UMEÅ UNIVERSITET
Kulturgeografiska institutionen
C-uppsats i kulturgeografi, 10 poäng
VT-03
Handledare: Dieter Müller
Rhetoric and marketing device or potential
and perfect partnership?
- a case study of Kenyan ecotourism
Helene Eriksson
Rhetoric and marketing device or potential
and perfect partnership?
- a case study of Kenyan ecotourism
Helene Eriksson
MFS- Report
Fall 2003
MFS - Minor Field Study
Umeå University
Department of Social and Economic Geography
Supervisor: Dieter Müller
Acknowledgements
Above all, I would like to thank the Swedish International Development
Cooperation Agency for through a Minor Field Study scholarship offering me
the opportunity to undertake the field study in Kenya during the late spring of
2003. Furthermore, a big thank you is in order to Dieter Müller at the
Department of Social and Economic Geography, Umeå University, for being
my supervisor, guiding me and giving me advice during the writing process.
The support of Fred Hedkvist has also been greatly appreciated, as the
continuous help of Margit Söderberg at the above department.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank each and every one of the
informants I had the pleasure of meeting while in Kenya. By granting me
some of their time, information and engaging in active discussions they all let
me obtain valuable insights into this subject. The time spent in Kenya and the
people I met will forever be remembered and I am certain I will return
someday.
Helene Eriksson
November 2003
i
Abstract
Tourism is said to be the world’s largest industry and ecotourism the fastest
growing segment of it. The year of 2002 was declared the Year of Ecotourism
by the United Nations in collaboration with the World Tourism Organization
(WTO) and this event did in some instances produce fears. The purpose of this
paper is to provide an overview of the concept ecotourism and to present how
it is portrayed in literature as well as practised in reality. In order to clarify what
ecotourism is said to be, different definitions and models are employed. Furthermore, a presentation of a number of stakeholders within the Kenyan ecotourism and eventual outcomes of ecotourism and conservation projects is
done.
The attention and interest in ecotourism from both the researchers and the
public have increased over the years and it has not only been seen as an alternative to mass tourism, but also as a means of economic development and environmental conservation. Some believe that sustainable tourism (such as ecotourism) potentially can focus the benefits of tourism on the local population
and the environment while at the same time minimizing negative impacts
whereas others remain to a certain degree sceptical, warning that ecotourism
has not yet been proven to be either beneficial or sustainable. As was revealed
in the Kenyan projects the requirement of being socially, ecologically and economically sustainable over time had not yet been fulfilled. Ecotourism has furthermore been promoted by different agencies and organisations as a way of
preserving the nature and help safeguarding the biodiversity and ecosystems in
less developed countries such as Kenya. However, it must be remembered that
tourism is an utmost sensitive and vulnerable product that can be changed
merely by the tourists altered image of the destination. Above all, the perception of safety and security at site determines the choices made by the tourists of
where to travel. Hence, if ecotourism is the sole basis for upholding the conservation it must be warned that the relationship between economic earnings
and conservation at times is a risky relation.
ii
In a number of sources the linkage between ecotourism and small-scale locally
owned developments have been perceived to be fundamental as it assures a
slow development, which permits maximum local participation and stakeholdership. Community participation and contributions to the Kenyan projects
have been proven to be essential and community participation is today widely
employed by all the stakeholders, but to different degrees. Community participation is in addition in many cases linked to capacity building of the communities. Local control over the resources is moreover the key to prevent many of
the problems resulting from implementation of ecotourism projects according
to a growing number of researchers. However, as was revealed in the interviews this is not necessarily true.
A number of obstacles and challenges are evident in the future for Kenyan
tourism in general and ecotourism in particular. Current lack of coordinated
effort in governmental policies, the absence of sufficient funding for promotion and marketing of Kenya as a destination and the projects both within
Kenya and abroad, rising competition from destinations with similar packages
and the over- reliance upon traditional source markets must be overcome. Diverting the flows of tourists to the traditional areas within Kenya will take
time and a great deal of effort and funding.
Key Words: Ecotourism, community-based initiatives, conservation
iii
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements
Abstract
Abbreviations and Acronyms
Conferences
i
ii
vii
viii
1. INTRODUCTION
Page
1
1.1 Aim
1.2 Methodology and sources
1.3 Critique of the methodology and sources
1.4 Employed definitions
2. THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES
2.1 The core-periphery concepts
2.2 Development theory and underdevelopment
2.3 Community- based development
3. CHANGES IN THE SOCIETY
3
4
6
7
11
11
12
13
15
3.1 Globalisation and postmodernism
3.2 Environmentalism
4. TOURISM AND SUSTAINABILITY
4.1 Sustainable tourism
4.2 Alternative tourism
4.3 Ecotourism- Definitions and Models
4.4 Ecotourism- General information
4.5 Environmental conservation movements and tourism
iv
15
16
21
24
26
27
31
34
5. COMMUNITY- BASED DEVELOPMENTS
5.1 Community- based developments in ecotourism and
conservation projects
6. KENYA AND TOURISM
37
37
41
6.1 Background- general information
6.2 Tourism and government policies
41
42
6.2.1 Pre-independence: The beginning of tourism in Kenya
42
6.2.2 Post-independence: Kenya as a tourism destination becomes established
43
6.2.3 Kenya in spring of 2003
47
6.2.4 Current trends in Kenyan tourism and policy
49
6.2.5 Outlook for future Kenyan tourism
54
6.3 Ecotourism/tourism venues
55
6.4 Stakeholders involved in the ecotourism development in Kenya 58
7. FIELD STUDY
63
7.1 Kenyan tourism today
7.2 Managing and maintaining the biodiversity
7.3 Markets and marketing
7.4 Kenyan ecotourism and its stakeholders
7.5 The ecotourism projects
63
65
67
69
71
7.5.1 ENGOs and KWS
72
7.5.2 Private businessmen
73
7.6 Community participation – a cornerstone for success
7.7 Not always a success…
7.8 Diversifying for the future
7.9 Future of Kenyan ecotourism?
75
77
78
80
8. CONCLUSIONS
8.1 Rising interest in ecotourism
81
81
v
8.2 What is ecotourism?
8.3 Community participation and control
8.4 Ecotourism definitions
8.5 The interviewed stakeholders and their projects
8.6 Is conservation and biodiversity management and tourism
really compatible?
