting sites on the island.

For the purposes of this publication, the terms wildlife watching Ultimately, wildlife watching has links with a wide range of diffe- tourism and wildlife tourism are used interchangeably, and are rent types of tourism, and tourists participate in this activity for defined as tourism that is undertaken to view and / or encounter many different reasons. Furthermore, tourism is highly dynamic, wildlife in a natural setting. This definition is intended to inclu- and recent years have seen a blurring between various types of de wildlife watching on large game ranches – such as those in tourism. For example, a family taking a typical mass tourism pa- southern Africa – where species are able to roam widely over ckage holiday to a beach resort may find and engage in a whole

10 range of different wildlife watching activities from whale wat- The UN World Tourism Organisation’s Deﬁnition ching to a trip to see glow-worms. Perhaps their main motivation of Sustainable Tourism for taking a trip is entertainment – but at the end of a well-organised animal watching trip, they may not only have had fun and Sustainable tourism development guidelines and management excitement, but will have learned a lot about the animals they practices are applicable to all forms of tourism in all types of desti- have seen, and are likely to return with a stronger commitment to nations, including mass tourism and the various niche tourism seg- conservation. In addition, the money they pay for their trip will ments. Sustainability principles refer to the environmental, economic contribute to the local economy, and to jobs and businesses that and socio-cultural aspects of tourism development, and a suitable depend on conservation for their survival. balance must be established between these three dimensions to guarantee its long-term sustainability.

Finally, like all forms of tourism, it is important that wildlife wat- Thus, sustainable tourism should: ching tourism should be sustainable, and should protect the wildlife, habitats and communities on which it depends. Sustainable 1) Make optimal use of environmental resources that constitute a development is defined as development that meets the needs of key element in tourism development, maintaining essential eco- the present without compromising the ability of future genera- logical processes and helping to conserve natural heritage and tions to meet their own needs. Sustainable tourism is tourism biodiversity. that puts the principles of sustainable development into practice 2) Respect the socio-cultural authenticity of host communities, con- in tourism. To be sustainable, tourism needs to make a positive serve their built and living cultural heritage and traditional values, contribution to the natural and cultural environment, generate and contribute to inter-cultural understanding and tolerance. benefits for the host communities, and not put at risk the future livelihood of local people; and to strive to anticipate and prevent 3) Ensure viable, long-term economic operations, providing socioeconomic, environmental, social and cultural degradation3. economic benefits to all stakeholders that are fairly distributed, including stable employment and income-earning opportunities Wildlife watching tourism, too, needs to integrate considerations and social services to host communities, and contributing to po- of sustainable development into the way in which it is operated verty alleviation. and managed, and various organizations – including international environmental conventions4, tourism businesses (for examp- Sustainable tourism development requires the informed participa- le through the Tour Operators’ Initiative for Sustainable Tourism tion of all relevant stakeholders, as well as strong political leader- Development5), government agencies, and non-governmental ship to ensure wide participation and consensus building. Achieving organizations – are working to help make this a reality. sustainable tourism is a continuous process and it requires constant monitoring of impacts, introducing the necessary preventive and/or corrective measures whenever necessary.

Sustainable tourism should also maintain a high level of tourist satisfaction and ensure a meaningful experience to the tourists, raising their awareness about sustainability issues and promoting sustainable tourism practices amongst them. UNWTO (2004)

11 1.3 Tourism and increasing wildlife watching The growth of tourism and travel over the past two decades has been enormous. From 441 million international tourist arrivals in 1990, there were 763 million international tourist arrivals in 2004, with 52 % of these being for recreational and leisure tourism6. This growth is set to continue with an estimated 1.6 billion international tourist arrivals in 20207. In addition, domestic tourism has also increased around the world as increasing numbers of people have more money to spend and more time to participate in tourism. Measuring domestic tourism is difﬁcult, but it is estimated to be about ten times the scale of international tourism, and is likely to have risen faster than international tourism arrivals in recent years.

Wildlife watching tourism shows equally large growth. This can Tuareg in West Africa, © John Newby / SSIG be seen in the number of different types of wildlife watching activities that have been developed linked to commercial tourism, the numbers of tourism businesses that offer these activities, and the numbers of tourists that engage in them. More and more tourism agents and operators are emphasising that tourism needs to be sustainable, and are developing and marketing tourism products that are ‘wildlife-friendly’, as well as carbon-neutral, and which ensure that a fair share of tourist income goes to local people.

In some places, such as East Africa, the Seychelles or the Ga- lapagos islands, wildlife has been the foundation on which their tourism has developed. In others, wildlife watching is a new- er attraction that is helping to diversify tourism and to promote community development in remoter areas. One example of this is whale watching: in 1991 around 4 million people watched whales – by 1998 this had risen to 9 million people, and the total expenditures related to whale watching stood at just over a billion US dollars, more than three times the revenues in 1991, and beneﬁ- ted 495 communities around the world8. Between 2003 and 2004, one study9 found that the number of people watching whales in and around Sydney, Australia doubled, and total expenditure linked to whale watching increased more than four-fold. Dorcas gazelles (Gazella dorcas) in Niger, © John Newby / SSIG

12 The overall growth of wildlife watching tourism is likely to continue at least in line with the growth rate of international tourism. However, in some areas, growth of wildlife watching may be much greater – as for whale watching in Sydney. This growth derives from various factors including the long-term interest that many people have in wildlife, the afﬂuence and longevity of people in industrialised countries that enables them to travel to enjoy their interests in wildlife once they have retired, and the general desire amongst tourists to seek new experiences through tourism. The tourism industry is highly responsive to market demand, and is likely to continue to develop tourism products to meet consumer interests in wildlife.

There is also evidence for a number of trends in international wildlife tourism10, including increased involvement by the commercial tourism sector, a diversiﬁcation of wildlife watching opportunities which are adding a wider range of environments, species and types of activity, increased environmental awareness, and increased use of interpretation.

Greater ﬂamingo (Phoenicopterus rubber), © UNEP / Still Pictures

Bird watchers, © UNEP / AEWA.

13 1.4 The range of wildlife watching cularly larger species, that show dramatic behaviours – such as predators, or that are symbolic, rare or exotic11. However, good activities guiding and interpretation can make any species interesting to the public, and for tourists these aspects often form an important What interests people in wildlife? What sorts of species attract and memorable part of their wildlife watching experiences. most public attention? People’s interests in wildlife are huge- ly varied, from scientiﬁc study to entertainment value, and may Species that are watched include not just mammals and birds, change over time. Key factors in wildlife watching tourism are but corals, ﬁsh, reptiles and insects. Table 1 shows examples being able to experience animals in the wild, to observe their ‘na- from the range of species that are associated with wildlife tural’ behaviour (although this may be affected by tourism activi- watching. ties), and to appreciate their beauty. Public attention inevitably tends to focus on species that are more easily observed – parti-

Table 1 : Range of wildlife watching tourism: Some examples*

Main type of animals being Tourism activity Example of location watched

Butterflies Butterfly viewing Monarch butterflies in Mexico, USA and Canada

Glow worms Glow worm viewing Springbrook National Park, Australia

Crabs Red crab migration Christmas Island, Indian Ocean

Corals and ﬁsh Snorkel / scuba diving Bunaken, Indonesia; Sian Ka’an, Mexico; Soufriere Marine Management Area, St. Lucia; Bonaire, Caribbean; Red Sea, Egypt

Sharks Snorkel with whale sharks Seychelles; Ningaloo Reef, Australia

Sharks Underwater viewing / feeding of sharks Dyer Island, South Africa

Stingrays Feeding and close interaction with Cayman Islands; Maldives; Australia stingrays

Komodo dragons (large Observing Komodo dragons Komodo Island, Indonesia reptiles)

Snakes Observing pythons Bharatpur, India

14 Table 1 : Range of wildlife watching tourism: Some examples (cont.)

Main type of animals being Tourism activity Example of location watched

Crocodiles Observing crocodiles Black River, Jamaica; Kakadu National Park, Australia

Turtles Observing turtles Projeto TAMAR-IBAMA, Brazil; Akumal, Mexico; Cape Verde; Maputaland, South Africa; Sri Lanka; Indonesia

Birds Independent or organised visits to reser- Bempton Cliffs, UK; Keoladeo, India; Pantanal, Brazil ves for birdwatching

Albatrosses Independent travellers and coach tours Taiaroa Head, New Zealand to see breeding albatross colony

Cranes Observing sand cranes Müritz National Park, Germany; Platte River, USA

Penguins Observing penguins and penguin colonies Antarctica; Península Valdés , Argentina; Phillip Island, Australia

Large African mammals Vehicle safaris to see large concentrati- Serengeti National Park, Tanzania; Masai Mara, Kenya ons of mammals

Tigers Tiger viewing from hides or elephant back Chitwan National Park, Nepal

Gorillas Mountain trek and camping in order to Bwindi National Park, Uganda; Virunga National Park, Demo- observe habituated gorillas cratic Republic of Congo; Volcanoes National Park, Rwanda;

Orangutans Observing orangutans Sepilok Orangutan Centre, & Danum Valley, Sabah Semenggok Wildlife Centre, Sarawak, Borneo

Polar bears Observing polar bears Churchill, Canada

Bats Observing bats Texas, United States

Dolphins Observing dolphins Red Sea, Egypt; Mon Repos, Australia

Whales Observing whales Península Valdés, Argentina; Kaikoura, New Zealand; El Vizcaino, Baja California, Mexico; Plettenberg Bay, South Africa; Canary Islands

* Based on Table 1.1 in Wildlife Tourism, (2004), David Newsome, Ross Dowling and Susan Moore, Aspects of Tourism no. 24, published by Channel View Publications. With additions.

15 1.5 The demand for wildlife watching tourism: market size and main market groups The tourism sector meets the demand for tourism in a range of market segments. The main segments are the general package- holiday/high volume tourism market, the specialist tourism market, and the independent travel market. Each of these segments operates in slightly different ways, and has different implications for wildlife watching tourism. Because wildlife watching covers a wide range of different species in different locations – some of which are easy to access, while others are difﬁcult and costly to get to – the proﬁles of tourists engaging in wildlife watching depend very much on the type of activity and its location.

One way of looking at the main market groups for wildlife watching is to consider the typology of international tourists that visit protected areas (Table 2). Numbers of tourists are growing in all these categories. Key factors in the typology are available budget, experience of traveling, requirement for comfort, prefer- Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), © Bill Rossiter ence for traveling alone or in large or small groups, and degree / WDCS of interest in local culture and nature.

This typology, coupled with trends in the tourism market, has se- • Secondly, like other tourism activities, wildlife watching tou- veral implications for wildlife watching tourism, and its potential rism will only succeed where it is compatible with market de- to contribute to conservation and community development: mand in terms of quality, price and type of activities that are offered. This means that wildlife watching activities need • Firstly, the general expansion of tourism in all categories to be planned so that they will appeal to the main types of means that there will be at least a similar increase in wild- tourist that predominate in any area, and based on a realistic life tourism activities linked to each of these categories. This assessment of market demand. will not just affect areas where wildlife watching tourism is already operating, but will extend to remote areas, as some • Thirdly, well-planned tourism based on wildlife watching can tourists in the explorer and specialist categories seek new offer signiﬁcant opportunities to contribute to community de- wildlife watching experiences. Careful planning will there- velopment and to raise revenues and support for wildlife con- fore be vital in order to maintain the quality of wildlife wat- servation. ching, to avoid damage to the populations of animals that are watched, and to keep wildlife watching away from areas that are particularly vulnerable or sensitive for wildlife.

16 Table 2: Typology of international tourists that visit protected areas Type of tourist Main features

Explorer Individualistic, solitary, adventurous, requires no special facilities. May be relatively well-off, but prefers not to spend much money. Rejects purpose-built tourism facilities in favour of local ones.

Backpacker Travels for as long as possible on limited budget, often taking a year off between school/university and starting work. Hardship of local transport, cheap accommodation, etc. may qualify as travel experience, rather than understanding local culture. Enjoys trekking and scenery, but often cannot visit remote areas because of expense. Requires low-cost facilities.

Backpacker Plus Often experienced travellers, and generally in well-paid profession. More demanding in terms of facilities than Backpackers and with a higher daily spend. Genuinely desire to learn about culture and nature, and require good information.

High Volume Often inexperienced at travelling, prefer to travel in large groups, may be wealthy. Enjoy superﬁcial aspects of local culture and natural scenery and wildlife if easy to see. Need good facilities, and will only travel far if the journey is comfortable. Includes cruise ship passengers.

General Interest May travel as Free Independent Travellers (FITs) on tailor-made itineraries with a tour operator, and often prefer security and company of group tour. Usually have limited time available for holiday. May be relatively wealthy, interested in culture, keen on nature/wildlife when not too hard to see. May be active and enjoy ‘soft adventure’ such as easy trekking and low-grade white-water rafting. Dislike travelling long distances without points of interest. Need good facilities, although may accept basic conditions for short periods.

Special Interest Dedicated to a particular hobby, fairly adventurous, prepared to pay to indulge hobby and have others take care of logistics. Travel as FITs or groups. May have little interest in culture. Requires special facilities and services, e.g. dive-boats, bird-guides. Accepts discomfort and long travel where necessary to achieve aims. May have active involvement, e.g. environmental research project. Prefers small groups.

Source: J. Cochrane (2003) in UNEP (2005) Forging Links Between Protected Areas and the Tourism Sector: How tourism can beneﬁt conservation, (Authors: Richard Tapper and Janet Cochrane) pp. 13-14, UNEP: Paris (available at www.uneptie.org/tourism)

17 1.6 Key stakeholders in wildlife watching tourism

Wildlife watching tourism involves many different groups of stakeholders. A stakeholder is any person or group that is involved in or may be affected by an activity. For wildlife watching tourism, stakeholders include indigenous and local communities; wildlife managers in public and private sectors; national and local government; conservation NGOs (especially wildlife societies which have a role in popularising and raising awareness about wildlife and conservation); the tourism sector including tour operators, local operators, excursion providers, and accommodation; and, of course, tourists.

