FINANCING SUSTAINABLE TOURISM

Conference Summary: Part 2

BUSINESS FORUM

Excerpts: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4

www.flickr.com

PHOTO GALLERY: Favorites

Editor's Note -- Following are excerpts from the Financing Sustainable Tourism Conference which took place in August and September, 2002. Statements have been edited.

Alan Robinson/United States

As an aging yet still active participant, I appear to have been on the scene (since 1970) through the evolution from an inwardly focused strategy of protected area management to today's emphasis on wider ecosystem principles and the involvement of the broadest possible range of interested and affected human players. I applaud the change, and have had a small share in the process, from opening the park planning process to public view in the US in the 1970s, to initiatives in buffer zone planning in eastern Java and Bali in the early '80s, to complex community involvement around Uganda's mountain gorilla parks in the '90s, to strategies to bring (an element of) free market tourism into protected area's of Vietnam in 2000.

I cite this history to make the point that these changes have occurred rather quickly i.e. within the professional career of many of us. We have come far and fast, and at least to me it's not all that surprising that we haven't quite got it right yet. But to invert that tone, I think we are a lot closer to getting it right than when we first started.

An example of where we are getting closer is the emphasis in the current online conference on getting a wide mix and appropriate balance of players and policies in an ecotourism initiative.

I note a failed or at least imperfect direction we tended to take concerning community involvement in tourism in early efforts (e.g. my own experience with a community-based guide service in Rwenzori Mountains National Park in Uganda). In our zeal to meaningfully involve communities in tourism benefits we created unreasonably high expectations of those benefits, helped create businesses with externally-financed high-maintenance infrastructure, but then provided inadequate management skills and little oversight, and virtually ignored the realities of marketing. There was no contribution from professionals in the private sector at the national level. Lo and behold these activities were not sustainable, cost donors large sums, disillusioned communities and ultimately provided poor service to visitors (the key to sustainability).

On the positive side I would like to explain a proposed strategy dealing with a future network of community-based ecolodges in the southwestern altiplano of Bolivia which I and Bolivian colleagues have recently developed. I stress that it is a proposed strategy, under consideration for funding by a regional lending institution, bilateral donors and private investors. Although the full strategy is more detailed, in essence it suggests that to be sustainable, the ecolodge network has got to involve the community in a meaningful and profitable ownership sense over a long term, develop a product which is in demand by a reasonably constant and predictable segment of the tourism market, and maintain the quality of that product through supervision and quality control. In addition the product must be packaged, promoted, marketed and sold with a high degree of professionalism if it is to be competitive. Whatever players are involved in this chain of development, service and marketing must set reasonable expectations, share in risks and profits, and above all respect each other for their respective roles.

In the Bolivian proposal, the objective is to offer service to a mid-level clientele in a region dominated by the backpacker market. It would furnish a network of 5 ecolodges a day's travel apart within a large area of incredible salt lakes, volcanoes, flora and fauna reserves, traditional indigenous communities and rich architectural and archeological resources (Salar de Uyuni and Reserva Avaroa). Each ecolodge would be unique but incorporate today's concepts of appropriate design, materials, setting, services, and community connections, at a certifiable standard attractive to small group package tours at an all-inclusive (transport, guide, accommodation) daily price to the traveler of $150-200. The community ecolodge would receive something like $40 of that total to cover its costs (vs. the current $5-10 from a backpacker client in basic dormitory-like facilities).

Each ecolodge would include a satellite based Internet Communications system to assure a tight reservation system, improve logistics, deal with unexpected changes, and be available to guests. But a major community benefit is that internet access and voice communication would be provided, probably gratis, to the local school, clinic, and government. And each ecolodge would include a customized art/music/handicraft development component, with marketing advice and sales and performance space. Training in lodge management skills as well as visitor relations, housekeeping and food service is included. Where possible, appropriate technology in waste disposal and utilities would be shared or at least promoted in the communities.