8. 7 A fair deal
8.8 A final remark
84
86
88
90
92
93
94
REFERENCES
Appendices
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Appendix 4
Map of selected public protected areas in Kenya
Basecamp Masaii Mara
Eselenkei Group Ranch/ Eselenkei Conservation Area
Interview guide
Figures and tables
Figure 1. The relationship between the different forms of tourism
21
Figure 2. The continuum of ecotourism paradigms
27
Figure 3. Characteristics of hard and soft ecotourism as ideal types
31
Figure 4. Map of Kenya
41
Table 1. Percentage of definitions that contained selected key words
30
Table 2. International Tourist Arrivals
51
Table 3. International Tourism Receipts
52
vi
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ACC
AWF
BA
CORE
EAWS
EAC
ENGO
ESOK
EU
IFAW
IMF
KANU
KATO
KTDC
KWS
NARC
TIES
NGO
TNC
TTF
UNESCO
UNDP
USAID
WB
WTO
African Conservation Centre
African Wildlife Foundation
British Air
Conservation of Resources through Enterprise
East African Wildlife Society
East African Co-operation
Environmental Non- Governmental
Organisation
The Ecotourism Society of Kenya
The European Union
International Foundation for Animal Welfare
International Monetary Fund
Kenya African National Union
Kenya Association of Tour Operators
Kenya Tourism Development Corporation
Kenya Wildlife Service
National Alliance Rainbow Coalition
The International Ecotourism Society
Non- Governmental Organisation
Transnational corporation
Tourism Trust Fund
United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organisation. In charge of designating World heritage sites (after the 1972 World
Heritage Convention) and Biosphere Reserves.
United Nations Development Programme
The United States Agency for International
Development
The World Bank
World Tourism Organisation, UN’s
tourism organ
vii
Conferences
Globe ’90 and Globe ’92
The conferences that initially started linking
tourism with sustainable development by the
travel and tourism industry.
The Biosphere Conference
“The Intergovernmental Conference of
Experts on the Scientific Basis for Rational
Use and Conservation of the Biosphere” in
1968.
The Stockholm Conference “The United Nations Conference on Human
Environment” in 1972 where they looked at
broader issues than at the Biosphere
Conference, hence nongovernmental
organisations where more involved in it.
The Earth Summit
The 1992 UN Conference on Environment
and Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
One of the key agreements adopted at Rio was
the Convention on Biological Diversity.
viii
1. INTRODUCTION
The rise of ecotourism is inherently connected to the flows of tourists from
the developed world and it must be remembered that ecotourism represents
only a small segment of the wider activity of nature tourism. The rise of the
ecotourism industry also seems to be connected with the rise of environmentalism, especially in the developed world. The process of globalisation has
moreover influenced the ways in which we communicate and transport ourselves, but also the division of labour and production in where time has ultimately conquered space. This process has led to the view of one interdependent world in which we all live, consequently new topics have entered the
global political arena. The introduction of the sustainability concept have influenced almost every subject and tourism is not an exception, but there is
still no grand theory about sustainable tourism and relatively little is known
about the impacts of it over time.
The year of 2002 was declared the Year of Ecotourism by the United Nations
in collaboration with the World Tourism Organization (WTO). This did in
some cases produce fears that an unsustainable increase in tourism to delicate
environments might have the adverse effect of the statement of responsible
travelling. The belief that one is approaching the business of travelling and
accommodation in an environmentally friendly way might not always be accurate. It has been argued that the tourism industry is becoming the single biggest industry in the world and ecotourism the fastest growing segment of this
industry. But what is this segment of tourism that is so widely promoted as
the cure for the future expansion for the industry itself and the development
of tourism in less developed countries in particular?
As has been mentioned in most sources, both in public and scientific debates,
there is a lack of general definition of what ecotourism in reality is. The more
I study about the subject the more definitions and cross-definitions I seem to
encounter, some of them are easily understood - others more suspect in my
opinion. Ecotourism and conservation projects are frequently connected in
1
some way or the other, either as development tools for local communities or
simply as destination areas. Critics have argued that the concept of ecotourism
often is used in an improper way. They claim it might in some cases be just
another way of exploiting the resources in less developed countries and at the
same time shielding from criticisms behind a smoke screen of ecological
thoughtfulness. The clashes between local communities and different conservation strategies imposed by various authorities have been noted in several
cases. Hence I think it is both meaningful and fascinating to study this concept and what impacts has been noted in the implementation of ecotourism
projects.
The implementation of whichever type of tourism development in less developed countries such as Kenya is generally promoted by the governments in
the hope of achieving the economic growth, mainly through foreign exchange
earnings, that is so badly needed in these areas. Just to bring about sustainable
tourism development and ecotourism is complex work even for countries that
do have the expertise and the resources to implement it - in many of the less
developed countries this is not the case. One of the major problems of the
public sector in less developed countries as Kenya are the relative common
occurrence of inefficiency, a lack of experience in policy formulation, implementation and monitoring and different degrees of corruption. This is where
the community-based approach becomes interesting as a way of implementing
projects. By using this approach that is said to be more geared towards the
improvement of the life quality of the local community, many of the negative
impacts are thought to be lessened. But is this really true?