Each group of stakeholders has different interests (Table 3) and responsibilities, and successful tourism in the mid- to long-term depends on matching tourism activities to the role that each group of stakeholders is best able to play, and to the circum- stances and beneﬁt of indigenous and local communities, as well as to the market demands of tourists. This can best be done through a participative planning process that involves all relevant local stakeholders, combined with good market research, and is further considered in Chapter 4. African elephant (Loxodonta africana), © UNEP / Still Pictures

18 Table 3: Stakeholder groups and their interests in wildlife watching tourism Stakeholder group Core areas of interest in wildlife watching tourism

Indigenous and local communities Protection of their environmental and livelihood assets; minimisation of disruption to their communities and culture; potential to gain beneﬁts through tourism linked to improvement of local services and infrastructure, employment and local business opportunities, and revenue generation

Wildlife managers in public and Protection of wildlife habitats, biodiversity and the general environ- private sectors; Conservation NGOs ment; potential to generate revenues and greater awareness through tourism to support conservation, and to demonstrate the value of conservation to indigenous and local communities, to government, and to the wider public

National and local government Economic and development potential of tourism at national, regional and local levels

Tour operators Potential to develop and market tourism products based on wildlife watching – this depends not just on market demand, but also on local conditions including infrastructure and site accessibility, suitability of accommodation and catering, availability of reliable local business partners to provide on-the-ground services (ground operators and accommodation)

Local operators and excursion Potential to develop and market tourism products based on wildlife providers watching – this can be done for a mainly local or regional market, but to reach international markets local operators will generally need to build links with an international tour operator based overseas

Accommodation sector Potential of wildlife watching as an attraction for guests, to increase numbers of visitors and their lengths of stay

Tourists Interesting wildlife watching activities, memorable experiences, good interpretation and guiding (for some tourists, opportunities to experience the local culture and to have ‘authentic’ interaction with local communities, are also important)

Source: R. Tapper (2005) incorporating additional information from UNEP (2005) Forging Links Between Pro- tected Areas and the Tourism Sector: How tourism can beneﬁt conservation, (Authors: Richard Tapper and Janet Cochrane) pp. 13-14, UNEP: Paris (available at www.uneptie.org/tourism)

19 CASE STUDY: WATCHING CHEETAHS IN SERENGETI NATIONAL PARK, TANZANIA

Serengeti National Park is the The presence of high num- most popular in Tanzania, bers of tourist vehicles can and was visited by just over disrupt hunting by cheetahs 150,000 people in 2002/03, and reduce their overall hun- 60% of whom were interna- ting success – for example, tional tourists. Total income noisy vehicles can alert prey from tourism fees to visit the to nearby cheetahs. There park was around USD 5.5 are observations of cheetahs million. being killed on roads by tourist vehicles. In one case in Over 95% of the visitors 2003, the cubs of a mother come to the Serengeti to cheetah were scared away watch wildlife. Lions are the from her by 15 vehicles, and species that people report were never seen again – pro- that they enjoy watching bably having been killed by most, followed by cheetahs, lions or hyenas. leopards, elephants, giraf- fe, wildebeest, and hippos. Cheetahs are an endangered Cheetah in a tree (Acinonyx jubatus), © Patricia Tricorache Each of these species has species, and exist at rela- different behaviours and tively low density compared ecological requirements. to other carnivores in Africa. The estimated population Of all the large cats, chee- in the entire Serengeti eco- tahs are the most vulnerable system is only around 250 to disturbance, because they adults, and all losses are se- hunt during the day, need to rious for the population. To hunt daily, and are often shy. help protect cheetahs, con- They are largely non-territori- servation managers are pro- al and are highly mobile ani- moting greater awareness mals. Reports suggest that amongst tourists of ‘cheetah they are now keeping further friendly’ watching, and are away from roads in the Ser- also encouraging tourists to engeti than in the past. They send in photos and reports capture their prey by stalking of cheetah sightings as part - until their prey is within 10- of a long-term monitoring 30 metres - before chasing at programme. Between 2000- speeds of up to 100 km per 2003 a total of 243 contribu- hour. Chases last about 20 tors sent in information on seconds, and rarely longer 377 sightings covering 758 then 1 minute. About half of cheetahs in the Serengeti. Tourists watching a cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus), the chases are successful. © Cheetah Conservation Fund

20 CASE STUDY: WATCHING CHEETAHS IN SERENGETI NATIONAL PARK, TANZANIA

Because of the high levels of walks, visits to cultural sites, tourism, animals in the areas and viewing water-birds. of the park visited by tourists can be subject to acute dis- No game viewing by vehic- turbance. The size of the park les is permitted in the Wil- makes it difficult for rangers derness Zone, with visitor to ensure that vehicles are use being restricted to wal- complying with the park’s king safaris of at least 2 days viewing regulations, and so duration for small groups the park is tackling this pro- with a maximum of 8 visitors blem by setting up clear and per group. Visitors will camp enforceable guidelines, com- at designated campsite loca- Cheetah in the field (Acinonyx jubatus), © Patricia Tricorache municating these to tourists, tions during these safaris. and by promoting development of a national driver/ Throughout the park, the guide accreditation system only new accommodation for all of Tanzania’s parks. permitted is permanent or important for managing tou- • SENAPA Tourism manage- non-permanent tented si- rism around cheetahs. The ment and development A central part of the Park’s tes. No further development threat of crowding by view- strategy management of tourism is a of permanent lodges is al- ing vehicles is reduced in the Zoning Scheme for the Ser- lowed, and existing lodges intensive and low-use zones • The Cheetah Watch Cam- engeti, which sets out accep- can only expand their bed by prevention of off-road dri- paign run by the Tanzania table types and levels of use capacity if this is matched by ving, and the wilderness and Carnivore Project at the and impact in each of three an equivalent expansion of no-go zones provide areas Tanzania Wildlife Research zones, and which also esta- facilities, including ´tourist of minimal disturbance for Institute. This project is blishes a No-Go Zone where sinks.´ cheetahs. funded principally by the tourism access or use is not British Government th- permitted. In the Intensive The combination of zoning, de- rough their Darwin Initia- and Low Use Zones game velopment of ´tourist sinks´, Sources: tive scheme, but also gets viewing by vehicles is the guided trail walks and wal- • Sarah Durant, Zoological support and funding from main visitor activity permit- king safaris is being used Society of London, Wildlife the Wildlife Conservation ted, with driving restricted to to diversify the visitor expe- Conservation Society, and Society (WCS) and the Zo- designated roads and tracks. riences available within the Tanzania Wildlife Research ological Society of London Short guided trail walks are park, making it able to ma- Institute (ZSL). also being developed in the- nage an increased number se zones, along with ´tourism of visitors and to minimize • John Shemkunde, M.Sc. • The Serengeti Cheetah sinks´, which are designated overuse of existing tourism Thesis, 2004 University of Project areas where visitors can get attractions by spreading tou- Wales out of their vehicles to un- rism activities more widely dertake specific activities, in the Intensive Use Zone. such as picnicking, short This combination is also

21 CASE STUDY: STINGRAYS AT THE SAND BAR AND STINGRAY CITY IN THE CAYMAN ISLANDS

The Sand Bar and Stingray City Islands economy, around a are one of the Cayman Islands quarter of which is based on major tourist attractions, and tourism, but also raises con- feature extensively in the Is- cerns about the effects of di- lands marketing. Located in ving and snorkeling tours on the shallow waters of North the stingray population. Sound in Grand Cayman, the two sites offer shallow Stingrays were first came to water snorkeling and diving the Sand Bar and Stingray amongst stingrays. City to feed on fish wastes thrown overboard by local One of the features of trips fishermen, but since 1986 to swim with the stingrays is they have been hand fed by the opportunity to touch and dive operators. Although feed these animals, which stingrays are normally soli- now congregate at both si- tary, they have switched to tes: generally at least 50 forming packs of 12-15 indi- stingrays can be seen at the viduals, and from night-fee- Sand Bar, and 30 at Stingray ding to feeding during the City. day, at the two sites. Most of their food now comes It is estimated that in recent from feeding by divers. years around 900,000 visits a year – over 780,000 of As well as these major be- these by cruise passengers havioural changes, a recent Stringray (Dasyatis spec.), © www.residence-cayman.com – are made to the Sand Bar study carried out in conjunc- and Stingray City, with ne- tion with the Department of arly half of all visitors to the Environment, has found that Cayman Islands taking a trip. these stingrays exhibit hig- The Sand Bar is only 60 cm her injury rates, which are Although the Cayman Islands detracts from the tourist ex- deep in some places – shal- caused by boat collisions, have a network of protected perience as well as being li- low enough for snorkellers higher numbers of parasi- areas, marine park and ma- kely to increase pressure on to be able to touch stingrays tes on their gills, and higher nagement zones off their the stingrays. resting on the bottom. Stin- incidences of open wounds. coasts, the Sand Bar and gray City is deeper – between Blood samples also show Stringray City are outside To address these issues, 3 – 5 metres – and visited by that the human-fed stin- this network, and therefore the Cayman Islands Depart- recreational scuba divers. grays are not receiving the not covered by protected ment of Environment set proper balance of essential area regulations. Because up a process to involve re- The huge attraction of the fatty acids that is critical for access to the sites is uncon- presentatives from all the stingray experience to tourists disease resistance and im- trolled they are also at risk stakeholders – including the is important for the Cayman mune response. from overcrowding, which Marine Conservation Board,

22 CASE STUDY: STINGRAYS AT THE SAND BAR AND STINGRAY CITY IN THE CAYMAN ISLANDS

Cayman Islands Tourism As- A set of detailed rules for pro- de revenues to contribute to sociation Watersports Com- tection of stingrays during management and conserva- mittee, Land and Sea Coop, operation of stingray tours tion actions. general public, Department was also agreed, including and Ministry of Tourism, as limits of a maximum of 100 Good communication and the well as the Department of people per boat, 20 boats involvement of all the stake- Environment – in discussion per site, and 1500 people holders has been crucial for of the issues facing these in the water at any time; re- reaching agreement on ef- sites, and to formulate an strictions on feeding of the fective management of tou- agreement on management stingrays; requirements for rism at the stingray sites that of marine tourism. installation of holding tanks both protects the stingrays for all toilet waste on boats, and maintains the quality of Through this process, the and use of designated an- the experience for tourists stakeholders jointly pro- choring areas; and prohibiti- into the future. posed the creation of two ons on taking of marine life Special Management Areas of any kind, and removal of (SMAs) under the Caymans’ stingrays from the water. To Sources: Marine Conservation Law – ensure adequate access to • Gina Ebanks-Petrie, Direc- one at the Sandbar area, and and use of area by residents, tor, Department of Envi- a second at Stingray City; commercial activity at the ronment, Cayman Islands and that the rules governing Sand Bar was also limited Government these SMAs would become to the morning and early af- part of the Marine Conserva- ternoon. • Christina Semeniuk, Re- tion regulations which would source and Environmental then be enforced by the De- Issues still to be addressed Management, Simon Fra- partment of Environment. are the nature and collection ser University, Canada mechanisms for a proposed To relieve overcrowding, it was access fee, and the pricing • Myra Shackley (1998) agreed that provided the wa- structure for trips to the Sand ‘Stingray City’ – Managing tersports/tourism industry Bar and Stingray City, parti- the impact of underwater agrees not to establish stin- cular for trips that are sold tourism in the Cayman gray interaction sites in any on-board cruise ships which Islands, Journal of Sustai- other location in the Cayman charge their passengers nable Tourism, Vol. 6, pp. Islands, a new stingray fee- approximately USD45.00 328 - 338 ding site would be set up on – USD60.00 while the local smaller and deeper sandbar operators who provide the inside the Sandbar SMA, trips receive only around for use by dive and snorkel USD20.00 of this. Resolving boats, and four moorings these issues would improve would be installed. incomes for dive and snorkel tour operators and provi-

23 2 ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL BENEFITS FROM WILDLIFE WATCHING 2.1 Economic value creates opportunities to interest them in other tourism activities, perhaps to visit other areas of the country to watch different spe- of wildlife watching cies of wildlife, or to see additional aspects such as a country’s heritage and culture. By providing additional opportunities for Wildlife watching is a valuable asset for many localities: large tourism, tourists can be encouraged to stay longer and spend numbers of people regularly pay significant amounts of money more money in a country, having initially been attracted to visit in order to view particular species of animals, and nature in in order to view some of its wildlife. general. For example, around one in five US residents listed birdwatching as one of their recreational activities, and almost The economic effects of tourism also stimulate other sectors of 40% travelled away from their homes to view birds, according economy, both through the demand from the tourism sector for to a major survey conducted in the US during 200112. Overall the products and services from other local sectors – for example, direct expenditure of US residents on wildlife watching in the from local agricultural producers – and by increasing household WUS was around USD 32 billion, including nearly USD 7.5 billion on incomes, which are then re-spent on local products and servi- food, transport and accommodation linked to wildlife watching ces. As a result, relatively low levels of tourism can provide a trips. significantly greater stimulus for local economic development.

One study has estimated that 20 % – 40 % of all international tour- At national level, tourism plays a major role in the economies of ists have an interest in some form of wildlife watching13 – rang- a growing number of developing countries, and countries with ing from enjoying casual observation of wildlife, to taking short economies in transition, and in many of these, tourism based on wildlife viewing excursions that are added to a trip undertaken wildlife watching and nature is significant. For example, tour- primarily for other purposes, to tourists who spend their entire ism ranked as one of the top three export sectors for more than trips on wildlife watching. three-quarters of all developing countries in 2000, and was the principle export in a third of these countries15. In East Africa, wildlife watching is one of the attractions for international tourists, and the basis for the majority of their national Overall, income from wildlife watching tourism can enter a coun- income from tourism: in 2000, Kenya received 943,000 interna- try’s economy at a number of different points. A simplified model tional arrivals which generated international tourism receipts of of the monetary flows associated with tourism and protected USD 304 million. For Tanzania the figures were 459,000 arrivals areas, which are important centres for wildlife watching, shows and tourism receipts of USD 739 million, and for Uganda, 151,000 how tourist dollars enter the economy through payments made arrivals and receipts of USD 149 million. In total the region re- by tourists to tourism-related businesses and to the protected ceived over one and a half million international arrivals and gen- areas (or wildlife watching sites) that they visit, and through tax- erated more than USD 1 billion in foreign exchange receipts from es levied at national or local level (Figure 1). In some cases, the tourism14, much of it based on wildlife watching. actual flows may mostly be to tourism businesses and national or local government, but these flows depend on the presence of Wildlife watching tourism generates income in several ways. wildlife and natural environments that are in good condition. These include payments – such as for entrance and permit fees – made by tourists to visit wildlife watching sites, and to the As a part of these flows, it is important that protected areas and guides, drivers and other staff who may accompany them. In ad- wildlife watching sites are properly funded for effective wildlife dition, tourists pay for accommodation and other services in or- conservation and tourism management, and that associated der to travel to wildlife watching sites. At a national or regional local communities also receive support for their development. level, the fact that tourists make visits for wildlife watching also These funds may be obtained directly by charging tourists for

24 ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL BENEFITS FROM WILDLIFE WATCHING

wildlife viewing, and where the local community has access to many sites on the Brazilian coastline. Tourism based on turtle employment in tourism, or is able to establish successful tourism watching has been developed as an important source of funding enterprises. In other cases – for example, in places where it for the project and of economic beneﬁts for local communities, is not practical to charge tourists for wildlife watching – it may but not all sites have the same potential for tourism. To balance be necessary to use other mechanisms to ensure that sufﬁcient this out, a system has been developed in which sites with low funds are made available for conservation and wildlife manage- tourism potential provide products for sale at those with greater ment, and for local community development. For example, Pro- tourism potential, and the revenues from sales of these products jeto TAMAR in Brazil undertakes turtle protection activities at are returned to the sites that produced them.

Figure 1: A simpliﬁed model of the monetary ﬂows associated with tourism and protected areas16

Government Funding Return of Income over Budget

Departure & Tourists Entrance Fees Hotel Taxes Protected Areas National Government Payment for Goods & Services Infrastructure & Local Government Management Costs

Business & Licences & Business Sales Taxes Use Fees

Employment & Wages

Employment & Employment & Local Communities Income Taxes Wages © Richard Tapper 2004

25 2.2 Potential contributions to poverty reduction and community development Through the income it generates, wildlife watching tourism provides an incentive to conserve the species that are being watched, and their habitats. Is wildlife watching tourism also able to help reduce poverty and improve the livelihoods of poor communities? How might such a contribution be achieved?

