DRAFT REPORT Promoting Community Managed Ecotourism in Chitwan Annapurna Landscape and Terai Arc Landscape This report is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the responsibility of Nepal Economic Forum and do not necessarily reflect the views of WWF, USAID or the United States Government. List of Abbreviations ACA Annapurna Conservation Area ACAP Annapurna Conservation Area Program AoA Article of Association BCF Baghmara Community Forest BCFUG Baghmara Community Forest User Group BDT Bangladesh Taka CAGR Compounded Annual Growth Rate CARE Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere CBET Community Based Ecotourism CBT Community Based Tourism CHAL Chitwan Annapurna Landscape CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora CNP Chitwan National Park DNPWC Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation FECOFUN Federation of Community Forestry Users in Nepal FIT Free Independent Traveler GDP Gross Domestic Product GEF Global Environment Facility GoN Government of Nepal GTDMC Ghalegaon Tourism Development and Management Committee KCAP Kanchenjunga Conservation Area Project KCF Kumrose Community Forest KMTNC King Mahendra Trust for Natural Conservation MCAP Manaslu Conservation Area Program MoCTCA Ministry of Culture Tourism and Civil Aviation NEF Nepal Economic Forum NTB Nepal Tourism Board NTNC National Trust for Nature Conservation NVR Nepal Village Resort OGT Organized Group Trekkers PATA Pacific Asia Travel Association SVTDMC Sirubari Village Tourism Development and Management Committee TAL Terai Arc Landscape TCU Tiger Conservation Unit TDMC Tourism Development and Management Committee UNDP United Nations Development Program USAID United States Agency for International Development WWF World Wildlife Fund i | P a g e Nepal Economic Forum Executive Summary The tourism industry of Nepal is focused on two major motivations: namely the Himalayas and the rich cultural heritage of the Kathmandu Valley. Because of this narrow focus, tourism has been centered primarily in Kathmandu and the cities, such as Pokhara and Chitwan. Even though Nepal boasts unique biodiversity across the nation, it has not been able to package it in a way that derives benefits from tourism. One of the major reasons for this has been the low benefit margins compared to the high risk of developing such tourism packages. Even though the tourism industry is one of the major contributors to GDP, it has time and again been affected by the political turmoil of the country and a lack of commitment and support from the government. The tourism industry is viewed as a sector that has significant backward linkages and helps to improve the livelihood of the poor; however, this has not yet materialized significantly in the context of Nepal, as major tourism benefits are retained by tourism entrepreneurs at the center. One of the major reasons for this is the lack of capital, technical, and human resources within rural communities. Even though Nepal saw an annual flow of 7.5 million visitors during the last fiscal year (2011–2012), only 40 percent were directly engaged in tourism related activities. Nepal has emerged as a destination for budget travelers, attracting tourists from neighboring India and China. With the rapid growth in the economy of these two countries, many people have more disposable income and are taking more holidays. Nepal is well placed to attract residents of second tier Indian and Chinese cities to develop its current tourism market. Similarly, Nepal‘s domestic tourism has been developing along with changes in the lifestyle of many Nepalis. A more cosmopolitan younger generation, coupled with a burgeoning middle class with disposable income and a growing number of nuclear families, has increased the demand for domestic tourism opportunities. Since most of Nepal‘s tourist attractions are nature and culture based, it is well suited for ecotourism. Ecotourism is defined as "responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves the well-being of local people."1 It is based on the principles of uniting conservation, communities, and sustainable travel. Also, to ensure that the benefits of tourism reach the local community, Community Based Ecotourism (CBET) is a great model for country like Nepal. CBET is a complete tourism initiative driven by the community wherein the local community improves its capacity to use social capital through collective action and enhances its levels of participation in the development process. In line with this concept of community based ecotourism is the Hariyo Ban (Green Forest) Program. It attempts to achieve its objectives of biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation and adaptation through approaches that include agriculture, forestry and tourism. This five-year program currently being implemented in the Chitwan Annapurna Landscape (CHAL) and the Terai Arc Landscape (TAL), and funded by United States Agency for International Development (USAID), is the foundation of President Obama‘s Global Climate Change Initiative in Nepal. The CHAL and TAL areas are rich in biodiversity and natural and cultural resources. Because of this they are ideal tourist destinations. However, these areas face climate change, rapid population growth, unsustainable land use, and rampant poverty, all of which have led to internal as well as external migration by locals seeking better sources of livelihood. The goal of this assignment under the Hariyo Ban Program is to learn lessons from successful community ecotourism pilots, identify two sites in CHAL and two sites in TAL with the potential to promote community based ecotourism, and to produce site-specific ecotourism plans based on economic feasibility, social acceptability, environmental 1 The International Ecotourism Society, 1990. 2 World Travel and Tourism Council, Travel & Tourism Economic Impact 2012, Nepal. 3 Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Civil Aviation, ―Nepal Tourism Statistics 2011, Annual Statistical Report.‖ 4 15 Randal| P a gl, e A. 1987. Resource Economics. Second Edition. New York: John WileyNepal and Sons. Economic Forum sustainability, and the capability of the sites to provide alternative livelihood options to local communities. The study has explored how we can increase the local community‘s involvement in the tourism activities under CBET through small interventions and partnerships. As the tourism sites in the TAL and CHAL landscapes are isolated from the main tourism market they will require external support in the initial years to be sustainable. In order to gain insight from existing CBET activities in Nepal, a rapid assessment of two existing community based ecotourism destinations, namely the Baghmara Community Forest (BCF) in Chitwan (CHAL/TAL) and Ghalegaon village in Lamjung district (CHAL), has been made. In addition to investigating successful ecotourism activities, a third case study of the Sirubari village in Syangja district was also documented in the report. Baghmara Community Forest was a dense forest famous as a hunting ground for tigers. However, it has faced deforestation over the past 20 years. To undo this damage, a reforestation project started in the 1980s. In 1995, the BCF was also opened for tourism to bring in an additional source of revenue to the user group members. The reforestation efforts have been fruitful and the forest has come back to its original dense form. Tourism figures have also increased over the years. The tourism initiative has definitely brought about positive changes to the community in terms of overarching infrastructure, improved sanitation, and trainings. However, it has not directly provided a means of livelihood to the community. This is because of an inefficient management committee stalled by politicization. Ghalegaon in Lamjung is another form of CBET wherein members of the community conduct homestays in their village residences. Due to their dependence on subsistence agriculture, the locals relied heavily on remittances. In order to provide an alternate means of livelihood, they started providing homestay facilities. While the villagers conducting homestays have directly benefitted, the homestay program has failed to incorporate Dalits and marginalized groups. Nonetheless, Ghalegaon was more successful in providing a means of livelihood to the community than the Baghmara initiative. While CBET activities have been successful overall, much can be learned from their mistakes. Indeed, it was imperative to document the problems that led to the downfall of the project. Sirubari was the first village to start homestays in 1997. In addition to having the first mover advantage, the initiative was successful because of its strong leadership, community participation, and proactive marketing at the national level. However, the Sirubari village locals were associated with the Gurkha Army and when they became eligible for resident status in the United Kingdom, most opted for it and migrated to the United Kingdom. This reduced the number of households running homestays. There was no new investment because only marginalized groups with no investment money were left behind. The quality of service started dropping and other similar products started coming up, giving rise to competition. This ultimately led to the failure of the first homestay model in Nepal. From the three pilot site studies, we learned that the following criteria