The particular choice made to study Kenya was made in part of what the
writer of this paper had observed in various media during the last couple of
years pertaining to both its rich biodiversity and its reputation as a wellestablished tourism destination but also to certain events that had unfavourable consequences for the flow of tourists to this nation. In recent years
Kenya has had its fair share of problems - political violence surrounding the
general election of 1997 and the catastrophic El Niño rains from March 1997
2
to June 1998 that destroyed infrastructure and caused disease. Furthermore, a
couple of unfortunate attacks on tourists and the tragic bombing of the US
embassy in 1998 has led to a massive drop in tourist which in its turn has resulted in a downturn in the economy.
The foreign visitors have major impacts on the destination country both in
terms of the environment and the economy, but there are opposing views as
to the degree of the impact. I believe that the significance here is not whether
ecotourism is economically and ecologically advantageous or not, but to
whom. The tourism of today is both an ecological, economical and political
issue and this makes it as well a global and complex one. The key issue is control and who has it.
The travel to fragile environments are generally the foundation of ecotourism,
and much of these are situated in less developed countries. Kenya is a well
known nature tourism destination and as the growth of ecotourism influences
both indigenous people and the whole ecological environment and it must be
remembered that in frequent cases it is the non-human members of our ecological community that are most severely hit by tourism. A major problem
with attempting to measure the impacts of tourism on the ecosystem is that at
times it is difficult distinguish out the influence of tourism from impacts of
other activities. Furthermore, it may take time for these impacts to reveal
themselves and by the time they are discovered it might already be to late.
1.1 Aim
The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the concept ecotourism and to present examples of how it is portrayed in literature.
Main questions that I will attempt to answer are:
• What changes in society is said to have brought ecotourism forward?
• What is ecotourism and how is it distinguished from other types of tourism?
3
• What differences are there between different definitions and which models
of ecotourism are commonly used?
• What is the relationship between environmentalism, conservation and
ecotourism?
• Why are community-based developments so widely promoted?
The paper will furthermore present the situation in Kenya in the late spring of
2003 when it comes to certain ecotourism and conservation projects and their
impacts and eventual outcomes. Thus it is imperative to answer questions
such as:
• How has tourism in Kenya evolved and how is it compared to tourism in
the African region?
• What policies has the Kenyan government had on tourism up until spring
of 2003 and how is ecotourism perceived?
• Who are some of the stakeholders in Kenyan ecotourism? Who implements the stakeholders’ projects and where does the funding for these projects come from?
• If community participation or the community-based approach have been
employed in the projects examined in what way were the locals participating in the projects? Were there any obstacles and problems that had to be
overcome?
• If the discussed projects in the interviews are not indigenous-run, do local
communities receive an equitable share of the profits or any other direct
benefits, such as training? Or do only a few individuals or families benefit?
• Is there a future for ecotourism in Kenya?
1.2 Methodology and sources
In this paper the literature reviewed were mainly based on secondary sources
such as books, articles in journals and information from different sources on
the Internet. These have been utilised in an attempt to get a clear picture of
what ecotourism is and what the research in regards to it has revolved around.
4
The 2001 World Development Indicators CD-Rom was moreover used to
extract some statistical information for this paper.
The choices of which stakeholders to include in this paper was done after
comprehensive search, mainly through a number of academic journals in the
fields of tourism and conservation/environment and the Internet. Furthermore, some material surrounding the stakeholders and the different ecotourism- and conservation projects in Kenya they were involved in was gathered
from the different organisations and institutions prior to the Minor Field
Study was commenced.
The gathered material surrounding the subject at hand was then complemented during the Minor Field Study to Kenya during 10 weeks of the late
spring of 2003 through interviews made with a number of the stakeholders,
mainly institutions within Kenyan ecotourism. This have deepened the understanding of the subject at hand and its possibilities and limits. Throughout the
interviews conducted an interview guide was employed (consult Appendix 4
for interview guide), but an open discussion was the main target. The discussions and answers were written down by hand for further revising when at
home. Even though the interviwe guide was quite comprehensive, it must be
informed that each one of the stakeholder did not answer every question- this
as not every single question in it was related to their particular work sphere.
Even so, some of the interviews stretched over several hours.
The interviewed subjects are professionals within the sphere and are therefore
as a rule informants and not respondents (Holme & Solvang, 1997). However,
on occasion the interviewed are respondents as they themselves have experienced the observable facts. A field trip to one ecotourism project (Basecamp
Masaii Mara) was furthermore done during the time spent in Kenya.
5
1.3 Critique of methodology and sources
It has been imperative to limit the scope of the subject reviewed and this will
inevitably lead to slight gaps in the structure, and hence a number of aspects
that are not examined in depth. The sources employed in this paper, especially
in the discussion of ecotourism, conservation and the community based approach, are to the greatest part of Western origin. This is to a certain extent
because nearly all of the research done in this subject is performed by the developed world. It has been noted that the geographic distribution of research
and authors is geared towards the more developed countries, especially the
USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand (Backman and Morais, 2001).
When sources from the less developed world and Kenya have been present
these have been integrated in this paper. The way in which this paper has been
written is based on assumptions and choices made by the writer, a selection of
the literature and the scope of this paper thus result in a limited number of
aspects. The definitions that are brought up in this paper are in no way conclusive and the writer made the choices, as is the way the definitions are presented.
Even though interviews are in the writer’s opinion one of the best ways to get
an insight and opportunity for deeper understanding of the subject at hand,
one must be cautious with information given through interviews. There is always the question of reliability or correctness of the information given as well
as possibility of misunderstandings between the interviewer and the interviewed. This risk is furthermore enhanced since many of the interviewed subjects and the writer herself do not have English as their mother tongue even
though they were fluent in it. Furthermore, as with any available statistical information, especially on tourism in less developed countries, I am aware of
the limitations surrounding it. Even though significant progress has been
made in recent decades, the statistical information is not uniform as a result of
variation in definitions and methods of data collection. The use of the Internet as a gathering point for material is according to the writer a valuable tool.