Much of the wildlife that tourists want to watch is located in rural areas. These tend to be poorer than urban areas, and to offer fewer employment opportunities. In these areas, wildlife watching tourism can potentially provide an alternative source of in- Hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), come and employment. Compared to many other sectors, job © Robert Yin / UNEP / Still Pictures creation in tourism can require lower capital expenditure, and generates employment particularly for women and young people, as well as providing opportunities for entrepreneurship and It is important to note that most studies of the economic value development of small firms. Measured in terms of contribution to of wildlife watching tourism are based on direct expenditure by GNP and numbers of international arrivals, tourism in some of the tourists on their wildlife watching trips – which is relatively simp- least developed countries, such as Laos and Vietnam, is growing le to measure - and do not include the value of other important much faster than in more developed areas, and has become an economic benefits that are generated as a result of direct ex- increasingly important economic development tool for many de- penditures on wildlife watching tourism. These benefits include veloping countries. These countries have rich wildlife, and sig- the stimulation of supporting economic activities, promotion of nificant proportions of the growth of their international tourism tourism to a country or region, and the value of environmental are linked to nature-based and wildlife watching activities. services that are protected as a result of the incentives that wildlife watching tourism provides for conservation. Country International Tourism – 1990-2000 17 Direct expenditure on wildlife tourism therefore provides a mi- Annual average growth rate (%) nimum estimate for the overall economic value of such tourism. Laos 35.9 Estimates of the indirect economic effects of wildlife watching Vietnam 24.0 generally find that these effects are at least equal to and often South Africa 19.3 exceed the value of direct effects in terms of both income and Cuba 17.9 employment generation. For example, a detailed study of the Brazil 17.1 economic effects of bat viewing in the city of Austin in Texas, Madagascar 11.6 found that the overall economic value of visits to view bats was more than twice the direct expenditure on meals, accommodati- Costa Rica 9.8 on and transport, that was made by the hundreds of people who Indonesia 8.8 visited a popular bat viewing site by a city bridge. Dominican Republic 8.6 World average 4.4 26 While increasing international tourism can make important con- Where local people and producers are able to meet the stan- tributions to a country’s economy at national level, the UN World dards required for employment in and production for enterprises Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) has found that seven elements that cater for international tourists, tourism can provide consi- also need to be in place to enable the economic benefits of tou- derable benefits for local economies. However, to meet the de- rism to reach the poor18. These are: mands of the international tourism sector, tourism in developing countries can be dependent on high levels of imports, and often • Employment of the poor in tourism enterprises on high levels of foreign investment. In such situations a significant proportion – which can be 50% or more20 – of tourism • Supply of goods and services to tourism enterprises by the revenue ‘leaks’ from their national economies. poor or by enterprises employing the poor Various measures can be used to reduce this leakage, such as • Direct sales of goods and services to visitors by the poor (in- by encouraging the tourism sector to replace imports with local formal economy) purchasing, and working with local producers to raise the quality and quantity of their goods and services in order to meet the • Establishment and running of tourism enterprises by the poor requirements of the tourism sector. The private tourism sector can play a major role in shifting towards greater use of local staff • Tax or levy on tourism income or profits with proceeds bene- and local purchasing, and there are number of examples of good fiting the poor practice, such as the approach used by the Serena Hotels Group in Tanzania. • Voluntary giving/support by tourism enterprises and tourists All forms of tourism, including wildlife watching, can play a po- • Investment in infrastructure and social services stimulated sitive role in promoting economic and social development, pro- by tourism also benefiting the poor in the locality, directly or vided that they are environmentally, economically and socially through support to other sectors sustainable, and developed in ways that are compatible with the needs and priorities of local communities. At the same time, These elements are not always easy to put into practice, and however, tourism is also a highly dynamic business sector, and where international tourists form the main tourist segment in a tourism in any area will only succeed if there is an actual mar- country, local enterprises will have to meet international tou- ket demand for it from tourists, and if it is possible for tourism rists’ basic expectations of standards and quality. This can be businesses to provide suitable tourism products and packages achieved very successfully in some cases: for example, when to satisfy that demand. the Serena Hotels Group opened four new luxury properties linked with game reserves in Tanzania, it recruited 400 new full time Because of this, it is therefore vital to understand the expec- staff from local people few of whom had previous experience of tations of tourists and trends in tourism markets, as these will operating to high international hospitality standards19. Recruit- determine whether wildlife watching tourism can be developed ment methods were modified to suit local conditions, and new- into a viable and profitable activity, and one with a potential for ly-recruited staff given in-depth training before the properties contributing to poverty alleviation and community development, opened. Fish, vegetables and other foods are also purchased at any particular site. locally to provide additional economic benefits to the surrounding communities. In addition to the seven elements that are needed if benefits from tourism are to reach the poor, the UNWTO has also identified a

27 series of other factors that affect the viability of tourism activities and their relevance – or otherwise – to different communities21:

• For communities to be able to beneﬁt from tourism, they need to have the capacity to engage in and take advantage of the new opportunities that tourism can offer, and the tourism that is developed will need to complement and support their other livelihood activities and options.

• For tourism to be viable and proﬁtable, it needs to meet the standards that are expected by the market including in the ways that it is designed, priced and marketed, the reliability and quality of the services and experiences that are offered, and its general attractiveness in relation to competing products that are available at other sites.

The contribution that tourism is able to make to poverty reduction, and also to wildlife conservation, can also change at different stages of the ‘tourism cycle’. The tourism cycle is a common and well-deﬁned pattern of tourism development: an initial period of early development with gradual growth in tourism is followed by a period of rapid expansion and growth. In the next stage growth slows and then stops when there are no more pos- sibilities for expansion, and in a ﬁnal stage tourism may go into a period of decline. Fishermen in Cape Verde, © M. Marzot / FAO / 17098

In the early stages of the tourism cycle, development at any locality often includes a large component that draws on locally more people, they also have higher training requirements for available resources, requires low capital investment, and has staff recruitment and may bring in employees from elsewhere: strong links with local communities. At this stage, environmen- as a result, employment opportunities may decline for those in tal impacts from tourism can be relatively slight, while benefits the community who are poorest and have only basic education. for local communities – through employment opportunities and At the same time, this phase can cause significant environmen- purchases of local goods and services – can be significant for tal impacts, and put increased pressure on wildlife, leading to the communities involved. There is a gradual increase in num- declines in the quality of the features on which tourism is based. bers of visitors as tourism in the locality becomes more estab- In turn, this leads to a decline in overall income from tourism, lished and better known. although numbers of tourists can still remain high if prices are lowered to attract less affluent tourists. In response to increasing visitor numbers, a more rapid phase of tourism expansion begins, in which larger tourism accom- For example, dolphin watching at Samadai Reef off the Egyptian modation units and facilities – requiring greater levels of capital Red Sea coast was subject to excessive visitation that reduced investment – are constructed. Although these facilities employ its quality, and tour prices had to be lowered from around USD

28 Arabic caravan with little boy, © John Newby / SSIG

60 - 80 per visitor to USD 10, reducing income and encouraging In order to ensure that the initial contributions of tourism to pov- even higher levels of visitation. The Red Sea Marine Parks suc- erty reduction and community development are maintained, it is cessfully addressed this problem by instituting the Samadai Ser- important to manage the expansion of tourism carefully through vice Fee Programme22 charging an access fee of USD 15 per land use planning controls, by developing plans that are compat- person per day for access to the reef by motor boat and USD 7 ible with the needs and wishes of local communities, and keep- per person per day for access by sail boat, and using a ticketing ing development at a slow-enough pace to be able to manage it systems to enforce a daily limit of 100 divers and 100 snorkelers effectively. at the reef.

29 CASE STUDY: SEA TURTLES AND TOURISM IN BRAZIL

Projeto TAMAR protects five supported improvements for species of turtles that are fishing activities, which in- found around Brazil’s coasts. crease income to fishermen Established by the Brazilian while protecting turtles, and government in 1980, it takes a range of other livelihood its name from the contrac- opportunities, including tou- tion of ‘TArtaruga MARinha’, rism and handicrafts pro- the Portuguese name for sea duction. These activities are turtle. TAMAR is constituted also used to generate funds as a non-governmental orga- that contribute to the pro- nisation affiliated to IBAMA, ject’s budget. the Brazilian government’s environmental institute, and TAMAR’s conservation pro- currently receives sponsor- gramme is based on a net- ship from the Brazilian pa- work of 22 stations along rastatal oil company, Petrob- 1,100 km of coastline, as well ras. as on three oceanic islands. The stations are located in Before TAMAR was set up, the major nesting and fee- no sea turtle conservation ding areas for sea turtles, activities existed in Brazil: and provide direct employ- although they were listed ment to 1,300 people, at least as endangered species, they 80 percent of whom are fish- Green turtle (Chelonia mydas) surfacing to breath, were disappearing rapidly, ermen and their relatives re- © Alejandro Fallabrino due to fishing, and collection sident in villages around the of turtle eggs at their nesting stations. beach sites. Visitor centres have been From the start, TAMAR’s ap- opened at the 10 most vi- proach has focused on com- sited sites, and between cent of Projeto TAMAR’s an- rescued from fishing nets, munity involvement in turtle them they receive one and nual budget of USD 2.9 mil- lectures and video exhibiti- protection and research as a half million visitors each lion. In addition, visitors to ons to raise awareness about the keystone to the turtle con- year. The most popular, at TAMAR stations also create turtle conservation, as well servation programme. It has Praia do Forte, receives over large indirect expenditures as restaurants, bars and gift applied a highly participative 500,000 visitors a year, ap- in local businesses. shops that sell TAMAR pro- approach to draw local peo- proximately ninety-four per ducts and local crafts. Visi- ple into turtle conservation cent of whom are Brazilians; The visitor centres charge an tors also have opportunities and the search for economic in 2003 this centre generated admission fee equivalent to to go on guided tours and sustainable alternatives for net revenues of USD 490,000 USD 3 per person per visit, to participate in fieldwork their communities. Based on from sales and admissions, and provide a range of dis- with TAMAR’s researchers this approach, TAMAR has contributing around 17 per plays – including live turtles – including participation in

30 CASE STUDY: SEA TURTLES AND TOURISM IN BRAZIL

night-time turtle hatchling Tourism is only feasible as an in coastal communities, and • Projeto TAMAR website — tours, for a fee of USD 35, income generating activity detailed evaluation of the www.projetotamar.com.br during the nesting period, at some of TAMAR’s stations. socio-economic as well as guided by TAMAR biologists To enable communities in conservation results from • Claudia F. Vieitas, Gusta- who provide interpretation localities with low tourism its programmes, including ve G. Lopez, and Maria Â. on the turtles and on their potential to benefit from the its tourism components. Marcovaldi (1999) Local research. high levels of tourism that This focus is maintained by community involvement in occur at other sites, TAMAR TAMAR’s policy for recrui- conservation—the use of TAMAR has active program- has developed a ‘social pro- ting its staff as far as pos- mini-guides in a programmes to train people for em- duction chain’ in which the sible from local village resi- me for sea turtles in Brazil, ployment in tourism and stations with low tourism dents. Oryx, Volume 33, p.127 through this to promote so- potential produce products cial inclusion. One of these, for sale at sites with visitor Today, through TAMAR’s ef- the Mini Guides Programme, centers. In 2003 the social forts, sea turtles, with their annually trains around 60 production chain resulted in widely recognisable image, local youngsters aged ten net sales that totaled USD have become a symbol for to fifteen years old, in basic 1.47 million, providing in- many Brazilian people, a aspects of sea turtle biology come for families at sites flagship for marine conser- and marine conservation, as with low tourism potential, vation and a responsible re- well as providing them with and revenue to fund conser- lationship between people skills to interact with tourists. vation activities. and their environment. The mini guides also receive stipends that enable them In addition to its communi- to continue their studies at ty-based conservation acti- Source: school, and regular school vities, TAMAR has a major • Neca Marcovaldi and Lu- attendance is a condition for research programme on sea ciano Soares, Projeto TA- their participation in the Mini turtles in Brazil, including MAR-IBAMA Guides Programme. When tagging for mark-and-re- trained, the mini guides be- capture monitoring of turtle • Maria Ângela Marcovaldi, come part of TAMAR’s staff movements and population Victor Patiri, and João Car- and work at visitor centers, biology. Research results los Thomé (2005) Projeto where they lead tourist produced by TAMAR, and TAMAR-IBAMA: Twenty- groups and gain further ex- through partnerships with five Years Protecting Brazi- perience in conservation ac- the national and internatio- lian Sea Turtles Through a tivities. nal scientific community, are Community-Based Conser- presented at specialist mee- vation Programme, MAST, At several stations, TAMAR tings and published in scien- 3(2) and 4(1): 39–62. also offers training – such tific journals worldwide. as free surfing courses – to community members to help One of the features of improve their prospects for TAMAR is the emphasis that employment in tourism. it places on self-sufficiency 31 CASE STUDY: LITTLE PENGUINS IN PHILLIP ISLAND NATURE PARK, AUSTRALIA

Phillip Island Nature Park is burrows, the Koala Conser- Australia’s most popular vation Centre, and Churchill natural wildlife attraction. Island. Each of these attrac- In 2005, the park received tions has achieved the high- 626,542 paying visitors who est level of ecotourism certi- came to watch penguins ﬁcation that is available from and koalas. Just over half Ecotourism Australia. of these visitors came from outside Australia. Admissi- To maintain a steady income on fees raised A$6.3 million stream from visitors, mar- for the park in 2005, and a keting of Phillip Island as a further A$2.5 million was tourist attraction is highly raised from sales of souve- professional, and conducted nirs, food and beverages. in the same way as for any major commercial attraction. The park is on part of the tra- The marketing strategy inclu- ditional lands of the Bunu- des attendance at a number rong Aboriginal people, and of international tourism fairs, was developed to protect as well as domestic marke- one of the last remaining ting through national media nesting sites for Little Pengu- and the Internet, rebranding ins on the coast of the State to maintain and promote a of Victoria. Over the past fresh image for the park and century, at least nine other its attractions, and national sites have been destroyed promotion campaigns. The Little penguins (Eudyptula minor), © Takver by housing and urban de- range of attractions is used velopment. Establishing a to encourage tourists to self-ﬁnancing nature park spend 1 – 2 full days on their was the only way to protect visits to the nature park. the Phillip Island colony from elevated viewing tower, and the tower, to A$ 60 (USD 42) similar development. The large numbers of visitors rangers provide interpretati- for the ranger-guided tour, make it essential to ensure on about the penguins, their and provide tourists with a The nature park is small that wildlife watching is well ecology and behaviour. The choice of different options – covering just 1805 hecta- managed. In particular, the park also provides closer and pricing. res – and raises all its funds Penguin Parade is watched penguin viewing on a sepa- from the three main tourist by three-quarters of the rate beach for groups of up As well as funding provi- attractions that it has develo- visitors to the park under to 10 visitors on a ranger- sion of tourist facilities that ped: Penguin Parade – when very controlled conditions: guided tour. Viewing fees include walking tracks, sa- between 300 to 2000 Little most viewing is conducted range from A$ 17 (USD 12) nitation, interpretation and Penguins come ashore each from fenced boardwalks, or per person on the board- management programmes, evening to their sand dune for smaller groups, from an walk, and A$ 40 (USD 28) for revenues from tourism to

32 CASE STUDY: LITTLE PENGUINS IN PHILLIP ISLAND NATURE PARK, AUSTRALIA

Phillip Island Nature Park planning. A Nature Park support major research, con- Management Plan is prepa- servation and environmental red every five years through initiatives. Overall, the park, extensive consultation with which is a not-for-profit or- stakeholders and the com- ganisation, is able to employ munity. This covers environ- a large staff – 149 people in mental management; flora 2005 – to manage tourism and fauna management; in- and conservation, and to un- frastructure and facilities; re- dertake research. Bunurong search and education; visitor community representatives experiences; and communi- are also involved in the de- ty relationships. In addition, Little penguin (Eudyptula livery of interpretative and detailed business plans are minor), © Takver education programmes in prepared annually. the Nature Park, and in su- pervision of some projects. To meet its vision to be a world leader in environmen- The approach of Phillip Conservation management in- tal, economic and socially Island Nature Park shows cludes revegetation around sustainable nature-based how excellent product deve- built infrastructure, propa- and ecotourism experiences, lopment and marketing has gation of indigenous plant the park has set goals for ef- been used to create a wild- species, control of introdu- fective marketing and provi- life watching experience that ced predator species, such sion of high-quality ecotou- is extremely popular, well- as foxes, which are a signi- rism experiences, as well as controlled to ensure that the ficant threat to the Little Pen- for excellence in conservati- high volume of tourism does guin population, and a koala on and wildlife research. not have adverse effects on breeding programme. The the penguins and other spe- park also carries out a wide The Nature Park Manage- cies in the park, well-support- range of research on the eco- ment Plan is currently being ed in the local community, logy of Little Penguins, and reviewed and updated for and which makes a major on other species which cur- the period to 2010. The contribution to conservation rently include Crested Terns Community and Stakehol- and research. and Australian Fur Seals, and der Consultation Process for its researchers published 39 this includes meetings with papers in research journals conservation and heritage Sources: during 2005. groups, local tourism organi- • Phillip Island Nature Parks sations and open communi- Annual Report 2004-2005 In order to manage tourism, ty forums, and key State and conservation and research local Government agencies. • Phillip Island Nature Parks effectively, Phillip Island Na- The process is overseen by website www.penguins. ture Park uses a combinati- an 8-person multi-stakehol- org.au on of strategic and business der committee. 33 CASE STUDY: THE MONARCH BUTTERFLY MODEL FOREST IN MEXICO