As many participating in this online forum have observed, initial financing and the appropriate mix of financial contribution and responsibility of partners is a crucial and often difficult issue. In the current example, this is approached in conventional ways, but with modifications which hopefully address problems which have hampered other community-based projects. The basic concept is of a private parent company where investors from the tour industry, NGOs and donors provide capital and certain supervision and services to subsidiary companies located in each of the ecolodge communities. The communities will provide the physical site, local materials and labor, and share ownership of the subsidiary with the parent in the proportion that the site, materials and labor are valued. In addition to direct employment, long term profit to the community will be based on this share of ownership of their subsidiary. But as many of us are aware, these long term i.e. net profits may be deferred for years as a market develops. In the worst scenario, net profits can be artificially kept very low by external partners in order to avoid sharing with the community. To deal with community frustration with such delays, and provide tangible financial benefits at the earliest possible stage, the business plan includes immediate sharing of a portion of gross revenues with the community. At the outset an external, professional manager would supervise each lodge, to be replaced later by a trained community member. The private sector, primarily in the form of established higher-end national tour operators, would provide investment capital for development of infrastructure and other front-end costs via the parent company. These professionals also provide supervision of ecolodge managers, assure quality control, and are responsible for all marketing, international payments and the reservation system. National NGOs (with cultural preservation and community development briefs) would be involved in the parent company to attract lender or donor funding as needed, to provide expertise in community development and cultural matters (such as how to minimize conflicts as tourism develops, advice to communities on using their profits, and on training and marketing in handicrafts and music). NGOs would also ensure there is an equitable relationship between the tour companies and the communities. Bolivia is fortunate that loan funds from the Interamerican Development Bank (IDB) are already earmarked for tourism development, and certain infrastructure in the present proposal (relating to energy-efficient utilities, solar power, environmentally-sound disposal of wastes and training) may qualify for IDB funding; and there are economies of scale having 5 ecolodges in the network. Infrastructure which doesn't qualify for loan funding would be covered by the private investors or bilateral donations.

In this proposal there is the added element of working with an adjacent national flora and fauna reserve, in which some candidate ecolodge communities are located. Local and national reserve managers would be involved in decision-making and policy both at parent and subsidiary levels, and the location and emphasis of each lodge needs to be consistent with overall reserve planning. Since the full proposal is in Spanish, it may be of special interest to other Latin American countries. It is not currently available while it is being considered for funding, but should be within several months. In the meantime I would be happy to discuss it more detail with conference participants or refer them directly to my Bolivian colleagues.

Bill Hinchberger/Brazil-United States
http://www.brazilmax.com

Ariane Janer/Brazil-Holland
http://www.mpefunbio.org.br

Communities are not the same all over the world and it is very dangerous to generalise (and romanticise). Some have the capacity to take charge, some don't. Some are able to be patient, some have very short "expectation spans". Some are in it for the money (any which way they can and preferably in the form of hand-outs) and some are really interested in developing the business and reaping its spin-offs. Transparency and sharing experiences is very important, but it is difficult to find funding for it. I have been toying with the database idea myself for some time. Not just for failed projects, but for the whole project pipeline. Some projects keep on going (with their subsidy crutches) as they pass from donor to donor (throwing good money after bad). Admitting failures in time might mean that more deserving projects, that never get off the ground for lack of finance, get a chance as well. Being able to check an ecotourism project's financing history should be available to all (from grantees to commercial investors). Imagine all those development agencies pooling resources to get this going .... Dream on.

The first thing that should be mentioned in the Sustainable Tourism Investment Guide are the myths (e.g "ecotourism is growing at 30% a year") and facts (e.g "IRR's are typically low, under 10-15%") of ecotourism. And of course, that there is nothing like common sense. Let's also think about proportions. What is worse: the impact of millions of tourists using a underdesigned sewage system in a mass tourism destination on the seashore or a small 10 room ecolodge sending untreated sewage into big fast flowing river? We should not forget that all tourism should be sustainable and all financiers (especially those big influential ones) should be aware of this. You might have your free lunch, but your grandchildren will go hungry.

Mark Willuhn/United States
http://www.emeraldplanet.com

We focus on developing linkages to the market (US - European). Generally there is not a marketing budget. The success we have had is to immediately develop alliances/partnerships with local projects and large membership US based NGOs and outbound operators. This linkage to market is usually overlooked by funding institutions and, in my opinion, it is the most important element to long-term success. Not only do these projects need to have a good business plan and linkage to market, they need to market ready. When you have a limited/non -existent marketing budget, word-of-mouth will generally make or break a start-up venture.

Market ready means that the product you offer works - boats show up, roads are passable, etc.; that motivation and preferences of your target market/clientele is understood and these expectations are met and exceeded where possible. Market ready also means that the project manager understands the extreme competitiveness of the nature-based tourism industry and realizes there is constant market pressure to improve the product offerings. For the community based project in the Lacandona, this is a huge challenge. The ejido members know just about everything about planting corn, but not much about the motivations, preferences and expectations of a wealthy New York business person who is spending several thousand dollars to visit their beautiful area.