6
Even so, the reliability of material from it is far less than from printed materials and one must have this in mind.
Furthermore, choices made about which stakeholders who are presented in
this paper are made by the writer and I recognise that there may be countless
more stakeholders than is presented here. The local communities are one of
the main stakeholders but due to practical reasons they are not presented in
this paper, and this is certainly a weak link. Even though donors such as
USAID and EU have recently made major grants to develop tourism in
Kenya, these have unfortunately not been introduced in this paper. Most developments are furthermore under the authority of local County Councils,
which are likewise not presented in this paper.
1.4 Employed definitions
In this paper several of the definitions and concepts presented are not universally accepted as ‘the single correct one’. Like almost all definitions surrounding the subject (tourism, sustainable, globalisation etc.) definitions of ecotourism too will change according to their purpose and context and different aspects have been stressed during different times within the numerous definitions of ecotourism. In Chapter 4 I make an attempt to distinguish the different forms of tourism, but a short commentary is here in order (Consult Figure
1 on page 21 for further information).
A difference between sustainable and unsustainable tourism should be made.
Unsustainable tourism transcends the environmental and societal carrying capacity of the destination and usually leaves the destination far worse off in the
long run than if the activity had not occurred. Sustainable tourism, on the
other hand, enriches the destination and is economically, societal and ecologically sustainable over time. While some authors suggest that sustainable tourism and Alternative Tourism is the same thing I hold that Alternative Tourism
is built on the intent to be of small-scale and low density, often organised or
7
even owned by local people. Therefore is not sustainable mass tourism the
same as Alternative Tourism.
I hold the same view as Fennel (1999) that ecotourism is a form of Alternative
Tourism, but excludes culture as the first motivation. It ought also be separated from adventure tourism on the base of primary motivation and type of
activity involved, given that in adventure tourism the activity itself is the
dominant attraction.
Ecotourism is a more controversial term than sustainable tourism since it involves the educational and the conservation components. The definition of
ecotourism Fennel gives in his book Ecotourism: an introduction is the one I
would choose to employ when stating what ecotourism is to me:
“ Ecotourism is a sustainable form of natural resource-based tourism that focuses primarily
on experiencing and learning about nature, and which is ethically managed to be low-impact,
non-consumptive, and locally oriented (control, benefits and scale). It typically occurs in natural areas, and should contribute to the conservation or preservation of such areas”
(p 43).
As mentioned earlier, there has been a puzzle with the different definitions
used in the various sources. An apparent example is the use of the terms less
developed countries, least developed countries, developing countries and the
Third World in the literature. I have in this paper chosen to use the term less
developed countries in the overall presentation of the literature reviewed even
though it can be disputed from many perspectives. I recognise that the term
Third World also is an advantageous one and have the same opinion as Mowforth and Munt (1998) as to the point that the term developing states there is an
ending. In the paper the Third World term have been employed when the different authors themselves have used them. Even so, the term less developed
country is the most common one in the literature reviewed hence the choice.
One might ask if Kenya can be though of as a less developed country and my
personal opinion is that Kenya can. In the World Bank’s classification by in-
8
come and indebtedness (January 2002), Kenya is classified as a low income,
moderately indebted country (WDI 2002) and the current account balance in
the years of 2000 and 2001 landed on US$ -323 million and US$ -359 million
respectively (WB 2003:1). Human development indicators have demonstrated
deterioration during the last decade, public institutions are dysfunctional and
corruption is widespread, while at the same time personal safety is deteriorating. In 2002 Kenya was ranked on the 134th place of 173 countries on
UNDP’s list of Human Development Index, just three places from sliding
down from the category of countries with Medium Human Development to
Low Human Development (HDI 2003).
Like many of the other Sub-Saharan countries, Kenya has during the last decade shown excess mortality due to AIDS and as a result of this growing prevalence of HIV/AIDS the life expectancy at birth has fallen from 49,7 years in
1997 to 47 years in 2000 (WDI 2002). Furthermore, no new census has been
done since the year of 1993, but in that year 62,3% of the population lived
below the $2 /day poverty line and in year 2000 51% of the population were
not using improved water sources and almost every fifth child under 5 years
weighed too little (HDI 2003). These are just a few aspects of the Kenyan society in 2003 and based on these facts I believe Kenya can be thought of as a
less developed country.
9
10
2. THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES
Tourism has grown significantly in the last 40-50 years, posing both a threat
and an opportunity and geographers have been one of the main contributors
to the theoretical perspectives of tourism. The reviewed theories here are
those that attempt to explain the intricate relationship between developed and
less developed countries but also within less developed countries.
2.1 The core-periphery concepts
The concept of core and periphery is one of the most used to undertake to
explain why some areas seem to be more expansive and vital than others. The
core is signified by a high growth potential and a dynamic market while the
periphery present a stagnating market and low growth potential. This view
likewise presents the spatial pattern of cores and peripheries within countries
and regions (Burton, 1991). The well-established example of the core and periphery concepts in tourism was made by Christaller in 1963 and builds upon
the idea that tourism appears to be drawn to peripheral areas as opposed to
central places. This idea has been further developed by several others and the
tourists desire for different experiences in far off regions have become one of
the key components in the discussion as this phenomenon takes form in both
a spatial and psychological relationship (Christaller, 1963).
The dependency upon core regions (both within and outside the destination
country) persevere as a result of the lack of resources in less developed countries to implement and plan for ecotourism, but also through the absence of a
direct link between these areas and the developed world. Hence the benefits
do not trickle down to the community level, but stay in the hands of a few.