The Monarch butterflies of Me- mate, and a new generation xico and North America un- is born and undertake their dertake an annual migration northern migration. from a few overwintering sites in Mexico to breeding In 1986, the Mexican Govern- sites in United States and as ment established the Special far north as the southern part Biosphere Reserve of the of Canada. Over successive Monarch Butterfly to pro- generations the migrating tect the Monarchs’ five main Monarch butterflies travel as overwintering sites. The much as 5,000 km, and are a protected areas encompass source of interest and enjoy- 16,110 hectares of forest in ment for millions of people. the States of Michoacan and Mexico, in one of the most Although the butterflies densely populated areas of spread out across the North the country. These areas are America continent during located in, and also help to the spring and summer protect a major watershed months - they over winter in that supplies water for two Mexico in just a few forest large cities. sites. Every autumn, a new generation of Monarchs but- Initially only one of these terfly leaves its home in the sites was open for tourism, United States and Canada but with increasing numbers and journeys south to Me- of visitors a second site was Monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus), xico. This particular genera- opened for tourism in 1996. © Allen Montgomery / USFWS tion of Monarchs completes Municipalities also orga- the southern journey to Me- nised Monarch Butterfly Fes- xico and spends the winter tivals to promote tourism. problems for planning and of the Manitoba Model Fo- in protected forested areas. By 1999, around 250,000 waste management. rest in Canada, the project These forest sites are loca- mostly Mexican tourists, vi- has now successfully esta- ted within the Sierra Madre sited these sites. The scale In 1997, the Monarch Butter- blished an ecotourism in- mountain range, and each of visitation, and its concen- fly Model Forest project was frastructure in four Monarch site may be no bigger than tration into the period from established by the Mexican butterfly visitor centres, pro- the size of three football pit- January to March, when 80% Ministry of Environment and moted the protection of the ches, with as many as 20 mil- of all visits are made, crea- Natural Resources (SEMAR- Monarch butterfly in recrea- lion butterflies congregating ted a number of economic NAT) and the International tion centres, and implemen- in each one, where they may opportunities for the area Model Forest Network, with ted tourism management stay for more than 100 days. – such as establishment of joint funding from the Me- practices for two Monarch In the spring this over winte- restaurants and a handic- xican and Canadian Govern- butterfly sanctuaries. ring generation of Monarchs rafts trade – but also created ments. With the assistance

34 CASE STUDY: THE MONARCH BUTTERFLY MODEL FOREST IN MEXICO

The Special Biosphere Reserve rism based on other natural of the Monarch Butterfly is and cultural features of the located in one of the most region (examples include densely populated regions scenic driving tours, arche- of Mexico. In order to pro- ology, colonial history, rural tect the Monarch sites, and farm tourism, birdwatching, to promote community de- hiking, and kayaking). This velopment and protection of will help to spread visitors forests and environmental through the region, reducing resources throughout the re- pressure on the Monarchs’ gion, the Monarch Butterfly overwintering sites, enab- Model Forest project has fo- ling more communities to cused on creating a range of benefit from tourism and for solutions to livelihoods and longer periods of every year. income-generation for the people throughout an area The Model Forest region’s of 300 x 250 km. communities are being involved in all aspects of the With the support of the Ma- project, and participate in Monarch butterflies in a tree (Danaus plexippus), nitoba Model Forest, the the decisions, development, © Milton Friend / USFWS project has undertaken re- evaluation, follow up pro- forestation of areas of criti- cesses, and execution of all cal Monarch Butterfly over proposed activities. Com- wintering habitat within and munity members are also the cooperation of all three • Manitoba Model Forest nearby two protected Mon- involved in specific tourism countries in North America. Inc. 2004 Annual Report arch Butterfly Sanctuaries, roles such as interpretive The cooperation between and has provided training guides, nature guards, and Mexico and Canada on the • Planeta.com in ecotourism for local peo- administrators in the sales Monarch Butterfly Model Fo- ple. Canadian experts have of artcrafts, as well as being rest shows the importance • Joseph M. Keszi, Eco- been brought in to advise on employed in the construc- of an integrated approach tourism Development in forest management and tree tion and reconditioning of that addresses not just the Mexico’s Monarch Butter- nursery management, envi- the local infrastructure. specific conservation issues fly Model Forest Region ronmental assessment, trail at individual sites, but also (Bosque Modelo Mariposa design and ecotourism. Threats to the Monarchs inclu- overall social and economic Monarca):1998 Explorato- de logging in Mexico and de- factors in surrounding com- ry Trip Findings, Summary The Monarch Butterfly Mo- struction of milkweed – the munities. Report prepared for Ma- del Forest is working to im- plant that is the Monarchs‘ nitoba Model Forest prove and utilize the existing major food source on which infrastructure in the sanc- they lay their eggs – in their Sources: tuary areas for Monarchs breeding grounds in the • J. Trent Hreno. Chair, Inter- that are already open to the United States and Canada. national Committee, Ma- public, and to diversify tou- Their survival depends on nitoba Model Forest Inc. 35 CASE STUDY: BRACKEN CAVE & CONGRESS AVENUE BRIDGE BAT COLONIES, TEXAS, USA

The Congress Avenue Bridge is visitors about their expen- Around 35,000 day visits are home to the largest urban bat ditures during their bat wat- made to Bracken Bat Cave colony in the United States. ching visits using a combina- each year. Group size and Located in Austin, Texas, it tion of interviews and survey access is managed to mi- supports approximately 1.5 forms. This information and nimize disturbance to the million Mexican free-tailed daily data on visitor num- bats, and an interpreter ac- bats (Tadarida brasiliensis), bers at the bat watching site, companies every group of which emerge as a specta- resulted in the estimate that visitors. Facilities for tourism cular flock during the eve- visitor expenditures directly at the site are very basic, ning to feed. The bats inhabit connected to bat watching but BCI has plans in place to the underside of the bridge visits is in excess of USD 3 construct an interpretative from March through Novem- million a year. center which would be ope- ber, and migrate south du- ned to public access, and to ring the winter months. Each BCI also own and manage move viewing further away summer evening, they con- Bracken Bat Cave and Na- from the cave entrance than sume approximately 14,000 ture Reserve, which was currently permitted, in order kilograms of insects includ- purchased to protect it from to reduce impacts. ing countless pests. housing development. The cave houses a large bat ma- The colony’s emergences ternity colony of around 20 Source: have become a tourist attrac- million Mexican free-tailed • Andy Moore and Barbara tion for city residents, who bats from March to October French, Bat Conservation make up a third of bat wat- – the bats migrate to Mexi- International (BCI) ching visitors, and tourists to co during the winter. Like the city. Each evening, the bats in general, this species • Gail R. Ryser and Roxana bats are viewed by between is threatened by develop- Popovici (1999) The Fiscal 200 – 1500 people from a bat ment, and loss of feeding Impact of the Congress viewing area, which includes and roosting habitats; large Avenue Bridge Bat Colony a series of information pa- colonies are also at risk from on the City of Austin, a stu- nels on bats and their eco- vandalism. dy for BCI logy and behaviour that has been established on a gras- Access to the reserve is rest- sy hill beside the bridge. ricted to BCI members, who pay an annual subscription No charge is made to view the of USD 35, invited visitors bats, but the economic be- that include potential do- nefits for the local area are nors, students and other ci- significant. A survey con- vic organizations, and local ducted for Bat Conservation volunteers who assist with International (BCI) gathered the running of the reserve. information from nearly 900

36 CASE STUDY: BRACKEN CAVE & CONGRESS AVENUE BRIDGE BAT COLONIES, TEXAS, USA

At dusk millions of Mexican free-tailed bats stream out of breeding cave in Texas, © Fred Bruemmer / Still Pictures

37 3 CONSERVATION BENEFITS FROM WILDLIFE WATCHING

Economic expenditures associated with wildlife watching tourism are large. There is therefore a huge potential for some of the revenues generated through wildlife watching tourism to be used to contribute to conservation of the watched species. Tou- rism businesses also have an incentive to protect the species that they bring tourists to watch.

The Convention on Biological Diversity’s Guidelines on Biodi- Eversity and Tourism Development identify a number of potential beneﬁts of tourism for wildlife conservation in protected areas that include:

• Revenue creation for the maintenance of natural resources of the area;

• Contributions to economic and social development, such as:

– Funding the development of infrastructure and services; Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), © WDCS – Providing jobs;

– Providing funds for development or maintenance of sustainable practices; greater environmental impacts. For example, conservationists set up crocodile watching safaris on the Black River in Jamai- – Providing alternative and supplementary ways for commu- ca to protect the crocodile population which was threatened by nities to receive revenue from biological diversity; poaching. Projeto Tamar has successfully promoted the conservation of turtles along the Brazilian coastline, and has helped to – Generating incomes; improve turtle numbers by protecting hatcheries – introducing more than 600,000 turtle hatchlings to the sea in 2003 alone. Pro- – Education and empowerment; jeto Tamar has achieved this by working with local communities and ﬁshermen to establish alternative employment and income – An entry product that can have direct beneﬁts for develo- streams based on turtle protection. ping other related products at the site and regionally; In the Annapurna Conservation Area in Nepal, where tourism is – Tourist satisfaction and experience gained at tourist desti- an important activity, observations of several deer species have nation. found that they are more abundant in the conservation area than outside it23. A census of mountain gorillas in the Democratic Re- Examples from around the world show how tourism has been public of Congo (DRC), Rwanda and Uganda, has found that the used successfully to help fund conservation activities, and th- population is increasing, and that the greatest increase is evident rough this, to protect wildlife and habitats that might otherwise in gorilla groups that are habituated for tourism and regularly vi- have been destroyed or subjected to alternative uses with far sited. In Península Valdés, Argentina, the whale population is

38 CONSERVATION BENEFITS FROM WILDLIFE WATCHING

increasing and the high number of mother-calf pairs in nursery grounds there suggest that they are unaffected by current whale watching activities.

In the Galapagos Islands and Bunaken National Marine Park, wildlife watching tourism provides all or most of the annual budget for park management, including the costs of managing tourism. In the Seychelles, whale shark watching is used to raise the funds needed for monitoring and research for whale shark conservation. Grey seal (Halichoerus grypus), © K.-E. Heers In Mexico, conservation of the main overwintering sites for Monarch butterflies, which together cover only a few hundred hectares, has been integrated with a much larger project – the reliable information gathered on levels of visitation and income Monarch Butterfly Model Forest – focused on improving liveli- from tourism, on the costs associated with the management of hoods and income-generation opportunities for people and com- wildlife watching tourism at conservation sites – such as provi- munities throughout an area of 300 km x 250 km. The project ding rangers to oversee visitation, and providing and maintaining has promoted community development and protection of forests visitor facilities, sanitation and waste disposal arrangements and environmental resources throughout this region, as well as – and on the effects of tourism on the watched species and their restoring critical Monarch Butterfly overwintering habitat, and habitats. providing training in ecotourism for local people. One study of World Bank GEF-related projects, found that a ma- These examples and others like them, show how tourism, con- jority of these mention ecotourism as an important source of servation and community development can work together. Ho- revenue for the protection and sustainable management of re- wever, it cannot be assumed that this will always be the case. sources, but of the 94 projects that did state this, only 8 carried Tourism can only be a suitable strategy for making a contribu- out any kind of detailed quantitative analysis of the income to be tion to conservation in situations where wildlife and associated derived from ecotourism. habitats are sufficiently resilient to withstand the impacts and disturbance that comes from visitation; where visitation and The study found that while the role of such tourism can be im- tourism development can be kept within acceptable limits in the portant, it was not always the key or most important source of long-term; and where it is possible to establish viable tourism revenue, and additional income from other sources was often businesses. needed. It concluded that given the combination of a stated importance of ecotourism and a limited quantification of its im- Many development and conservation projects over the past two pacts, there is danger that too much will be expected from this decades have incorporated a tourism component with the aims source; and that this needs to be avoided by careful assessment of generating revenues that would contribute to on-going pro- of what can be achieved24. ject financing, and providing an alternative source of income and employment for local communities. However, there has This highlights a need for projects that incorporate wildlife been little detailed evaluation of the effectiveness of many of watching elements to prepare business and marketing plans for these projects in terms of the on-going viability of tourism activi- these elements, in addition to considering the conservation is- ties, and effects on conservation and wildlife. There is often no sues.

39 3.1 Raising revenue for conservation consumptive uses of turtles, and also generates further indirect expenditures that can be even greater than direct income26. management Projeto TAMAR has used tourism based on turtle watching to For wildlife watching tourism to contribute to conservation at create viable livelihood alternatives for coastal communities in any site it needs to25: Brazil. However, as Projeto TAMAR shows, for this to be possible, local communities have to receive a fair share of income from • Cover the costs of: tourism if they are to be able to switch from livelihoods based on consumptive uses of species such as turtles. – management of tourism to avoid or minimise damage, Other studies regularly show that wildlife watching tourists are – providing and maintaining appropriate facilities for tou- often willing to pay signiﬁcantly more than current access fees rists, for wildlife watching, while protected areas which constitute major wildlife watching sites often lack the resources and funds – raising awareness amongst tourists of the importance of required for effective management. It therefore makes sense to conservation, and of practices and behaviours that assist review how to get a better balance between the costs of con- conservation servation management and fees charged for access to wildlife watching sites. – restoring damage that tourism activities may cause The main mechanisms that are used to raise funds from tourism • Generate additional revenues from tourism that can be used for conservation and for community development are27: to support general conservation activities • Entrance fees • Demonstrate through tourism the long-term economic value of conservation both nationally and locally by generating tan- • User fees gible beneﬁts for local communities – for example, by generating employment and stimulating private sector activities • Concessions and leases

Successful wildlife watching tourism may also generate non- • Direct operation of commercial activities monetary beneﬁts that can include valuable political and government support for species conservation, as well as support from • Taxes local communities and key stakeholders, and public awareness of the signiﬁcance of wildlife in the national heritage. • Volunteers and donations

A number of economic studies have shown in a range of different Mostly funding is raised through charging a mix of entrance contexts that wildlife watching tourism – for example, of whales fees for access to wildlife watching sites, user fees for those and dolphins, sharks, or on land, of gorillas – provides much gre- undertaking speciﬁc activities such as snorkeling or scuba di- ater real economic returns compared to the value of catching ving, concession and lease fees to allow tour operators to run a wide range of species for food or processing. For example, wildlife watching tours - such as guided walks, vehicle safaris the direct income from tourism at turtle nesting sites is on ave- or whale watching boats – at wildlife watching sites. Some sites rage at least three times the income that can be obtained from also operate wildlife watching activities directly and charge for

40 these – for example, Serengeti National Park in Tanzania is de- This suggests that in appropriate locations there may also be veloping a programme of ranger-guided walks, and Phillip Island potential to develop wildlife watching tourism around species in Australia provides a range of wildlife watching products with reintroduction programmes, such as those for antelopes in Tuni- differing levels of interpretation and pricing. sia and other countries of the Sahelo-Saharan region.

Some conservation sites are also able to raise significant funds Local communities in South Africa are also turning to tourism and for conservation thorugh donations from visitors or from tourism conservation as a preferred economic option for management of companies, a growing number of which set aside a small propor- their lands. One example is Kosi Bay on the edge of Greater St. tion of their profits, or make a donation per booking, to support Lucia Wetland Park. Here the community has entered into a joint a variety of conservation and/or community development activi- venture with a tour operator under an agreement through which ties28. ‘Volunteer’ tourism where tourists pay to undertake re- the community as land owner also receives additional payments search, monitoring and conservation activities under guidance for each visitor-night, gains employment in tourism operations of qualified staff is also a growing area of tourism, and can make and opportunities to supply goods and services to tourism. This valuable contributions both financially and through the activities not only secures a sustainable income through tourism-based that volunteers participate in, to conservation at some sites. activities but also preserves their culture and lifestyle and adds a strong awareness and involvement in conservation that draws However, it is also important to recognise that implementation of tourists. any fundraising or fee system requires investment both in desi- gning the system and gaining support for it from local stakehol- Marine conservation can also benefit from a private sector ap- ders, and in providing training to staff to ensure that it is put into proach, as at Chumbe Island, an officially designated marine practice effectively. Tourists and tourism businesses are ge- park in Tanzania. The marine park is run by a private compa- nerally supportive of such schemes provided they can see that ny that uses tourism to generate funds for management of the funds raised are well-managed and accounted for, and are used island and its coral reefs, and for research and environmental to make visible improvements for conservation and community education. Representatives from nearby fishing villages, as well development29. as university scientists and government officials, participate in management of the island. The project employs local people, Conservation linked to wildlife watching tourism is also emerging and tourism has created the stimulus for protecting the reefs. as a preferred commercial option for land use in some environments for both communities and private investors. In southern These projects clearly demonstrate that with the right approach Africa alone there are reported to be over eleven hundred priva- to marketing and management, wildlife watching tourism can tely managed nature reserves and more than four hundred priva- contribute to conservation. te conservancies30. For example, Conservation Corporation Afri- ca has established private reserves for wildlife watching tourism in southern Africa, and has shown that its reserves, which are managed for conservation and tourism, generate larger economic returns per hectare than the alternative use option of cattle ranching. Private reserves also build up their wildlife stocks with animals that are moved from overcrowded sites and which otherwise might have to be culled.