We train project managers to treat all customers as potential major donors - since most of them are. Keep a database, send out a newsletter, ask them for money. From our research, we have found that the most memorable experience for the majority of participants is interacting with local community members. We always visit local communities and this is a perfect platform to develop funding requests for new capital investments, woman's cooperatives, complementary micro enterprises, etc. They absolutely love walking around the milpa.

The drivable wildlife trail in Yucatan is an interesting project. For the first time in my experience the State of Yucatan is investing money. When we heard this we immediately began to identify matching funds. This drivable route is modeled after Ted Eubanks' work (Great Texas Birding Trail) where a map is produced with key stopping points and is a great economic disburser to communities outside the main tourism circuit and links habitat conservation and economic benefits. What we are struggling with is who is going to pay for long-term maintenance. Since the long-term vision is many sites throughout the peninsula, the logical conclusion is state governments. This is unprecedented in the area and we are not sure how to even suggest the structure of generating these long-term funding sources. Another idea is the trail is a series of loops, and each loop could be self-financing. This opens a whole other set of challenges. While it will take some time to figure this out, just the opportunity to work with the State of Yucatan is extremely exciting. A case can certainly be made that we should not even start this project until we have this figured out. In regards to linkage to market, an annual birding festival is one of the key strategies. The first annual Toh Birding Festival will be in Merida - Rio Lagartos, November 16 - 23, 2002.

Mike Robbins/Canada
http://www.tourismco.com

I would like to suggest that there are significant differences between community-based tourism and entrepreneurial tourism, and there are different approaches to financing each type. In 1981 I started working on a pilot project for community-based tourism in a small Inuit community in Canada's Arctic - the community of Pangnirtung. At that time community residents did not even understand what tourism was. We embarked on an extensive community consultation program over the following year with a major education/awareness component. The work was financed by the government. The process we facilitated subscribed to the following principles, which I believe are the core principles of community-based tourism:

- the community makes decisions to pursue tourism (or not) based on a knowledge of the pros and cons of tourism

- the community consults internally within the community

- the community develops a strategy which defines how much control the community should have, and the events and places that can and cannot be shared with tourists

- the objective is to maximize local benefits and minimize economic leakage and negative socio-cultural impacts

- growth is incremental

- the community makes strategic investments to be a catalyst for private sector investment

- the community continues to monitor and evaluate tourism initiatives and development

Given the close Inuit relationship with, and respect for the land, environmental conservation and protection was an integral part of the community tourism plan. Several years ago a case study was completed on the tourism industry in Pangnirtung. Over a 20 year period the community achieved the following:

- 3000 visitors per year

- Community owned lodge, Kekerten Historic Park (no tourist can visit the Park without hiring a local guide/interpreter), Angmarlik Interpretive Centre, a print shop, a weaving centre, seniors centre and several shared events

- 35 permanent jobs, 14 seasonal jobs, 12 licensed guides and over 100 home based artists

The benefits that accrued to the community from the decision to get involved in the tourism industry were as follows:

- Help stimulate cultural revival

- Foster a sense of community pride

- Teach young people their heritage (providing an incentive to learn traditions and culture through employment opportunities)

- Create new economic opportunities

- Help dispel the stereotypical image of Aboriginal people

We have since worked on a number of community-based tourism initiatives with Aboriginal peoples including an ecolodge in northern Ontario (http://www.creevillage.com) and an Aboriginal Heritage Garden attraction in northern New Brunswick (http://www.Aboriginalgardens.com). Every one of these initiatives had government funding assistance alongside community investment, volunteer involvement and private foundation funding assistance. Banks would typically steer clear of these initiatives because the financial bottom-line is not the primary objective. The other social and cultural benefits are of equal importance.

A major difference between community-based tourism and entrepreneurial tourism is the degree of focus on financial profitability versus other benefits, and this has significant impact on financing options.

I am currently involved in a project to develop a Coastal Protection and Tourism Development Strategy for the Great Lakes Heritage Coast, which runs for 4200 km along Lakes Huron and Superior on the Canadian side. The coast was given special designation because of the outstanding scenic beauty, with wild natural landscapes and cultural values of national and international significance. There are 25 First Nation communities and 48 non-native communities along the coast. A major component of the strategy will be the adoption of ecotourism principles and the stimulation of new ecotourism businesses. To stimulate private sector investment in new ecotourism businesses we believe there is a need for the government to make strategic investments in catalyst projects as well as direct some form of assistance to new local entrepreneurial businesses that fit within the strategy (financial and mentoring assistance). There are also numerous community-based tourism initiatives being considered along the Coast.