Community-based development is, according to Fennell (1999), recognised as
a possible remedy to this problem.
11
2.2 Development theory and underdevelopment
At least three common perspectives of development theory are presented by
Fennell (1999). Development theory perceives tourism as merely another
method of the metropolitan core nations to exacerbate the inequalities between itself and the marginalized periphery. In this view real progress within
the periphery cannot occur if the strategies are not more environmentally sustainable and formulated toward the needs of the national population. Another
way of representing tourism in less developed countries is by the theory of
underdevelopment in which the colonial history has changed the internal
structures. The dependency of less developed countries are based on both the
overseas demand of new tourism destinations and investments made by foreign interests. This domination reveals itself most clearly in the foreign ownership of airlines and hotels and at times there are in addition a distinct reliance on imported commodities for the running of the business (Fennell,
1999).
Britton (1982) holds this view and stresses that the society’s historical structure influences the way in which tourism is developed in less developed countries. He claims that the indigenous economies might dissipate through the
modernisation and orientation towards external markets. Mowforth and Munt
(1998) work in their book Tourism and Sustainability: new tourism in the Third
World within this perspective and by using key themes such as uneven and
unequal development, relationships of power and globalisation, they try to
present this new type of tourism in the Third World countries in a new way.
The recurrent distinction between “core” and “periphery” can also be based
on the assumption of economic interdependence in the world through the
world system approach. In this view the core is dependent on the periphery
for primary goods while the periphery is dependent on the core for the import
of goods and foreign capital investments. Because of these links between the
core and the periphery a country cannot sustain by itself and the economic
changes in the surrounding world will inevitably influence the countries’ eco-
12
nomic activity. On this ground will changes in the flows between different
countries have consequences for both (Burton, 1991).
2.3 Community-based development
The last perspective given by Fennell (1999) is community development, but it
can also be found in most of the recent literature on ecotourism. The development is based on and originates from the community, and must involve
solutions within the community to problems that are site-specific. Principles
of self-reliance in the areas of economy, as well as ecology and community
control are for this reason central and can be developed by empowerment
through community participation. Issues of trust and transparency are vital
elements in a successful ecotourism development and therefore it is imperative to educate and inform the people in the community affected if they are
later to make important future decisions and be utilised in the empowerment
process. Since tourism is now being recognised as a possible development tool
for communities, partnerships are all the more important to develop between
the different stakeholders (residents, tourism providers, both private and public etc.). Any relationship involves a certain degree of power differentiation
and it is crucial to make these visible to attain a sense of who has the control.
Unsuccessful integration of indigenous people might in some cases be ascribed to the absence of representation in major decisions, but it may also lay
in insufficient training and education (Fennell, 1999).
13
14
3. CHANGES IN THE SOCIETY
In order to be able to understand the underlying processes for this new segment of tourism it is important to briefly explain the perceived changes noted
in the society during the last few decades.
3.1 Globalisation and postmodernism
The disbelief in progress and development has, according to Gare (1995), become widespread during the second half of the 20th century, much in response
to the revelation that the Western civilisation has inflicted a great deal of suffering to both other societies and the environment.
Roland Robertson coined the term globalisation as a way of describing the
process of world integration based on the spread of the capitalist system. This
process is correlated with new forms of transportation- and communication
technology in which time has conquered space. New patterns of communication and production within transnational corporations (TNCs) have reduced
the national arenas power and undermined the states control over their
economies and new places are continually drawn into the process of economic
interdependence.
The process of globalisation has also been associated with the decline of
Western economies, the fragmentation of Western societies and the emergence of postmodernism. Postmodernism as a concept has been used to describe the emergence of new cultural styles. The change in the society is an
outcome of a new class struggle, which has involved a cultural conflict in the
sense that each class wants to define their position in contrast to each other.
The new service sub-class is connected to areas of presentation and representation, for instance advertising, public relations and journalists, but also to
provision of medical and social assistance and it has furthermore created a
culture different to the traditional middle class. The postmodern cultural practices are related to way of living and thinking and postmodern environmental-
15
ists such as deep ecologists, ecosophy, deep green and Eco-feminism have
rejected the Euro- and anthropocentrism. This has demonstrated itself in environmental concern and travelling decisions (Gare, 1995).
The choices people make of where to travel and how expresses culturally who
we are. The appearance of this new middle class in the First World has resulted in new cultural processes and consumption patterns, in which travelling
serves as a demonstration. This new middle class is in addition heavily represented in the new socio-environmental movements and concepts such as sustainability and lifestyles connected with it (Mowforth and Munt, 1998).
3.2 Environmentalism
The scientific community has during the last few decades uncovered new facts
on the environment, and the entrance of environment into international politics has its roots in the global community’s concern. Even though environmental concerns are not restricted to the last two centuries, the development
of environmental movements is a fairly recent phenomenon (Miller, 1995).
The roots of the strand conservation resulted in that both British and American interests began to set aside areas, mainly for recreational purposes. The
concern was primarily of a practical nature, to ensure that the power over the
environment by large corporations did not become complete. Furthermore, it
was also used to promote a more efficient use of the natural resources, but
there was also a romanticism growing connected to the notion of wilderness
(Fennell, 1999).
The first international co-operations around this issue were primarily regional,
but in the post-war period international environmental politics have grown.
The 1960s exhibited a vast shift in both environmental movements and environmental politics due to mobilised public opinion. This happened as a response to several environmental catastrophes and a number of highly published books (Silent Spring by Rachel Carson in 1962 for example) and an increase of scientific knowledge concerning the human impact on the environ-
16
ment. This growing awareness on the part of both governments and the public has resulted in an aspiration to protect the world’s heritage (Miller, 1995).