41 CASE STUDY: BUNAKEN NATIONAL MARINE PARK, INDONESIA

Bunaken National Marine Park, seats on the board are allo- established in 1991, encom- cated to 10 non-governmen- passes almost 90,000 hec- tal and 9 governmental tares, including five islands organisations, and include and some of the North Su- representatives of the 30 lawesi mainland. The park villages within the park, the has pioneered an innovative park authority, the Tourism co-management approach and Fisheries Departments, which is now being used as the local university, and the a model by some other pro- private tourism sector. tected areas in the region. One important outcome of this Bunaken has an extreme- approach has been replace- ly high level of marine bi- ment of a complicated and odiversity, which includes ineffective zoning scheme around 70 genera of corals, for the park with a much and 2,500 fish species, ma- simpler scheme that has king it popular with gro- been developed through an wing numbers of scuba di- extensive consultation pro- vers. The park is also home cess, which involved over to 30,000 people who live 50 public meetings, to deter- within the park boundary, mine current use patterns in and whose livelihoods are the park and public wishes based on fishing. Effecti- for future management. The Crinoid on hard coral (Comantheria briareus), Bunaken, ve management of the park new zoning scheme establis- Sulawesi, Indonesia, © Patricia Jordan / Still Pictures therefore depends on balan- hes just three different use cing its use for fishing and zones, each with clearly defi- tourism, with requirements ned boundaries, and permit- oned by dive operators from gers as sanctuaries for adult for conservation. ted and prohibited activities. the North Sulawesi Water- coral reef fishes to grow and sports Association (NSWA). spawn, and next to a popular The co-management approach Joint efforts are also under- With an initial transplantati- dive site. The restoration will ensures that all the inte- way, involving villagers and on of corals and natural rec- help to maintain the quali- rests of all groups who live local tour dive operators, to ruitment of juvenile corals to ty of diving, and to increase in or utilise the park are fully restore reefs that have been the modules, the area can be fisheries yields in adjacent taken into account. Park ma- reduced to rubble by blast expected to host a thriving areas. nagement is overseen by fishing. The first two reef coral reef within 3-5 years if the multistakeholder Buna- restorations were started in well-managed. Tourism is an important and ken Management Advisory 2004 using special ‘Ecoreef’ growing activity in the Board (BNPMAB) which was modules that were assemb- The modules were installed park. Just over 39,000 peo- established by the Indone- led by the villages of Negeri in no-take management zo- ple visited the park in 2003. sian government. The 19 and Alung Banoa, and positi- nes designated by the villa- Around three-quarters of the

42 CASE STUDY: BUNAKEN NATIONAL MARINE PARK, INDONESIA

visitors are domestic day- 9,000 divers each conduc- visitors who come to enjoy ted an average of 15 dives Bunaken’s beaches, while in- on Bunaken’s reefs – a total ternational visitors come to of 135,000 dives. A recent dive on the reefs. The park observational survey found charges visitors a user fee that recreational divers fre- of USD 6 for a day ticket, or quently touch or hold onto USD 17 for an annual ticket, the reefs – on average 40 ti- to use the park’s facilities. mes an hour per diver – and Dive tags and tickets are also deliberately disturb se- purchased through marine diments or fauna during di- Underwater view of the Bunaken, Sulawesi, Indonesia, tour operators based in the ves. The most heavily dived © Patricia Jordan / Still Pictures nearby city of Manado and sites in the park had high le- in the national park, or from vels of dead coral rubble and ses dramatically. This level Sources: ticket booths in the park, and very high levels of broken is already exceeded at some • UNEP (ed.). 2002. The Sta- enforcement of the fee sys- corals and coral fragments, of Bunaken’s dive sites, and tus of Coral Reef Manage- tem is conducted via spot consistent with high levels there is a need to spread di- ment in Southeast Asia: A checks by park rangers on of dive-related impact. ves between existing dive Gap Analysis. Report pre- land and at sea. sites, and improve dive brie- pared by Heidi Schutten- Although there are over 120 fings and guide procedures, berg, and David Bizot Proceeds from sales of dive dive sites in Bunaken, most to reduce overall impacts. tags and tickets are mana- diving is concentrated on • www.icran.org/pdf/itme ged by the Bunaken National just a third of these, becau- The NSWA has been worms/T4_BunakenMPAco- Park Management Adviso- se of ease of accessibility, king to ensure high stan- mgmt.pdf ry Board (BNPMAB), which manageable currents, suita- dards amongst its member uses these funds to finance bility for training, and tourist dive operators, but with • Managing Marine Tou- conservation and develop- expectations. At these hea- more than 40 dive operators rism in Bunaken National ment programmes such as vily-dived sites, diving by now working in and around Park and Adjacent Waters, village improvement sche- multiple operators occurs Bunaken, not all of whom North Sulawesi, Indonesia mes, collection and disposal on a daily basis, with from are members of the NSWA, By: Lyndon de Vantier and of plastic and other was- three to a maximum of six it is becoming more difficult Emre Turak, January 2004 te, conservation education boats operating at the same to use a voluntary approach - Technical Report for the of park residents, reef and time on the busiest days. to ensuring good practices. Natural Resources Ma- mangrove rehabilitation, and A new licensing system may nagement Program (NRM), patrols and law enforcement Worldwide studies have found therefore need to be desig- Jakarta, Indonesia aimed at ending destructive that damage is greatest du- ned in order to manage visi- fishing practices. ring the first few seasons of tation by granting a limited • Mark V. Erdmann, North diving at a new site, and that number of dive operator Sulawesi Provincial Ad- The growing popularity of once any site receives more licenses, and setting limits visor, in NRM Headline Bunaken is putting pressure than 6,000 dives per year, on boat capacity, dive guide News, Issue 12, August on dive sites. In 2003, around the level of damage increa- to diver ratios, and other ap- 2004 propriate factors. 43 CASE STUDY: VIEWING CRANES IN MÜRITZ NATIONAL PARK, GERMANY

Müritz National Park in the process has involved the north east of Germany is a National Parks Association popular site for tourists and of Local Communities and receives about 600,000 visi- District Councils, as well as tors each year to enjoy the a series of issue-based wor- lakes, forests and bogs of king groups with local and the post-glacial landscape other relevant stakeholders, and view a variety of spe- and consideration of over cies including white-tailed 900 written submissions. eagles, ospreys, cranes and red deer. The park covers The participatory process used 32,200 hectares and was es- to prepare the plan is being tablished in 1990. Starting continued for its implemen- with almost zero tourism, tation. This provides an im- national park tourism now portant mechanism for in- generates over v 13 million a tegrating conservation with year for the region, suppor- rural development of the ting an estimated 628 full region. time jobs. The park can be accessed Müritz National Park covers from many sites, and a vi- mainly state-owned land, sitor monitoring scheme but communal, church and has been used since 1999 privately-owned land is also to identify levels of visita- included. Most public areas tion in different parts of the Common crane (Grus grus), © Igor Bartashov can be freely accessed. The park, and the main activities visitor infrastructure inclu- of visitors. Detailed visitor des an extensive system of surveys are conducted eve- marked trails, cycle and ca- ry three years, and sample noe routes, platforms, hides checks are made annual- during September and Octo- Cranes are sensitive to dis- and towers. Managing the ly. This information is then ber, and also has a small po- turbance from visitors – in- park effectively requires the used to improve visitor ma- pulation breeding of about cluding impacts from noi- cooperation of local commu- nagement across the park. 80 cranes. The cranes rest se, flash photography, and nities and businesses located overnight on the shallow, un- bright coloured clothing – in or surrounding the park. One example of visitor ma- disturbed lakeshores within and change their pre-resting The National Park Authority nagement has been intro- Müritz National Park, where habits and flight patterns un- has therefore undertaken a duced to control viewing of they are safe from predators, der these conditions. To con- highly participatory process migrant cranes around Lake and during the day feed on trol visitation and minimize for preparation of the Müritz Rederang. The park hosts up nearby agricultural fields. impacts, a ticket and guiding National Park Plan, which to 8,000 migrating cranes system to view the cranes as was produced in 2004. This (Grus grus) at any one time they come to their overnight

44 CASE STUDY: VIEWING CRANES IN MÜRITZ NATIONAL PARK, GERMANY

resting sites was introduced conservation by regulating in 2003. viewing and minimizing any disturbance to the cranes, by The ‘Crane Ticket’ system has providing a general incentive been developed as a public- for tour companies linked to private partnership that in- crane conservation, and by volves Müritz National Park enabling the park to promo- Authority and the National te greater awareness of cra- Park Service OHG, which is a ne ecology and conservation local tourism company that and the interpretation that it has contracted guiding and provides. bus services from two more companies. Tickets cost v 7 The Crane Ticket also helps per visitor, and there is a limit to promote tourism to the of 130 visitors each evening. region in the lower season. The ticket price includes the In 2005, a total of 3,100 visi- bus transfer from the nearby tors took advantage of the town of Waren (Müritz). Vie- Crane Ticket in September wing is conducted in groups and October. Some hotels Landscape Müritz National Park, Germany, © Ulrich Meßner. of up to 20 visitors, and is also include Crane Tickets confined to two locations. as a special offer for their Free access to the resting guests. locations is prevented by partial closure of trails du- Monitoring of the cranes shows Source: ring the evenings. The Natio- that there have been mini- • Job et al. (2005): Ökono- nal Park Rangers control the mal impacts on the cranes mische Effekte von Groß- restrictions and provide one since the Crane Ticket was schutzgebieten, BfN-Skrip- guided tour to each location, introduced. Besides cranes, ten 135, Bonn and the tourism company visitors can also frequently provides further guides, who observe red deer and the rut- • www.nationalpark- are usually experienced con- ting of red deer stags, wild mueritz.de servationists. boar, white-tailed eagles and other animals in their habi- • www.nationalpark- The income from the Crane tat. Guiding provides good service.de Ticket is just sufficient to co- interpretation of the cranes’ ver the costs of the private ecology and migration that • Jens Brüggemann, Assis- services that are involved. creates a high quality visitor tant Director, Müritz Natio- Although the income does experience and also ensures nal Park Authority not directly support con- visitor behaviour does not servation in the park, the disturb the cranes. scheme provides significant non-monetary benefits for 45 CASE STUDY: WATCHING WHALE SHARKS IN THE SEYCHELLES

The Marine Conservation So- Whale sharks are plankton ciety, Seychelles (MCSS) is feeders and their size – with using whale shark watching adults reaching lengths of up tourism as a way of raising to 18 metres – and relative ra- funds for its whale shark re- rity makes them a species of search programme and of great attraction for recreatio- raising awareness about the nal divers and other wildlife importance of conserving watching tourists. However, these animals. Whale sharks very little is known about the migrate over huge distances effects of such encounters in the Indian Ocean, and in on the behaviour and ecolo- other ocean basins, and are gy of whale sharks. a protected species in the Seychelles and in the Mal- The sharks do react to the dives, the Philippines, India, presence of both boats and and Western Australia. They swimmers in the water near are threatened by boat stri- them, usually in a positive kes, since the species ge- manner by coming closer neral swims near the ocean to investigate, however this surface, and also, in several may lessen their feeding parts of the Indian Ocean, by time and an Encounter Code illegal fisheries. has been developed through a national public workshop Up to 200 whale sharks visit to minimize the potential for specific coastal areas around negative disturbance. The Whale shark (Rhincodon typus) with scuba diver, Mahe between July to No- code limits the distance a © Chris Goodwin / MCSS vember most years. They boat may approach a shark, appear to be aggregating in allows only one boat within a these areas to feed on dense contact zone of 200m around zooplankton patches caused a shark for a maximum of 30 toring and encounter trips, start with an overview of the by the seasonal upwelling minutes, limits the number and is awaiting formal legis- monitoring and encounter of nutrients caused by the of people in the water with a lation by the Government of programmes, the code of prevailing trade winds. Most shark to eight, and requires Seychelles. conduct and a general safe- specimens are juveniles and that they keep a minimum ty briefing. Increasingly visi- are frequently seen feeding distance of 3 metres from On encounter trips, paying tors are coming specifically at the surface, very few adult the shark, do not touch it or visitors are taken to the to participate in this activity, specimens have been noted use flash photography. sharks using boats chartered rather than it being an addi- in the 10 years of the MCSS from local commercial ope- tional activity chosen oppor- programme. The Encounter Code has rators so that there is direct tunistically when visiting; as been adopted and is in use income into the local indus- such there is a substantial in- by the MCSS on their moni- try. All trips run by the MCSS flux into the supporting tou-

46 CASE STUDY: WATCHING WHALE SHARKS IN THE SEYCHELLES

Whale shark (Rhincodon typus), © Alan James Photography / Whale Shark (Rhincodon typus), © Alan James Photography / MCSS MCSS

rism industry by the booking Stakeholder involvement has tourism from these visitors, ecotourism and its socio- of hotels, restaurants, trans- been important in establish- including travel and accom- economic impact. fers and similar tourism ser- ing the Encounter Code, and modation expenditures, was vices. developing the MCSS mo- calculated to amount to ne- • Seychelles whale shark nitoring and encounter pro- arly USD 1.75 million. Num- encounter policy procee- The sole purpose of the grammes for whale sharks. bers of visitors participating dings www.mcss.sc/ wha- current encounter program- Community involvement is in the whale shark encounter le shark encounter policy_ me is to raise funds for the promoted through public programme are projected to proceedings.pdf MCSS monitoring and con- workshops, a bi-monthly increase to 880 in 2008. servation activities, which newsletter that gives regular • Seychelles whale shark include studies on the way reports on monitoring activi- workshop proceedings. in which encounters affect ties and sightings of whale Sources: www.mcss.sc/whaleshark whale sharks. Information sharks, and by regular visits • David Rowat, Marine Con- _workshop _proceedings. is recorded about all encoun- by the MCSS Research Ofﬁ- servation Society, Seychel- pdf ters including details of du- cer to local organisations. les ration, the number of people • Cesar, H.S.J., van Beu- in the water, the behaviour In 2005, 496 tourists partici- • J.G. Colman (1997) A re- kering, P.J.H., Payet, R., of the whale shark(s) and the pated in whale shark view of the biology and Grandcourt, E., 2003. Eco- reason why the encounter watching, providing a to- ecology of the whale shark, nomic Analysis of Threats terminated. Aerial observa- tal income of just over Journal of Fish Biology 51, to Coastal Ecosystems in tions are also being carried USD 35,000, split between 1219–1234 the Seychelles: Costs and out to record whale shark USD 14,500 in direct in- Beneﬁts of Management behaviour in the absence of come to boat operators, and • Rowat, D. and Engelhardt, Options. Report to the Sey- external disturbances from USD 20,500 to support the U. (In Press), Seychelles: A chelles Marine Ecosystem boats and people. MCSS whale shark monito- case study of community Management Project. Mi- ring programme. However, involvement in the deve- nistry of Environment, Vic- the total added value of lopment of whale shark toria, Seychelles. 47 CASE STUDY: GORILLA WATCHING TOURISM IN AFRICA

Gorilla tourism has mostly con- international attention from centrated on mountain goril- tourism, the mountain go- las in Rwanda, Democratic rilla population would not Republic of Congo (DRC) and have survived. Uganda, but more recently, the development of tourism Currently, tourists pay linked to lowland gorilla po- around USD 350 per person pulations in west and central for a permit to watch moun- Africa has also been explo- tain gorillas, in addition to red. By 2000 four groups paying park entrance fees of gorillas in Rwanda, three and for their guides. This in DRC and three in Uganda price ensures that gorilla were habituated and visited watching tourism generates by paying tourists. This rep- significant amounts of reve- resented approximately 70% nue, and helps to manage of the Virunga population. demand from tourists for Since then, lowland gorilla gorilla watching. groups have been habituated in the Central African Gorilla watching tourism also Republic, and Republic of leads to expenditures by tou- Congo. rists on accommodation and other services during their Gorillas are highly endan- visits, and attracts them to gered: there are less than travel in countries that they 1000 mountain gorillas and might not otherwise visit. Mountain gorilla (Gorilla gorilla beringei), © Patrick Van 110,000 western lowland go- For example, nearly three- Klaveren rillas estimated to remain in quarters of the 8,000 tourists the wild, and they are sub- visiting Uganda each year ject to threats from logging for gorilla watching, also vi- and land conversion to agri- sit other national parks in the as for the revenues that it erosion of the slopes of the culture, which fragment their country. These indirect ex- generates directly. It is also Virungas. forest habitat, and make it penditures, which are not di- significant in that it promo- easier for poachers to kill rectly associated with gorilla tes protection of the forests The main issues for gorilla con- gorillas for the bushmeat watching, would not occur in which provide the gorillas’ servation and tourism are trade. From a conservation the absence of gorilla wat- habitats, and therefore helps associated with problems perspective, even though ching tourists, and have ma- to preserve the valuable eco- of stress in the habituation there are risks to gorillas jor economic significance. system services provided process, potential loss of from tourism, these are far by the forest, for example, gorillas to human diseases less than other threats: it Thus gorilla watching is im- as a water catchment for through contact with visitors is also argued that without portant as much for its indi- downstream agricultural and guards, and the risks the incentives, revenue and rect economic effects as well areas, and by preventing soil posed to habituated gorilla

48 CASE STUDY: GORILLA WATCHING TOURISM IN AFRICA

groups from poachers, guer- tourism or for research. Tou- rillas and other armed peo- rism means that habituated ple in the forests. It is also groups are regularly visited important to ensure that and therefore receive grea- tourists are protected from ter protection than non-habi- any risk of danger to them- tuated groups. selves.