We are looking at recommending that the Great Lakes Heritage Coast be established as an investment program within the existing government tourism funding programs available in northern Ontario. Another financing option that we are looking at is a model that exists on Canada's west coast - Ecotrust Canada (http://www.ecotrustcan.org). This is a not-for-profit entity with a mission to promote the emergence of a conservation economy along the coast. The organization effectively acts as a catalyst and broker to help envision, inform and finance the conservation economy and help conserve/restore the coastal environment. Dollars could be raised through public campaigns, fundraising activities, and contributions from government and/or the corporate sector.

Rick MacLeod Farley/Canada
http://www.creevillage.com

I am a development economist with twelve plus years of experience working with community economic development for Aboriginal people in Northern Canada, including seven years of consulting work on Aboriginal ecotourism initiatives. I am a member of TIES and have served as a guest instructor with their Ecolodge Planning and Development workshops. Since 1995, I've been extensively involved with MoCreebec Council of the Cree Nation, and their efforts to establish the Cree Village Ecolodge which opened in July 2000 on Moose Factory Island at the southern tip of James Bay (the project that Mike Robbins of the Tourism Company has also been involved with). I have also had the opportunity to be involved with three other major Aboriginal ecotourism development initiatives in northern Canada.

I appreciated reading Deborah McLaren's (Rethinking Tourism) comments in particular regarding the 'major challenge' of finding capable ecotourism folks in rural settings. In her words; "There are good leaders, and more every year as they quietly, but determinedly move forward with training, technical assistance, forums and dialogues, participation in the international treaties, and raising their voices." As Deborah pointed out, what is happening is that these leaders are being 'virtually ignored'. I attended WES in Quebec City, and had the opportunity to view first-hand the efforts by Indigenous leaders present (from Mexcio, Peru, Canada, Sweden, Fiji, ....) to bring forward the concerns and perspectives of Indigenous communities for the benefit of Indigenous peoples and for the benefit of ecotourism and the planet. These efforts were treated by some of the organizers with hostility and rudeness, and in other cases with good intentions that were, to a significant degree, lacking in capacity. The process for dealing with the input was flawed, and the impact on the final WES declaration was much less than appropriate, from my perspective. I came away from the WES gathering excited by the positive energy and the passion and commitment of countless people. However, I also came away with the realization that there is a tremendous 'divide' between the international agencies (UNEP, WTO, ...) and the Indigenous leadership. The buzzword in the research and at the conferences is that 'local people' need 'capacity building'. While, with all due sincere respect, I would like to suggest that there is also a need for 'capacity building' within the international agencies themselves. What I mean by this, is that brilliant leaders within these agencies (capable folks such as Oliver Hillel and others) should seek the opportunity to meet with Indigenous leaders from around the world, including spending time right at the community level, and open themselves up to the idea that Indigenous communities may by the holders of important knowledge about sustainability approaches. Then, they should, in my opinion, work to open up their international agencies to the idea that Indigenous peoples should be treated not as 'objects' of development (eco or otherwise) but as genuine and respected partners in policy, planning and development. This means fundamental changes to the process of how most international agencies do their work. The Indigenous leadership present at WES indicated an interest in an Indigenous led process of gathering input on ecotourism from Indigenous peoples leading to a world-gathering on this topic. On a similar but smaller scale, in a follow-up to WES I have received an e-mail from Fiji expressing an interest in an exchange of sorts between Indigenous ecotourism leaders and communities in Fiji and Canada. If anyone has leads on which international agencies might support such an initiative, please make contact with me (contact info below at end).

I would like to discuss further Deborah McLaren's comments on 'euro models of business development' and whether these are appropriate for Indigenous communities or whether they will undermine traditional subsistence economies. This is a tremendously complex question, and one which many folks struggle with intensely. I have a deep appreciation for the traditional economy (which, for the Western James Bay Cree, has been quantified at a full 25% of the current overall economy). I have had the opportunity to assist communities in the process of developing strategies to strengthen the traditional economy; with two resulting objectives being apprenticeship type training programs and ecotourism. >From my perspective, the traditional economy is so important to the Cree that I've worked with that all other 'western' economic development opportunities are evaluated, in great part, on whether they will be compatible or a threat to the traditional economy.