During the 1960s a new movement of conservation grew stronger as an answer to the ever-accelerating development of technology, but also as the discipline of ecology became more widely accepted and established. A more radical fraction of environmentalism could now been seen in movements such as
Deep Ecology and Greenpeace, but the more liberal environmentalists increasingly demanded areas be designated for protection from human activities
(Fennell, 1999).
The Intergovernmental Conference of Experts on the Scientific Basis for Rational Use and Conservation of the Biosphere (the Biosphere Conference) in
1968 and the United Nations Conference on Human Environment (the
Stockholm Conference) in 1972 resulted in placing the protection of the biosphere on the international political agenda, especially the latter one. A second
wave of environmentalism resulted in the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (the Earth Summit) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and this
time it got clear that the priorities of developed countries and less developed
countries were not shared, despite the fact that both had the common concern for the biosphere. During the period of 1972-1992 the body of legislation
on biodiversity grew (Miller, 1995).
In the 1980s 85% of the environmental non-governmental organisations
(ENGOs) had their roots in developed countries, but increasing numbers are
situated in the less developed countries. Since the second half of the 1980s
ever more ENGOs have invested in conservation in less developed countries
through for example debt-for-nature swaps, particularly Conservation International, Rainforest International and World Wildlife Fund. In the long run
management of protected areas will not succeed if societal and political
changes do not also take place and critics argue that debt-for-nature swaps
have certain implications for the less developed countries. These swaps are
sometimes seen as non-democratical ways of imposing management of natural
resources and results in the penalisation of the local communities, and it fur-
17
thermore diverts the attention away from the extraction of resources from the
less developed countries (Miller, 1995). The conservation ethic is strongly associated with the new middle class, which in its turn has influenced the patterns of travel, and has presented itself as a strong hold in different environmental organisations such as the World Wildlife Fund and the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and the Ecotourism Society (Mowforth and Munt,
1998).
From the 1970s and onward environmental issues have become increasingly
political due to both external and internal pressure, and tension between development strategies and environmental policies are common. The relationship between less developed countries and developed countries is signified by
economic power; regardless of the dialogue of global interdependence the less
developed countries play a limited role in the development of environmental
strategies. In many negotiations there are a notable difference in power, influence and bargaining strength. Interests of certain powerful groups in the cores
and national elites in the periphery create a link between the two spheres. Policy decisions taken in less developed countries regarding resources might
therefore reflect the elite’s interests and not necessarily the interests of the
masses. The Third World is therefore according to Miller (1995) constrained
by structural differences, in particular within the economic system - this makes
the imposition of pressure central to this debate.
The social movements ruled by postmodern thinking, such as the global environmental movement, have paradoxically not been able to advance their
causes, hence there is increased environmental destruction coupled with large
environmental movements. Many of the mainstream ideas have failed as for
instance charges for pollution or regulation and a ban seems to be the only
way to curb the environmental destruction. The global environmental dimension is evident through the move of polluting industries in view of expanding
regulation in developed countries to developing countries resulting in the destruction of the Third World’s environment and natural resources for the
benefit of the developed world. On the other hand, many leaders in the Third
18
World perceive the works of environmentalists as another way of trying to
burden and prevent them from industrialising and weak institutional structure
and political and economical manipulation by more powerful countries and
transnational corporations are evident (Gare, 1995).
19
20
4. TOURISM AND SUSTAINABILITY
To make an effort to distinguish the different forms of tourism activities and
to clarify whether they are thought of as sustainable or not, the following
presentation attempts to shed light on the relationship between them. The
figure below is used as a starting point of the following discussion surrounding the many definitions that are presented in the various sources, starting at
the widest level of sustainable and unsustainable tourism to eventually narrow
down to ecotourism. The confusion circling the different forms of tourism
and its linkage to sustainability will become apparent in the following pages.
SUSTAINABLE TOURISM
UNSUSTAINABLE TOURISM
Alternative Tourism (AT)
Socio-Cultural tourism
Mass tourism
Adventure tourism
Ecotourism
Figure 1. The relationship between the different forms of tourism.
Figure 1 is a conceptual model developed by the writer of this paper that presents the relationship between the various forms of tourism, and whether they
are thought of as sustainable or unsustainable. The dotted line in the figure
indicates that there is no absolute boundary between sustainable and unsustainable tourism. This figure is constructed from the manifold of sources that
have been reviewed and should be understood in the way that mass tourism
can be either unsustainable, which most of it is, or sustainable. Mass tourism
is generally thought of as unsustainable tourism as it has over time demonstrated numerous negative impacts on the different destinations’ economy,
society and environment. Unsustainable tourism therefore transcends the environmental and societal carrying capacity of the destination and usually leaves
the destination far worse off in the long run than if the activity had not oc-
21
curred. Sustainable tourism, on the other hand, enriches the destination and is
economically, societal and ecologically sustainable over time.
In the figure Alternative Tourism should be understood as the part of the
smaller circle that is situated on the left side of the dotted line that furthermore does not contain the area of the bigger circle on this side. I argue that
AT is not part of mass tourism and should be small scale. Hence, I will examine sustainable tourism and Alternative Tourism separately in the following
pages. However, in various sources it is put forward that AT (namely sociocultural, adventure and ecotourism) is the same as sustainable tourism.
The figure also demonstrates that within what is commonly known as sustainable tourism (also by some authors called Alternative Tourism (AT)) there are
signs of the activities moving towards mass tourism settings or forms, which
may very well be unsustainable. This way of reasoning is based on the documented experiences in the different sources and it must be stressed that all
discussions around or definitions of ecotourism given in this paper might not
fit into this figure. Some authors separate the two spheres of Alternative
Tourism and mass tourism (for example Fennel, 1999) while others as Weaver
(2001) sees them interconnected. Furthermore some authors include culture
into the activity of ecotourism. It should also be noted that the sizes of the
circles in the figure are different in order to demonstrate that the activity and
business of mass tourism at a global scale is a great deal bigger than the alternative tourism. The different views of the various authors will be explained in
the following pages.