These issues can be mana- Sources: ged through strict compli- • Ian Redmond, Chief Con- ance with existing regula- sultant, GRASP, UNEP/ tions that are designed to UNESCO Great Apes Sur- Mountain gorilla (Gorilla gorilla beringei), © Patrick Van minimise negative impacts vival Project Klaveren on gorillas, supported by training courses for guards • Liz Williamson, Vice-Chair, and guides, and the provisi- Great Apes Section of the on of information leaflets for IUCN/SSC Primate Specia- visitors. Existing regulations list Group for gorilla watching include a maximum group size of 8 • José Kalpers, Elizabeth • C. Cipolletta, 2003, Ran- tourists, a limit of one tou- A. Williamson, Martha M. ging Patterns of a Wes- rist visit (for a maximum of Robbins, Alastair McNei- tern Gorilla Group During 1 hour) to a gorilla group lage, Augustin Nzamuram- Habituation to Humans in in a single day, no physical baho, Ndakasi Lola and the Dzanga-Ndoki National contact with the gorillas, and Ghad Mugiri (2003) Go- Park, Central African Repu- a separation distance of at rillas in the crossfire: po- blic, International Journal least 5 metres (7 m is now pulation dynamics of the of Primatology,Vol. 24,No. recommended), no visits by Virunga mountain gorillas 6, December 2003 people who are obviously over the past three deca- ill, or by children under 15 des, Oryx Vol 37 No 3 • International Gorilla Con- years, no flash photography, servation Programme removal of all litter, and no • T. M. Butynski and J. Kalina (IGCP) Analysis of the loud noises or talking by the (1998) Gorilla tourism: A Economic Significance of tourist group. critical look, in Conserva- Gorilla Tourism in Uganda tion of Biological Resour- (Report authors: Dr. Yak- A recent census of mountain ces, edited by E.J. Mil- obo Moyini and Berina gorillas shows a 17% incre- ner-Gulland and R. Mace, Uwimbabazi, Msc.) ase in overall numbers bet- Blackwell Publishers pp. ween 1989 - 2000, and that 294-313 the increase is greatest in gorilla groups habituated for

49 4 HOW TO ADDRESS RISKS TO THE SUSTAINABI LITY OF WILDLIFE WATCHING

Tourism can provide benefits for conservation, but at the same time may also give rise to a number of adverse effects. These arise both directly from disturbance caused by wildlife watching activities, and indirectly from the construction and operation of tourism facilities, and the general background levels of disturbance from tourism. Such adverse effects can be avoided or minimized, providing that sufficient resources and funds are available for effective management, and that tourism develop- Tment is subject to proper planning controls and limits. For example, limiting visitor numbers and accompanying visitor groups with trained guides helps to minimise the direct disturbance of wildlife; and walkways can be installed to reduce habitat damage from trampling by visitors in heavily visited areas. Tourism facilities can be planned so that they are situated well away from sensitive areas for wildlife, and overall development kept within clear limits that are established to prevent unacceptable impacts. Siberian crane (Grus leucogeranus), © Irina Gavrilova / Oka Crane Breeding Center Although some species – such as those that thrive in towns and cities – adapt easily to human presence, many are highly sensiti- Requirements and issues for successful conservation manage- ve to disturbance. Crane species, for example, will take flight to ment are generally quite different from those for successful tou- avoid disturbances such as noise or visitors with bright clothing. rism management, or for successful community development, Glow-worms have even been observed to reduce the intensity of and each involves different expertise. In planning for sustain- their glow – which is used to attract the insects on which they able wildlife watching tourism, it is therefore important to find feed – if they are caught in torchlight beams used to guide tou- those places where the requirements for conservation, tourism rists on glow-worm watching tours. and community development are compatible with each other and to recognise that elsewhere wildlife watching tourism is unlikely Wildlife watching tourism requires careful planning, manage- to be successful and cannot be sustainable. ment and monitoring if it is to take place without risk to the species that are watched or their habitats, and to bring benefits Three key questions need to be addressed in planning for wild- to local communities. The aim of planning is to establish clear life watching tourism: objectives and targets for wildlife watching tourism, which are then implemented through appropriate management actions. • How can wildlife watching be managed in a way that is com- Monitoring is used to check whether targets are being met - and patible with conservation of the watched species and asso- if targets are not being met, management actions are adjusted ciated habitats? and improved to achieve them in future. This ‘adaptive management’ approach enables continuous improvements to be made in • Is there a realistic market demand for tourism managed in this management actions for conservation, tourism and community way? benefits, based on lessons learned from day-to-day management experience. • How would the local communities be able to benefit from such tourism?

50 HOW TO ADDRESS RISKS TO THE SUSTAINABI LITY OF WILDLIFE WATCHING

Answering these questions requires inputs that draw on the ex- competition from other species, and be more vulnerable to pre- pertise of a range of different stakeholders. This can best be dation, in these less favoured feeding grounds. Evidence for obtained by encouraging all the relevant stakeholders to parti- this has been found in a wide range of species groups, including cipate in planning and setting objectives for wildlife watching cetaceans, great apes, and birds. For example, both chimpan- tourism. Involving stakeholders in the planning process can be zees and dolphins have been observed to feed less, and to be a powerful way to identify interests that they share, and to gene- more watchful, when being observed by tourist groups. rate local commitment to plans, and associated regulations, for wildlife watching. Species are often particularly vulnerable to the effects of disturbance during their breeding periods, and during their juvenile Participatory approaches to planning wildlife watching tourism stages. Any disruption of courtship and mating behaviours, or are being used widely: successful examples of stakeholder par- later on, of care for offspring, reduces overall breeding success, ticipation include adoption of a voluntary code of conduct for and therefore is a serious threat to population maintenance and whale watching in Península Valdés , and establishment of no- survival. For example, if the cubs of big cats, such as cheetahs ﬁshing zones and dive sites as part of the overall zonation of or leopards, become separated from their mothers, they are Bunaken National Marine Park. vulnerable to predation. Tourists are often particularly keen to watch mother-offspring groups, and therefore great care is needed to limit and control any tourism around them.

4.1 Effects of disturbance from tourism Physiological effects of disturbance on wildlife Recent studies have also found physiological changes in animals subject to disturbance through tourism. These changes include Wildlife watching tourism can have adverse effects on wildlife alterations to their blood chemistry, such as increases in the le- in three main ways – by causing changes in their behaviour, to vels of stress hormones in their blood, and additional changes in their physiology, or damage to their habitats. There are also individuals that are regularly fed by humans as part of the tourism risks associated with both pressures for further tourism expan- experience, such as stingrays at Stingray City and the Sand Bar sion that can build up as destinations and attractions become in the Cayman Islands. The long-term implications of such phy- better known and more popular, and from the sharp changes that siological changes on the survival of individuals and populations can occur in levels of visitation to particular sites or regions from are only beginning to be investigated. However, such changes year to year, which arise from competition between destinations, emphasise the need for caution in managing populations that changes in the preferences of tourists, and concerns of tourists are regularly the subject of wildlife watching activities. for their personal security. In addition, a few species, such as the great apes, are suscep- tible to human diseases against which they have little or no im- munity. Contact with tourists may therefore increase the risk Behavioural effects of disturbance of disease transmission to the populations of these animals that Individuals that are subject to disturbance will spend less time are being watched. feeding or resting, and more energy on trying to move away from the source of disturbance, perhaps shifting to more remote or less productive feeding grounds: they may also face greater

51 Habitat damage and disturbance An equally significant risk is the extent to which establishment Wildlife watching tourism can also result in damage to sites and of even low levels of tourism may activate the ‘tourism cycle’ habitats where species are watched. One dramatic example of and expose areas to a rapid and often poorly planned and unco- this is the damage that is commonly reported to coral reefs at ordinated expansion of tourism. Such expansion can be both a sites that are regularly visited by large numbers of recreational cause of habitat loss, and increased pressure and disturbance divers. Breakages of coral destroy reef organisms, and reduce from tourists on wildlife watching areas. For example, part of the habitat available to fish for spawning and feeding. This in the Sian Ka’an Biosphere Reserve in Mexico is experiencing sig- turn reduces the abundance of marine life at these sites, and nificant increases in numbers of day visitors as development of ultimately makes them much less attractive to divers. high-volume tourism in the Riviera Maya expands and hotels are built nearer to the Reserve, making access easier. The day visi- In addition, tourism facilities that are primarily used by tourists tors, who come to participate in snorkeling and diving on a sec- who come to watch wildlife, and impacts from solid and liquid tion of the Meso-American Barrier Reef system, spend relatively wastes, can also be a threat to wildlife habitats. For example, little in the Reserve and the local community, but present a major international visitors who come to dive around the reefs of problem for management of wastes and sanitation. Furthermore, Bunaken National Marine Park in Indonesia, mainly use home- the local dive sites are suffering damage from overuse, and the stay accommodation. Although the majority of homestays make presence of day visitors is making the Reserve less attractive for significant efforts to minimize physical impacts on Bunaken’s the low-volume high-value tourism which has been an important reefs, most also use septic wastewater and sewage treatment source of income for many years. The Reserve is working with systems and a high proportion of these are located within 50 local dive operators to improve management of dive sites, but metres of a beach. Should leakages occur from the systems, has no power to control the numbers of people who travel into the nutrient enrichment of coastal waters would damage nearby the Reserve as day visitors. reefs. General tourism developments can also be a threat to certain species. For example, coastal tourism development in many parts of the world continues to cause serious impacts and damage to turtle nesting areas on beaches. This underlines the need for effective land use and coastal area planning to protect key 4.2 Risks from variations in visitation wildlife sites from development. and expansion of tourism There are further risks that arise from the dynamic nature of tourism itself. Levels of visitation to tourist attractions can be highly variable from year to year, depending on latest consumer preferences, competition from other destinations and attrac- 4.3 Managing visitors to minimise im- tions, and on perceptions of personal safety in different coun- pacts on wildlife tries. If wildlife conservation and communities become significantly dependent on income and employment from tourism, Provided watched populations and their habitats have sufficient then any drop in tourism will have serious social and economic periods of time in which to recover following each disturbance consequences. It is therefore important to develop diversified by tourists, overall effects on population health and reproduction sources of income for both conservation and communities, and are likely to be low. But as the scale and frequency of tourism to to avoid over-reliance on wildlife watching tourism. watch a particular population of animals increases, the recovery

52 periods become shorter and the impacts of disturbance on wild- – by moving viewing sites further away from the animals that life can rapidly increase. are being watched – for example, the WDCS encourages land-based watching wherever possible, in preference Disturbance is damaging to animal populations and their habi- to watching whales from boats – or by installing hides to tats, and reduces the quality of the tourism experience. For ex- screen tourists from wildlife ample, heavily-visited dive sites on coral reefs often display very high levels of damage to coral, and a reduced number of ﬁsh • redirect visitation – by developing alternative attractions and species and other reef organisms. It is therefore vital to plan and infrastructure, such as visitor and interpretation centres, vie- manage wildlife watching tourism in ways that minimise impacts wing points, and additional wildlife watching sites in less sen- on wildlife. Main options for visitation management for wildlife sitive locations – an example is the Serengeti National Park watching are to: which is setting up areas where visitors can get out of their vehicles to undertake speciﬁc activities, such as short guided • reduce visitation – by restricting the numbers of tourists al- walks or viewing water-birds lowed into viewing sites at any one time, by increasing fees for visitation, and/or by restricting the times when viewing is • prevent visitation – by closing wildlife watching sites and as- allowed – examples of this are the Crane Ticket introduced at sociated infrastructure to protect sensitive areas, or to allow Müritz National Park, or the schedules used by the Galapagos for maintenance and restoration National Park to spread visitation over a number of sites In some cases, it is also possible to use habituation to increase • modify visitation – by altering the way in which wildlife wat- the ability of some species – such as primates – to tolerate ob- ching is conducted: servation by tourist groups.

– by brieﬁng visitors on appropriate behaviour while wildlife Many tourism businesses recognise the important role that they watching, and by setting up codes of conduct for wildlife have to play in ensuring that their tours are conducted respon- watching – For example, regulations for gorilla watching sibly and minimise adverse impacts on the environment and tours require that tourists remain at least 7 metres away wildlife. They also recognise the value of visitor management from gorillas, and do not make loud noises or take ﬂash pho- measures designed to maintain healthy populations of the wild- tographs. Periods of contact with gorilla groups are limited life which their customers come to view, and the need to provide to a maximum of one hour per day, and all tours are led by a high quality experience for their visitors by avoiding overcrowd- registered and trained guides, and limited to a maximum of ing. For example, the North Sulawesi Watersports Association 8 tourists (6 in Uganda). For whale watching, regulations has worked closely with Bunaken National Marine Park on in- at most whale watching sites specify a minimum approach troduction of dive fees, and helps to collect these fees on behalf distance of 100 metres between whale watching boats and of the Park. Surveys also reveal that recreational divers and whales at the surface, for a period of 15 minutes. Only one other types of visitor to Bunaken and many others sites have a boat can be this close at any time, and one other boat is high willingness to pay for entrance and user fees for wildlife permitted to wait in an ‘approach zone’ extending 300 me- watching, provided that they can see that the revenues raised tres from the watched whales. are being used effectively for local conservation, community development, and tourism management. – by providing trained guides to accompany visitor groups to provide interpretation and supervise wildlife viewing Many tour operators that provide specialist wildlife watching holiday packages already provide detailed information on wild-

53 life watching to their clients, and some tour operators work with Zoning and measures to minimise disturbance to wildlife are hotels and destinations to ensure that their clients understand most effective if they are introduced through the cooperation ways in which they can help to protect important wildlife. Ex- between wildlife conservation managers and tourism providers. amples are Accor which has developed an information leaflet The Müritz Crane Ticket and the Galapagos schedules for site on prevention of damage to coral reefs which it pioneered with visits by tourist boats both require coordination between tourism its customers travelling to destinations along the Red Sea, and enterprises and the relevant park authorities. So does the pro- TUI is seeking to improve the quality of whale watching in many vision of briefings to visitors, compliance with wildlife watching destinations, such as Tenerife and La Gomera, and Samana Bay regulations, or relocation of viewing sites. in the Dominican Republic, and to develop support for whale and dolphin conservation initiatives through tourism. Stakeholder participation in planning for wildlife watching tourism can take place through meetings, workshops, and consulta- tions, and in some cases, as at Bunaken, may also involve establishment of a multi-stakeholder advisory group with designated responsibilities for overseeing all aspects of resource conserva- 4.4 Planning approaches for zoning tion and management. and visitor management Stakeholder participation can also be integrated with planning methodologies such as the Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) Sites generally incorporate visitor management into a system and Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) approaches31, of zones, that allow different levels of access and use. In Ser- which can be used to help set objectives for wildlife watching engeti National Park, the zoning scheme sets out three zones for tourism. The LAC approach identifies appropriate and accep- different types of wildlife watching and levels of use, and also table resource and social conditions and the actions needed to establishes a no-go zone where tourism access or use is not protect or achieve those conditions. It includes identification of permitted. In the Galapagos, tourism is restricted to 54 terrest- the scale and types of tourism activities that would be compatib- rial visitor sites that cover less than 1% of the total land area of le with requirements for wildlife conservation in any particular the National Park, and 64 marine visitor sites. In Phillip Island, location - for example, by identifying a maximum number of vi- development of tourism facilities has been managed to create an sitors and groups that an area or animal population could safely area of the site that accommodates very high annual visitor num- sustain without a risk of adverse effects on its sustainability and bers, while leaving many other sections free from development survival. Appropriate management actions and indicators – in- and accessible only on foot to lower numbers of visitors. cluding indicators for the health of the watched animals – are then agreed and implemented. Site zoning is important for balancing different types of tourism use, and non-tourism uses that might otherwise conflict with The ROS is a planning approach that is designed to match dif- each other. In many marine sites, establishment of no fishing ferent types of tourism to land and resources management, in- zones which are used for recreational diving and snorkelling has cluding biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. The ROS been important for preventing conflicts between tourism and divides land use types for recreation and tourism purposes into fishing, and has also contributed to an increase in fish stocks categories that range from essentially natural, low-use areas and catches by providing fish with protected areas for spawning which offer resource-dependent recreational opportunities, to and growth. Examples include Bunaken National Marine Park highly developed, intensive use areas where recreational op- in Indonesia, and the Soufriere Marine Management Area in St. portunities are based around constructed facilities and/or are Lucia. vehicle-dependent.