This is where ecotourism rises to the top for many Indigenous communities (in locations where it appears viable) because, the hope is, well-managed ecotourism can be compatible and even supportive of the traditional economy. For Indigenous communities, how ecotourism is to be done may be the next question and how 'capital intensive' it will be is part of this question. Often times, the scale of the efforts will determine how capital intensive it will be, and whether or not loans and formal legal and financial arrangements are necessary or desired. One great example of the sweat equity financing approach (with little or no outside capital) is Michael and Ann-Kristine Vinka's Lapp Lands Safari initiative in northern Sweden. I met Ann-Kristine and Michael at WES and had the opportunity to view slides of their family operation. Definitely world-class and worth looking at as a case study for others to learn from. They've been developing their tourism operations as an active 'side-line' with limits set and respected so that it supplements and doesn't overtake their traditional life and traditional economy.

For an example of where a community has taken a more capital intensive approach, one can look at the Cree Village Ecolodge owned by MoCreebec Council of the Cree Nation. Cree Village Ecolodge opened in July 2000 and is located at the southern tip of James Bay (minutes away from a RAMSAR Wetlands site) in north-eastern Ontario, Canada. Traditionally a hunting and gathering society, the MoCreebec community spent five years designing and developing their new ecolodge facility so that it would reflect their traditional values and principles. The community committee that led the development of the Cree Village Ecolodge was purposeful and patient, delaying construction of their facility until they were satisfied that the design was in keeping with their principles. The result is a gathering place for the community and guests from around the world that resonates with a sense of the MoCreebec people and their culture and traditions, and their vision for the future. In keeping with their environmental approach, their healthy facility features natural textures (i.e. organic bedding, wool carpeting) and is highly energy efficient which is a key focus given their sub-arctic northern climate. The biggest lessons learned thus far from Cree Village Ecolodge, from my vantage, is the value of Indigenous communities playing an active, hands-on role in developing their own ecotourism products and services, in keeping with their own traditions and values.

In terms of financing, the Cree Village facility had a capital cost of approximately $US3.5 million. I played a role in project development, business planning and financing, and can attest that pursuing financing for this project was very challenging and time-consuming. In the end, both federal and provincial agencies became project investors, and attempts to secure private financing were not successful. As to Deborah's 'big question' about European models and how appropriate they are for Indigenous communities (or for others, for that matter). At the practical level, there are many folks out there that are in fact "Re-Doing Tourism", through operations like Cree Village Ecolodge and Lapp Land Safari. Only time will tell whether or not their approaches have worked. The bottom line, for me, is that it is the community itself that decides what business approach to adopt, how capital intensive to go, and what partners to work with. Indigenous communities themselves should be the ones weighing the pros and cons and deciding, for themselves, how to proceed. Indigenous communities face tremendous economic challenges, and with the Aboriginal population boom, the leadership is under great internal pressure to improve their economic state, without jeapordizing their culture and traditions, and the land itself.

In reality, as Michael Vinka of Lapp Land Safari in Sweden says, "what we are doing is really much more than ecotourism."

Maurice (Mo) Adshead/England
http://www.nkf-mt.org.uk

Andrew Hurd's thought provoking comments got me thinking on a number of issues. It was his reference to Master Plans that really caught my attention. From my limited personal experience there appears to have been a lack of careful planning on the various community based projects I have been involved with. I made contact with Tom Ole Sikar (Hi, Tom) in Tanzania about 2 years ago and it was late in 2001 when I eventually found a local tour operator to act as our ground handler in Tanzania. The situation with Amadiba Adventures (aka The Wild Coast Community Tourism Initiative) who I first contacted about 20 months ago, remains an impasse - we have not been able to operate any tours for the lack of a ground handler. If there had been Grand Master Plans for these projects they should have included this very important link - a local professional ground handler who was prepared to be involved. Financiers will not come forward unless we show them a complete master plan - the risk is too great. It is no good presenting a product without a means of implementing it.

There are a number of fine examples of nature only ecotourism that are working well, but it appears to me community based tourism is not as successful and I attribute this partly to the lack of a comprehensive 'business' plan. Maybe this omission was caused by the financiers (grant making bodies) of the projects - they may have set requirements which did not allow for a complete package. Any thoughts on this?

Response to Mo
Oliver Hillel

Many an ecotourism venture was backed by wonderful business and Master plans, prepared by very good in-and-out specialists, and then given to less able local business/project managers to implement, with the consequence that, under the slightest changes (or upon finding mistakes in the original assumptions, a very normal occurrence in business plans), everything goes wrong. On the other hand, I've seen lousy plans be approved because the investor trusts the executing partner so much that anything would be approved, and the venture turns out just fine because the ground manager is good at adjusting strategies, making deals, managing people, suppliers and customers, and just has the makings of an entrepreneur.