It has been argued that the tourism industry today is the single biggest industry in the world with a turnover of 10% of the world’s GNP. It passed the oil
industry in size in the late 1980s and is believed to show further growth in the
coming decade (My Travel Web page). Considering this fact it might not be
difficult to understand that tourism at times is seen as a generating motor in a
country’s economic activity. The ability to generate tourism in a country nevertheless lies in its social, economical and political characters (Burton, 1991).
22
New forms of tourism are constantly evolving and the market is as well getting more diverse, thus the mobility of tourists has greatly increased. The specialisation and segmentation of the tourism market also demonstrates that the
tourists’ preferences have changed over time (Butler, 1993) but as Apostolopoulos et al. (1996) suggest in their book; the development of tourism in
less developed countries will in most cases only occur when overseas tourists
demand it. With large-scale developments there are at times a strong reliance
on imported quality goods for the international luxury tourists. Furthermore,
the tourism industry has the structure of monopoly or oligopoly in many
countries and transnational corporations (TNCs) are likely to own and provide the tourist product, hence only local enterprises that cooperate on their
terms might become part of a local elite (Mowforth and Munt, 1998). Harrison (2001) puts forward that tourism can be favourable for poor countries if
groups not oriented towards excessive profit making run the project in cooperation with the community and for this reason community-based initiatives
can be beneficial for the less developed countries.
During the 1990s tourism to the less developed countries constituted an everincreasing flow, but most of the international travel still occurs within and between the major developed regions. Coastal beach resorts are today still the
dominant section of tourism in the less developed countries, but mountain
resorts and different types of safari and wildlife resorts are also significant
(Harrison, 2001).
When talking about sustainability and tourism there is a need to accentuate
that tourism and environment are interconnected, particularly since the environmental resources in all probability are the bases for this economic activity.
Among others discussing the topic, Briassoulis and van der Straaten (1992)
believes that tourism should be seen as a number of inseparable and interdependent activities that can result in conflicts and both direct and indirect impacts upon the resource it is based on. Tourism does not only play a part in
the environmental problems, but it is also one of the first sectors that suffer
from the deterioration of ecosystems. Tourism activities and the environment
23
have in some cases had a symbiotic relationship in where protection and conservation of the natural environment and heritage sites have been stimulated.
In other cases impacts identified with the structure of tourism and the tourists
themselves have led to an antagonistic relationship (Buhalis & Fletcher, 1995).
Since the principles of alternative tourism are supposed to stand in opposition
to mass tourism a short review of what this latter activity is thought to be follows. The activity of mass tourism is generally based on large-scale numbers
of tourists that leave for vacation in groups with a standardised package tour.
The holiday is thought to be inflexible and rigid and accommodation made up
of large-scale developments. The rise of mass tourism is associated with the
increased economic growth in the developed world and with the greater than
ever before leisure time but also with a number of lifestyle changes. Technological improvements in communication and transportation over time and the
large-scale developments led to a decrease in the price of these vacations,
hence a growing number of people could leave for vacation. Among many
negative impacts associated to the activity of mass tourism are external leakages owing to the foreign ownership of tour agencies, hotels and airlines and
destruction of the environment and culture due to the lack of consideration
from both the tourists and the industry (Vanhove, 1997).
4.1 Sustainable tourism
Sustainable tourism is a less controversial term than ecotourism since it does
not involve the educational and the conservation components. The focus on
sustainable tourism accelerated in the 1990s, but it had its roots in the sustainable development debate in where it was said that the economic growth had
to be more socially and ecologically conscious than it had been before (Buckley, 1999). In the beginning of the 1990s the first action strategies on tourism
and sustainability was developed much as accompany to the Globe ’90 conference and at the following Globe’ 92 steps were introduced towards implementation of sustainability in tourism (Fennell, 1999). As were observed by
Harrison (2001) this visualises a dilemma: the responsible behaviour from the
24
tourism industry and the tourist might actually exacerbate the problem it seeks
to counter, that is to say it attracts even more tourists.
One major obstacle in the discussion of sustainable tourism is the lack of a
widely accepted definition, which has led to both confusion and frustration
and as with ecotourism there are no universally accepted indicators of sustainable tourism. The concept of sustainable tourism is relatively new and for that
reason it is hazardous to say which forms are sustainable in the long run and
which are. According to Swarbrooke (1999), the whole debate seems to be
more geared against value judgements than empirical evidence and therefore
the concept will change over time. At a low level tourism can with careful
planning operate at a sustainable level, however, controlling the level and size
over time has proved to be more difficult (Butler, 1993 and Harrison, 2001).
Furthermore Swarbrooke states, and so does Gössling (1999), that air travel is
one of the most environmentally unfriendly forms of transportation and it is
almost impossible for it to become sustainable. Therefore, the long-haul travel
that generally takes place to less developed countries are very environmentally
unfriendly. Moreover, many of the governments in these countries spend their
limited resources to develop the infrastructure that is needed for the tourism
to increase at the cost of not being able to invest in projects that will benefit
the entire population and not merely the foreign tourists (Swarbrooke, 1999).
Mowforth and Munt (1998) moreover argue that a type of eco-colonialism is
present in the Third World in where nature gets first priority on behalf of citizens of the First World.
In most of the literature the spheres of alternative tourism (sustainable tourism) and mass tourism are separated and not interconnected as in figure 1.
Even so, a totally different view from most authors on the subject of sustainable tourism and scale is presented by Weaver (2001a). He argues that there in
fact is such a thing as sustainable mass tourism, which is proactive against socio-cultural and environmental degradation and when this sustainable method
25
is used there is nothing to say that mass tourism and ecotourism is inherently
incompatible.