54 The outcome of planning for wildlife watching tourism is a series There are several implications of rapid tourism growth for wild- of objectives and targets for conservation, community benefits life watching: first, there is likely to be a greater demand for wild- and tourism. Conservation objectives will generally include tar- life watching activities, and this demand may exceed the limits gets for maintaining a healthy population – for example, setting for sustainable wildlife watching, particularly at the more acces- minimum population numbers and measures of breeding suc- sible viewing sites. Without effective controls to keep visitation cess. Objectives for community benefits may include setting within sustainable limits, disturbance of the watched animal po- aside a portion of tourism revenues to be spent on community pulations will increase, and the quality of the wildlife watching projects, and training and employment of a minimum number of experience will be affected by overcrowding. people from local communities. Tourism objectives will generally include minimum and maximum numbers of tourists, quality The second factor is that new local tourism operators are also of the tourism experience, provision of appropriate facilities and likely to become established, and may be less committed to sup- qualified guides for tourism, and targets for tourism income. porting conservation and working to generate benefits for local communities. For example, in recent years the number of dive Overall, objectives for wildlife watching tourism set a maximum operators in Bunaken National Marine Park has expanded to 40, acceptable level for tourism in any area or for any group of wat- and many of the new operators have not joined the North Su- ched animals that is based on conservation, social and tourism lawesi Watersports Association, which was established by the considerations. dive operators who were active in Bunaken in the mid-1990s to promote responsible dive practices and conservation. A third factor is that there may also be pressure on areas used for wildlife watching from unanticipated and competing tourism activi- ties32.

4.5 The importance of planning Managing these issues requires a combination of strong spa- for sustainable wildlife watching tial and land use planning, and effective management of wildlife watching tourism sites, for example in licensing concessions, tourism setting standards for wildlife watching and habitat protection, and ensuring that tourism operations comply with these stan- Measures for minimising disturbance described so far, apply dards. This in turn can only be achieved if wildlife and conser- mainly to management of wildlife watching activities at specific vation managers have the necessary legal authority and political sites or groups of sites. However, as the example of pressures support. from shifts and expansion of tourism at Sian Ka’an illustrates, the management of wildlife watching tourism can also be affected by development of regional infrastructure for tourism. The nature of the tourism cycle means that tourism rarely stops at a low level of visitation, unless there are very firm – generally physical – limits in place. As any locality becomes better known, and as access becomes easier, tourism can begin to grow rapidly, at a pace that can make it difficult to ensure that growth is coordina- ted and well planned.

55 CASE STUDY: MANAGING TOURISM ON THE GALAPAGOS ISLANDS, ECUADOR

The Galapagos Islands are re- Tourism is therefore very nowned for their rare and carefully managed through exceptional wildlife – inclu- a combination of zoning, a ding giant tortoises, marine ‘fixed itinerary’ system for iguanas, sea lions and birds, boats carrying more than 20 such as Darwin’s finches, al- passengers, and a voluntary batrosses, boobies and fri- certification scheme for tou- gatebirds. In recognition of rist boats. their importance, UNESCO designated the islands in Visitor sites are divided into 1978 as the first-ever natural three management zones: World Heritage Site. The Ga- lapagos National Park and • sites where visits are per- the Galapagos Marine Re- mitted for several groups sources Reserve have been of tourists at a time, and established to protect and which can be visited by manage these unique island all sizes of tourist boats ecosystems. (intensive use zone)

The Galapagos Islands are • sites which may only be also Ecuador’s most popular visited by groups of up to tourist destination, and re- 16 visitors, one group at a ceive nearly 70,000 visitors time, and which are used annually who come to view by smaller vessels (exten- the wildlife of the islands, sive use zone) Elderly couple is observing two sea lions in Ecuador, and who travel and stay on © Reiner Heubeck / Still Pictures tourist boats. These visitors • sites for use by local resi- generate 11 % of Ecuador’s dents and visitors seeking tourism income, and the less expensive alternati- funds for the National Park ves for recreation, educa- 1-1.5 metres width, which a few sites for small launch and Marine Resources Re- tion, hiking, and camping are used to protect sensitive rides. serve are generated from a (recreational zone) wildlife, and to keep physi- 45 % share of entrance fees cal impacts of visitation on Studies suggest that this ap- – currently set at USD 100 The 54 terrestrial visitor sites in soils and vegetation within proach to visitor manage- per person – for international total cover less than 1% of the very limited and manageab- ment is working successful- visitors. total land area of the Natio- le areas. The majority of the ly – for example, comparison nal Park, and in the intensive 64 marine visitor sites are of visited and non-visited The Islands and their wildlife and extensive use zones, tou- designated as extensive use breeding colonies of birds are vulnerable to human im- rists must be accompanied zones with visits limited to shows that visitation over pacts from both visitors and by trained guides and keep individual small groups, for several decades has not had the growing local population. to marked trails of between diving, snorkelling, and in any detectable effects on re-

56 CASE STUDY: MANAGING TOURISM ON THE GALAPAGOS ISLANDS, ECUADOR

productive success of these y Desarrollo (CCD) – with The programme helps boat • Craig Macfarland (former birds. experience in ecotourism operators to access expert Director, Charles Darwin and ecolabels, and is guided technical advice and sup- Research Station) (2000) Around 80 tourist boats cur- by an advisory committee port on how to implement An analysis of nature tou- rently licensed to operate in – comprised of the Ecuado- the certification standards. rism in the Galápagos Is- the Galapagos Islands. To rian Minister of Tourism, sci- Boats are inspected annu- lands control pressure on visitor entists, park officials and re- ally, and provided they still sites, the National Park sets presentatives of the tourism comply with the certification • Silvia Benitez (2001) Visitor a ‘fixed itinerary’ each year industry. The International standards, certification is re- Use Fees and Concessi- for every boat that can carry Galapagos Tour Operators newed for a further year. The on Systems in Protected 20 or more passengers. The Association, representing boat operators pay for audits Areas: Galápagos Natio- itinerary sets a schedule for the companies that manage and the use of the SmartVoy- nal Park Case Study, The visits to sites by individual tourism in the islands, sup- ager® label. Nature Conservancy Eco- boats. Smaller boats have ports the program by dis- tourism Program Technical an open itinerary and provi- tributing information to the These tourism management Report Series, No. 3 de the National Park with the tour operators and the tou- measures are essential for flexibility to move visitors rists themselves. protection of the fragile en- • Font, X. & Buckley, R. from overused sites to un- vironment of the Galapagos (Eds.) (2001) Tourism eco- der-visited ones. The certification standards co- Islands, and for maintaining labelling: certification and ver potential sources of pol- the quality of the visitor ex- promotion of sustainable Apart from direct visitor ef- lution, such as wastewater perience. management, Wallingford: fects, some of the major and fuels, and set rules for CAB International threats to the unique wild- all aspects of tour boat ma- life of the Islands come from nagement, including the Sources: risks of introduction of alien small craft that ferry visitors • Jose Valdivieso, Bob Toth, species, and of pollution by ashore. Procurement and James Hanna and Juan liquid and solid wastes. To supply management guide- Quintero (2003) Ecuador: promote minimisation of the lines are designed to mini- Fostering environmentally environmental impacts from mize the chances of introdu- sustainable tourism and tourist boats, and to ensure cing alien wildlife species to small business growth and good working practices and the area. The standards re- innovation in the Galapa- local community benefits quire good living conditions gos, World Bank ‘en breve’ through tourism, a volunta- and advanced training for June 2003 No.26 A regular ry certification programme the boat crew and guides. series of notes highligh- – SmartVoyager® – has been Passengers must be given ting recent lessons emer- introduced. maximum opportunity to ap- ging from the operational preciate the beauty of the is- and analytical program The programme was de- lands and close encounters of the World Bank‘s Latin signed by an Ecuadorian with wildlife while leaving America and Caribbean nonprofit organization - Cor- no trace of their visit. Region poración de Conservación

57 CASE STUDY: WHALE WATCHING, PENÍNSULA VALDÉS, ARGENTINA

Península Valdés in Argentina is from other countries. In 2001, the nursery ground for one of the Península Valdés Protec- the largest remaining popu- ted Natural Area was created lations of southern right wha- and a Management Plan was les. This population has been approved. Península Valdés studied since 1970 and now was declared a UNESCO registers an annual growth World Heritage Site in 1999. of 7%. This species migrates The Management Plan in- approximately 2000km from corporates a no-access zone its feeding grounds to their from which all vessels are nursery ground in the pro- prohibited, and a restricted tected waters of the Penín- access zone which is only sula Valdés area. On the nur- open to authorized wha- sery ground, the whales are le watching boats. Another distributed close to shore in zone is provided where only shallow waters, where they diving with authorized dive can be seen predictably operators is permitted. Di- Blue whale (Baleanoptera musculus), © WDCS from June to December. For ving with marine mammals this reason, Península Valdés is forbidden in all the zones. has become one of the best 1 no more than one boat per 7 leave the whales only places in the world to watch The whale watching regula- group of whales; when their location relati- the southern right whale at tions forbid approach and/or ve to the boat is certain; close range. harassment, sail, swim and 2 no drifting toward the ani- diving with any marine mammals with engines off; 8 do not exceed 10 knots Whale-watching tours have mal species and their calves, when returning from a become the main tourist at- inshore and offshore, in pro- 3 always approach whales trip. traction in the area, and have vincial waters during the from their side or back grown rapidly since the early whole year. The regulations and never from in front; Provincial Wardens supervise 1990s. In 1991, around 17,400 were updated in 2004, when all whale watching activities, people participated in boat- tour operators, government 4 do not chase whales and operators can be fined based whale watching: since representatives and resear- when they begin to swim the equivalent of between then the number participat- chers agreed a Voluntary away from the boats; 250 - 2000 entry fees for bre- ing has grown at around Code of Conduct that would aking the whale watching re- 14% per year, and in 2004, be in effect for the short term 5 do not approach a brea- gulations, and their permits 96,400 passengers went on until more detailed monito- ching whale closer than suspended for a minimum whale-watch tours at Penín- ring studies on the effects of 100 m; of 5 days or revoked in the sula Valdés. whale watching on the wha- most serious cases. les have been completed. 6 restrict the maximum The first whale-watch regu- The Voluntary Code of Con- time with each individual The regulations also esta- lations for Valdés were crea- duct includes the following or group of whales to 15 blish minimum standards ted in 1984 by adapting laws regulations: minutes; and qualifications that Whale

58 CASE STUDY: WHALE WATCHING, PENÍNSULA VALDÉS, ARGENTINA

Watching Tour Operators also working closely with tes of demographic para- bitat use by southern right must meet in order to be local coastal communities meters for southern right whales (Eubalaena austra- granted a whale watching to ensure that they benefit whales (Eubalaena australis) on the nursery ground permit, places a limit of two directly from the presence of lis) observed off Península at Península Valdés, Ar- boats per operator, and sets visitors, who use local trans- Valdés, Argentina. J. Ce- gentina, and in their long- a maximum capacity of 70 port, stay in local accom- tacean Res. Manage. (Spe- range movements. J. Ceta- passengers per boat. The modation, and enjoy local cial Issue 2):125-132. cean Res. Manage. (Special total number of operators foods. Issue 2):133-143. licensed at each site is also • International Whaling controlled. A maximum of The WDCS has supported an Commission. 2001. Report • Sironi, M; Schteinbarg, R; five licenses is issued for orca conservation project of the Workshop on the Losano, P. and Carlson C. the Golfo Nuevo watching on the Peninsula since 1990, Comprehensive Assess- (2005). Sustainable whale site, which is the centre of and uses the revenue gene- ment of Right Whales: A watching at Península Val- a growing concentration of rated from its commercial Worldwide Comparison. dés, Argentina: An assess- mother-calf pairs, and six for travel packages to fund con- J. Cetacean Res. Manage. ment by owners and cap- operators based in Puerto servation work on whales (Special Issue 2):1-60. tains of local whale watch Pirámides. Each company and dolphins around the companies. Submitted at must pay the government a world. Tours in Península • Payne, R., V.J. Rowntree, the Scientific Committee fee of USD 1.75 per passen- Valdés are accompanied by J.S. Perkins, J.G. Cooke of the IWC. SC/57/WW2. ger. a WDCS researcher, who and K. Lancaster. 1991. Po- provides detailed interpre- pulation size, trends and Península Valdés is one of tation of cetacean behaviour reproductive parameters the places where the Whale and biology based on long- of right whales, Eubalae- and Dolphin Conservation term experience from stu- na australis, off Península Society (WDCS) organizes dying whales and marine life Valdés, Argentina. Rep. Int. specialist travel packages around in the region. The Whal. Comm. (Special Is- that are designed to give opportunity to learn from a sue 12):271-278. people an opportunity to wit- highly knowledgeable wild- ness the spectacular natural life biologist is an added at- • Rivarola, M., Campagna, C. behaviour of whales and traction for tourists who join and Tagliorette, A. 2001. De- dolphins in the wild. These these tours. mand-driven commercial tours are carefully planned whalewatching in Penín- to ensure that they are as sula Valdés (Patagonia): sustainable and responsible Sources: conservation implications as possible, minimising im- • Vanessa Williams, Conser- for right whales. J. Cetace- pact upon the local marine vation Manager, WDCS, an Res. Manage. (Special and terrestrial environments the Whale and Dolphin Issue 2) :145-151. by using only the best local Conservation Society whale watch operators and • Rowntree, V.J., Payne, R.S. offering land-based viewing • Cooke, J.G., Rowntree, V.J and Schell, D.M. 2001. whenever possible; and by and Payne, R. 2001. Estima- Changing patterns of ha-

59 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE WAY FORWARD

The case studies included in this report have been selected to illustrate some of the main approaches that are being used for wildlife watching tourism and management with different species around the world. They are just a few of the many that could have been chosen as examples of good practices. However in many parts of the world where wildlife watching takes place, sites may be under threat from both a lack of resources for ef- Tfective management and also from external pressures. Even the case study sites experience problems in managing wildlife watching. In Mexico, the Monarch Butterﬂy Model Forest has been a response to solve problems created through poverty and lack of livelihood opportunities – by creating opportunities through a programme of community development and improved forest management, including major reforestation, pressure has been taken off the sensitive overwintering sites for the Monarch butterﬂies.

In several sites, there is high variation in the quality of guiding Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) feeding, © Dave Olsen / and leadership of tour groups, and sometimes the guides them- USFWS selves ignore regulations to minimise disturbance to animals, touching reef dwelling organisms to make them move so that divers can see them, or breaking branches so that tourists can get Participative approaches are just as essential for finding a way better photos of gorilla groups. This can be the result of a com- out of problems – for example, where there have been poor bination of poor training, pressure of expectations from tourists enforcement of regulations for wildlife watching, conflicts with for close-up viewing opportunities, or desire for a better tip. communities around wildlife watching sites, or problems with wildlife management leading to a decline in population levels or In some sites, expansion of tourism poses risks that visitation habitat quality. Resolving such problems will generally require will exceed the numbers that can be managed without leading to a multi-stakeholder approach as the first step towards a more unacceptable changes. sustainable path for the future.