Let's be honest: the vast majority of viable and sound SMEs in the developing world were created without anything even remotely close to a business plan - it's mostly the genius (and the hard-necked persistence in the face of adversity) of movers/shakers that make it happen... Ron, be honest, did Planeta.com have a full-fledged Master Plan or business plan a few years ago?

Building Constituences
Ron Mader

I mentioned in my introductory post the unique financing of Planeta.com -- how we share revenues with Sustainable Sources <http://www.greenbuilder.com> -- and the fact that this is a time-intensive labor of love. Planeta.com needs to be judged by how useful it is to its readers, not just by how much money it makes. For better or worse, I figure that if it does the job well, the money will come. That said, my bookkeeping skills are my weak point. Nevertheless, Planeta.com has been the perfect example of building something from the ground up with the support of contributors and sponsors all over the world.

Sustainable tourism and ecotourism are the paths to take -- literally as tourists and metaphorically in the industry. That said, the number of institutional failures that have been reported in this conference (in public and in quite a few private emails) leads me to insist on two points:

1) We need better information. Those financing tourism (banks, dev. agencies, ngos) need to make the information much more accessible on the Web. Luckily, if we take a snapshot of the Web there has been great progress in the past five years. What should institutional websites provide? We need information about contracts before they have been granted and (equally important) objective evaluations of projects.

2) We need to build stronger constituencies. Last year the North American Commission for Environmental Commission's Sustainable Tourism project failed because the stakeholders remain isolated and often bitterly divided. If we had our act together, we would have been able to demand more from the NACEC -- starting with a request for program managers trained in this field.

If we -- those interested in sustainable tourism -- remain divided, we have no influence. It's a vicious cycle. Secrecy leads to a fractured constituency and no coordination of resources. Fully-briefed consultants in the capital cities compete with locals who have no information. CD-Roms galore are distributed at the conferences but the public has access to obsolete websites or high registration fees to get basic contract data. Communication levels the playing field.

Does sustainable tourism pay and is profitable tourism sustainable?
John Shores

One of the especially thought-provoking presentations was on the sustainability of ecotourism/responsible tourism from Dr. Bill Bryan, an organizer/promoter of self-contained horseback trips in the American Rockies. Dr. Bryan asked the question: "Can it exist and still be profitable?" He pointed out that there are many examples of remarkable and sincere attempts by tourism practitioners to be responsible to environment and community, yet they also need to be profitable if they are to succeed. He characterized the broader tourism industry as basically extractive in nature, with an emphasis on volume or capacity. "Success" as defined by a tourism bureau or chamber of commerce is seeing the volume of tourists to an area steadily increase. This is in sharp contrast to the idea of high-quality ecotourism/responsible tourism, where Bryan says the goal is low volumes and limited capacity.

Several of the speakers mentioned the increasing importance of "authenticity" in the tourism experience. Tourists are willing to pay more for what they perceive as an "authentic" experience. Cynics in the group noted the financial success of entrepreneurs skillful in creating a "staged authenticity" for the enjoyment of tourists. Most of the success or failure of these endeavors rested on the cultural, not the natural, components of the tourism experience.

One impression emerging from this conference would be that to make sustainable tourism pay, one needs: (1) a destination where the volume of tourists is limited by regulation or permitting processes, (2) the tour operators and facilities are certified through a system like the International Ecotourism Standard being developed by the Ecotourism Association of Australia (for the latest draft, see http://www.ecotourism.org.au/ies), and (3) the experience has a strong cultural component (ideally "authentic" but perhaps employing "staged authenticity" instead).

The second half of the opening question above is whether profitable tourism is sustainable. I'll leave that question to other participants, and save my comments on that aspect of tourism for a different forum. Hey, Ron! How about a new forum on the sustainability of tourism?

Business Plan
Carol Patterson

Let Us Be Honest
Ana Garcia Pando

Most of us have many stories of unsuccesful, failed initiatives which started as good ideas promoted by deeply involved people, with sound environmental principles. I think the road to sustainable ecotourism SME's is paved with many good failed intentions. Surely devising a project which does not take into account i.e. the management abilities of the hosting community or the actual availability of human or economic resources is a clear example of a bad Master Plan. Why not create a database of failed projects? I am sure it would be a helpful document.

Back to Summary
Next

PLANETA

SEMINARS

Learning never ends. See if one of our seminars is right for you.