Such problems are not uncommon, and they can be rectified The continuing worldwide growth in tourism, and the tendency of provided all the relevant stakeholders commit to finding ways tourism to follow the ‘tourism cycle’ with a stage of rapid growth to overcome them. The case studies include a number of ex- that is often difficult to control, mean that wildlife watching tou- amples of participative planning through workshops, seminars rism can also be expected to continue to increase. This is likely and advisory boards that bring wildlife managers, tourism busi- to lead to more pressure on existing wildlife watching sites, their nesses and the local community together to discuss and agree animal populations and habitats, and to development of wild- how best to manage wildlife resources and different, potentially life watching activities in new areas and for new species. It is conflicting uses. therefore vital for governments, conservation managers, and the tourism sector, to monitor the effects of tourism on wildlife, to understand better the way the tourism sector operates in rela-

60 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE WAY FORWARD

tion to wildlife watching, to plan and manage tourism so that it pectations, and is commercially viable. The requirements that does not exceed acceptable limits, and to ensure that this tou- are needed to attain long-term sustainability of wildlife watching rism also makes a net contribution to conservation. are:

Local communities will also be affected by increasing wildlife • Long-term survival of population and habitats watching tourism. If managed well, this can provide opportunities for communities to beneﬁt from new sources of income and • Minimal impact on behaviour of watched and associated spe- employment. But there is also a risk that increasing tourism will cies place further burdens on communities while offering them few if any beneﬁts. Communities will only be able to gain from tourism • Improvement to livelihoods of local people if they have access to tourists and are able to provide suitable goods and services to tourists and the tourism sector. To do so, • Increased awareness of and support for conservation activi- many communities will require training and support to develop ties amongst all stakeholders the necessary skills for employment in the tourism sector, or to set up their own tourism-related enterprises. Systems may also • Plans for sustainable management of wildlife watching tou- be needed to ensure that overall tourism income is shared fairly rism, conservation and community development based on set amongst groups of communities, particular in situations where a limits of acceptable change and adaptive management few communities have much easier access to tourists – perhaps by being situated near a gateway into a national park or major • Ability to manage access to wildlife watching resources and wildlife watching site – compared to other communities in a lo- to limit future development cality. • Supportive legal and planning frameworks combined with commitment from national and local government

Achieving each of these elements involves different sets of skills and expertise, including the ability to access tourism markets, 5.1 Making wildlife watching tourism to work with local communities, and to manage wildlife resour- sustainable ces. They can best be brought together through participatory approaches to planning for wildlife watching tourism, involving With the continued expansion of wildlife watching, and the in- the tourism sector, local communities, local government authori- creasing impacts and risks this poses for watched animal po- ties and wildlife managers. Wildlife watching tourism will not be pulations and their habitats, it is important to ensure that future appropriate in some locations for conservation, social, market or management of wildlife watching tourism, and associated de- commercial reasons, or a combination of these – it is therefore velopment of tourism facilities and infrastructure, is better plan- important to identify and focus on those places where there is a ned and far more systematic than has often been the case in the realistic potential to develop sustainable wildlife watching tou- past. rism.

Wildlife watching can only be sustainable if it contributes to the There are four areas in particular that need to be addressed to conservation and survival of the watched species and their ha- improve the sustainability of wildlife watching tourism, particu- bitats, provides beneﬁts for local communities and community larly in relation to developing countries: development, offers good quality tourism in line with market ex-

61 • Improve understanding of the biology of watched species and increases in popularity, general background effects from tourism monitoring of the effects of tourism on them are likely to have an increasing effect on watched species and their habitats, and to reduce the possibility for watched populati- • Improve guide training and interpretation ons to have access to areas free from disturbance from tourism. Managing the overall development and expansion of wildlife • Evaluate the conditions required for wildlife watching tourism watching tourism will therefore be as important as managing the to be a viable option particularly for generating net revenues close interactions between tourists and watched animals, in or- for conservation and beneﬁts for local communities der to minimise disturbance and adverse effects.

• Improve planning and management of tourism in protected As a first step to more effective management of wildlife watching areas and wildlife viewing sites tourism it is therefore important to improve the understanding of the biology of watched species, and to monitor the effects that tourism has on them. This will enable wildlife watching codes of conduct and regulations to be formulated so that they are more Improve understanding of the biology of watched species and effective in minimising disturbance while ensuring high quality monitoring of the effects of tourism on them viewing. This may also promote alternative ways of watching Relatively little is known about the biology of watched species wildlife in some situations – for example, the WDCS encourages and the effects that wildlife watching tourism may have on them. land-based whale watching where possible in preference to use Most wildlife watching guidelines are based more on attempting of boats. to minimise the most visible stress that can be caused to animals, for example by crowding from wildlife watching tours, or through feeding and contact with tourists, or disturbance during breeding periods. However, even for big cats, great apes, wha- Improve guide training and interpretation les and dolphins, and some bird species which have been the Wildlife watching is frequently carried out in groups led by gui- subject of most research, understanding of the effects of wildlife des, particularly where the watched species is rare or difficult watching tourism is still quite limited. For example, differences to locate. The quality of guiding is often reported to be highly between the way different species are affected by tourism are variable, even at the same wildlife watching sites, and in some now becoming apparent, such as differences between lions and cases, guides themselves have been found to be poor in their cheetahs, or large whales and small whales, and reflect biologi- compliance with wildlife watching codes of conduct or regula- cal and behavioural differences. As a result, wildlife watching tions. This may partly be linked to pressure from tour groups for codes developed for one species cannot be assumed to be ap- closer and longer viewing opportunities. propriate for other species within the same group. Enforcement of codes and regulations can be particularly diffi- Research is also starting to reveal that the general background cult in many wildlife watching situations, and the most effective levels of activity in areas where wildlife watching takes place means is to ensure that guides and tourists understand and feel can have significant effects on watched animal populations, in commitment towards compliance. This requires better training addition to the effects of close observation by tourists. One de- for guides and better briefing for tourists, linked with certificati- tailed study found that general patterns of behaviour of dolphins on or licensing schemes for guides and tour organisers that in- in a popular dolphin watching site in New Zealand were affected clude checks on their compliance with wildlife watching codes – showing less feeding and social interaction – even when ani- and regulations, and on quality of interpretation that they provide mals were not being observed by tourists. As wildlife watching for tourists.

62 As well as promoting compliance with wildlife watching codes Improve planning and management of tourism in protected of conduct and regulations, guide training in interpretation offers areas and wildlife viewing sites scope for enhancing the quality of wildlife watching experiences Successful wildlife watching tourism requires sound plans to for tourists and their awareness of conservation issues. provide the basis for management of the watched populations and their habitats. Because of the uncertainties associated with Evaluate the conditions required for wildlife watching tourism understanding of the effects of wildlife watching on animals, and to be a viable option particularly for generating net revenues for with the dynamic nature of tourism, it is particularly important to conservation and benefits for local communities use adaptive management approaches for management of wild- Although there are plenty of examples of sites which gain signi- life watching tourism. Adaptive management requires plans and ficant income from wildlife watching tourism, these are mostly objectives for wildlife and tourism combined with continuous located in areas of high tourism potential with relatively good ac- monitoring and evaluation of tourism and its effects on wildlife cess and infrastructure. Other sites may have excellent wildlife, to check if objectives set in the plans are being met. Where they but are located further away from main tourism areas, and there- are not, management actions are adjusted as necessary to bring fore have lower tourism potential, while at some sites access wildlife watching tourism into line with the planned objectives. may need to be restricted for conservation reasons or because of the wishes of local communities. Some areas may also lack Effective implementation of plans often requires interactions of a effective capacity to manage commercial tourism or provide ne- range of different stakeholders – particularly tourism businesses cessary 33. And in sites with significant levels of tourism, there and local communities, as well as wildlife managers – and there is no guarantee that a fair share of tourism income will accrue is a need to understand better the roles of these stakeholders in to the local communities and that they will be able to establish making wildlife watching tourism operate successfully to provi- livelihoods based on tourism. de high quality tourism, and conservation and local community benefits. At present little attention has been given to understanding the conditions under which wildlife watching tourism can be a sus- There is also a need for greater understanding of the costs and tainable and viable option for conservation and community de- benefits of managing wildlife sites for wildlife watching tourism, velopment. Because of this, there is a risk that wildlife watching including the costs of providing the necessary visitor facilities, activities may be developed that do not match realistic tourism such as trails, sanitation and waste management, and their demand and market expectations, or in ways that do not deliver maintenance, as well as the costs of providing interpretation net benefits for conservation or local communities. and, in some cases, habitat restoration.

It is important to gain a better understanding of the conditions necessary for successful and sustainable wildlife watching tourism, so that guidance can be provided on when it is an appropriate option for conservation and community development, and for when it is not.

63 NOTES AND REFERENCES

1 Wildlife Tourism: Impacts, Management and Planning, (2004) 7 UN World Tourism Organisation (2005) Tourism 2020 Vision, Edited by Karen Higginbottom, published by Common Ground UNWTO: Madrid (www.world-tourism.org/facts/eng/vision. Publishing Pty Ltd, Australia; Wildlife Tourism, (2005), David htm) Newsome, Ross Dowling and Susan Moore, Aspects of Tou- 8 E. Hoyt (2001) Whale Watching 2001: Worldwide tourism num- rism no. 24, published by Channel View Publications bers, expenditures, and expanding socioeconomic benefits. 2 Quebec Declaration on Ecotourism, 2002 International Fund for Animal Welfare, Yarmouth Port, MA, USA, pp. i–vi 3 Tour Operators’ Initiative for Sustainable Tourism Development (TOI), Statement of Commitment, www.toinitiative.org 9 IFAW (2005) The Growth of Whale Watching in Sydney 2003- 2004 - Economic Perspectives 4 For example, wildlife watching tourism can also apply the CBD Guidelines on Biodiversity and Tourism Development, and use 10 Wildlife Tourism: Impacts, Management and Planning, (2004) tools such as the UNESCO/UNEP manual on Managing Tou- Edited by Karen Higginbottom, (Box 13.1, p.255) published by rism at World Heritage Sites, and the IUCN/UNEP/WTO report Common Ground Publishing Pty Ltd, Australia on Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas. In relation to tou- 11 G. Moscardo and R. Saltzer (2004) Understanding Wildlife rism and biodiversity, goals include: Tourism Markets, by, pp. 176-7, Chapter 9 of Wildlife Tourism: • generation of sufficient revenues to reduce threats to biodi- Impacts, Management and Planning, (2004) Edited by Karen versity from local communities, Higginbottom, published by Common Ground Publishing Pty • encouraging all stakeholders, particularly the private sector, Ltd, Australia to support the conservation of biodiversity, 12 US Fish and Wildlife Service 2001 National Survey of Fishing, • ensuring the effective participation of communities in tou- Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation rism development, and • channeling a portion of tourism revenues towards support- 13 The International Ecotourism Society (1998) Ecotourism Stati- ing conservation. stical Fact Sheet Other possible goals include diversifying economic activities 14 WTO Data cited in “Tourism and Biodiversity: Mapping to reduce dependency on tourism and encouraging the role Tourism’s Global Footprint” (Table 1) published by Conservati- of protected areas as key locations for good practices in sus- on International tainable tourism and biodiversity. (From UNEP (2005) Forging 15 2000 figures, presented in WTO (2004) Tourism and Poverty Links Between Protected Areas and the Tourism Sector: How Alleviation – Recommendations for Action, WTO: Madrid, World tourism can benefit conservation, (Authors: Richard Tapper Tourism Organization. Since then, the relative importance of and Janet Cochrane) UNEP: Paris, ISBN 92-807-2506-8 (availa- tourism for these countries will not have changed significantly ble at www.uneptie.org/tourism) pp. 9-10) for some countries, and will have increased for others with 5 The Tour Operators’ Initiative for Sustainable Tourism Deve- high tourism growth rates. lopment was launched in 2000 by tour operators in association 16 In: Leeds Tourism Group (2004) Pay per Nature View: Under- with UNEP, UNESCO and the UNWTO standing tourism revenues for effective management plans, 6 UN World Tourism Organisation (2005) Tourism Highlights 2005, (Authors: Xavier Font, Janet Cochrane, and Richard Tapper), UNWTO: Madrid Leeds (UK): Leeds Metropolitan University (Full report available at: www.leedstourismgroup.com) 64 NOTES AND REFERENCES

17 Based on biodiversity hotspot countries with high levels of 26 Troëng, S. and Drews C. (2004) Money Talks: Economic Aspects tourism growth identified in “Tourism and Biodiversity: Map- of Marine Turtle Use and Conservation, WWF-International, ping Tourism’s Global Footprint” (Table 1) published by Conser- Gland, Switzerland www.panda.org vation International 27 Leeds Tourism Group (2004) Pay per Nature View: Under- 18 WTO (2004) Tourism and Poverty Alleviation – Recommenda- standing tourism revenues for effective management plans, tions for Action, WTO: Madrid (Authors: Xavier Font, Janet Cochrane, and Richard Tapper), Leeds (UK): Leeds Metropolitan University (Full report availab- 19 Leeds Tourism Group (2004) “Tourism Supply Chains” report le at: www.leedstourismgroup.com) (Authors: Richard Tapper and Xavier Font), adapted from Green Hotelier Issue 14 April 1999 and www.akdn.org (Full re- 28 UNEP (2005) Forging Links Between Protected Areas and the port available at: www.leedstourismgroup.com) Tourism Sector: How tourism can benefit conservation, (Au- thors: Richard Tapper and Janet Cochrane) pp. 13-14, UNEP: 20 World Bank estimate quoted in Africa Recovery, United Nati- Paris (available at www.uneptie.org/tourism) ons Ecotourism propels development: But social acceptance depends on economic opportunities for local communities, 29 UNEP (2005) Forging Links Between Protected Areas and the Vol. 13 No. 1 -- June 1999 Tourism Sector: How tourism can benefit conservation, (Au- thors: Richard Tapper and Janet Cochrane) pp. 13-14, UNEP: 21 Tourism and Poverty Alleviation – Recommendations for Ac- Paris (available at www.uneptie.org/tourism) tion , Section 4.2 Actions to strengthen performance, WTO, 2004 30 Norton-Griffiths, M. (2003) The case for private sector investment in conservation: an African perspective, Fifth World 22 M. I. Sarhan, M. H. Hanafy and M. M. Fouda (2004) Economics Parks Congress, Durban South Africa and Sustainable Use of Samadai Reef “Dolphin House”,Marsa Alam, Red Sea, Egypt. Red Sea Marine Parks and Egyptian En- 31 Convention on Biological Diversity (2006) Managing tourism vironmental Affairs and biodiversity: Draft User’s Manual on the CBD Guidelines on Biodiversity and Tourism Development; and Sustainable 23 B.B. Siddhartha, P.A. Furley, and A.C. Newton (2005) Effec- tourism in protected areas: Guidelines for planning and ma- tiveness of community involvement in delivering conservation nagement, Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series benefits to the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal, Environ- No. 8, IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) mental Conservation 32 (3): 239–247 32 C. MacFarland (1998) An analysis of nature tourism in the 24 A. Markandya, T. Taylor and S. Pedroso (2005) Tourism and Galápagos Islands, Available at Charles Darwin Foundation Sustainable Development: Lessons from Recent World Bank website: www.darwinfoundation.org/articles/br15049801.html Experience, Report prepared for the World Bank (Covering projects between 1992 – 2003) Available at: www.pigliaru.it/ 33 WWF (2004) “Are Protected Areas Working?”, WWF Internati- chia/Markandya.pdf onal, Gland, Switzerland 25 Leeds Tourism Group (2004) Pay per Nature View: Under- standing tourism revenues for effective management plans, (Authors: Xavier Font, Janet Cochrane, and Richard Tapper), Leeds (UK): Leeds Metropolitan University (Full report available at: www.leedstourismgroup.com) 65

WILDLIFE WATCHING AND TOURISM A study on the beneﬁts and risks of a fast growing tourism activity and its impacts on species

Wildlife watching tourism can make important contributions to community development and conservation by raising awareness of the animals observed and their habitats, by creating revenues for conservation, and by creating jobs and income for local communities.

However, to achieve these contributions, wildlife wat- This publication was prepared ching tourism needs to be carefully planned and ma- and printed with funding from TUI. naged by government agencies, the tourism sector and conservation managers. With rapidly growing demand from tourists for wildlife watching activities, controls are also needed to prevent adverse effects on wildlife and local communities.

This report and its 12 case studies describe the bene- www.cms.int ﬁts that can come from wildlife watching tourism, and focus on practical ways to use planning and visitor management to ensure the long-term sustainability of this activity. ISBN 3 – 93 74 29 – 07 – 7