4.2 Alternative tourism
The alternative tourism movement was to stand in opposition to the mass
tourism scourge and let the traveller have authentic experiences, but in addition build upon the notion of sustainability. The new terminology is used to
distance the new forms of tourism from mass tourism, and a new variety of
travel agents and tour operators have thus emerged (Mowforth and Munt,
1998). Alternative tourism is therefore a result of the segmentation of the
market and the product of tourism, and built on the intent to be of small-scale
and low density, often organised or even owned by local people. Local ownership patterns are therefore favoured and the community is advocated to participate in the planning and development of the project, which must be of sustainable nature to the host culture and the environment. Alternative tourism
strategies should moreover be designed to provide a type of tourism that reduces the negative impacts and increases the positive effects (Brohman
1996b).
Fennell (1999) also employs the general term of alternative tourism to describe the type of tourism that prioritise the natural and cultural resources of a
destination and works for a decrease of outside influence by supporting the
forms that are said to be more favourable for the local community. The consequence of the introduction of alternative tourism at new destinations has
nevertheless been that ‘ordinary tourism’ tends to follow in the footsteps of
alternative tourism; hence the latter form must travel longer and deeper to
find unspoilt areas. This scenario has created a gradual shift for governments
from solely promoting tourism developments to the protection of fragile environments and people in many countries (Cohen, 1995).
26
4.3 Ecotourism - Definitions and Models
Like almost all definitions surrounding the subject (tourism, sustainable, globalisation etc.) definitions of ecotourism will change according to their purpose
and context and different aspects have been stressed during different times
within the various definitions of ecotourism. Among others, Swarbrooke
(1999) points out that there seem to be a gap between theory and practice and
attempts made to produce statistics on ecotourism has failed due to the lack
of a common definition.
The growing recognition that the natural environment needs protecting and
conserving has according to Orams (1995) promoted the concept of ecotourism, and even though there is a wide disparity between different definitions of
ecotourism, the activities that it involves are not new.
Low Human
Responsibility Pole
High Human
Responsibility
Pole
All tourism
is ecotourism
Passive, seek to
minimise damage
Ecotourism
impossible
Active contribution
to protect resources
Figure2. The continuum of ecotourism paradigms
Source: Orams (1995), p.4.
The above figure shows at one pole the view that all tourism has negative impacts on the environment and therefore one cannot talk about ecotourism per
se. At the opposite pole all tourism can be seen as ecotourism since people do
not act unnaturally. Both poles are unrealistic views and most definitions lie
in-between these poles and can be arranged according to their degree of human responsibility. A passive and low degree of human responsibility implies
that ecotourism should attempt to minimise damage, but many definitions
argue that more ought to be done than just attempting to minimise the dam-
27
age. These definitions can be called active and are encountered at the high
responsibility pole (Orams, 1995).
As can be seen in figure 1 and read through out Fennels book, Ecotourism: an
introduction, alternative tourism can be divided into either socio-cultural tourism (like farm tourism or village tourism), adventure tourism or ecotourism
that is less oriented towards the society and more dependent on the environments natural resources than the first two. Ecotourism is therefore a form of
alternative tourism, but excludes culture as the first motivation. It ought also
be separated from adventure tourism on the base of primary motivation and
type of activity involved, given that in adventure tourism the activity itself is
the dominant attraction. Ecotourism should also be seen as a part of the more
broad-based nature tourism, but it claims to have a more distinct educational
element and a more ethical view towards the natural environment (Fennell,
1999).
In most of the literature reviewed Ceballos- Lascuráin is given the credit for
the coining of the term ecotourism in the early 1980s, but in practice this type
of nature tourism has been performed long before the rise of the term’s usage
(Fennell, 1999). Ceballos- Lascuráins definition is as follows:
“travelling to relatively undisturbed or uncontaminated natural areas with the specific
objective of studying, admiring, and enjoying the scenery and its wild plants and animals, as well as any existing cultural manifestations (both past and present) found in
these areas” (Blamey, 2001 p 5-6).
The definition of ecotourism Fennel gives in his book Ecotourism: an introduction is of a more detailed and strict one:
“ Ecotourism is a sustainable form of natural resource-based tourism that focuses
primarily on experiencing and learning about nature, and which is ethically managed
to be low-impact, non-consumptive, and locally oriented (control, benefits and scale). It
typically occurs in natural areas, and should contribute to the conservation or preservation of such areas” (p 43).
28
Weaver produces his own definition:
“Ecotourism is a form of nature-based tourism that strives to be ecologically, socioculturally, and economically sustainable while providing opportunities for appreciating
and learning about the natural environment or specific elements thereof.” (Weaver,
2001, p 105.)
An even looser definition is given by The International Ecotourism Society
(TIES), which defines ecotourism as "responsible travel to natural areas that conserves
the environment and sustains the well-being of local people." (TIES Web Page 2003).
The Kenyan government policies do not make a distinction between sustainable tourism and ecotourism. The description of it is as follows:
“ Sustainable tourism in other words, means, using tourism constructively so as to
support the conservation of the environment, reinforcing the cultural heritage of indigenous people as well as enabling them to benefit directly from revenue accruing from
tourism and related activities.“ (UN EAS Web Page 2003, p.12).
What can be noticed in the above definitions and in many more according to
Weaver (2001a) are three core elements that manifest themselves repeatedly in
the different definitions of ecotourism. The first is the attention put on the
natural resources, whether it be the landscape itself or an activity in it, this
makes ecotourism a part of nature tourism. The second component is the
emphasis on learning during the activity of ecotourism, which in turn distinguishes it from other forms of nature-based tourism. Finally, ecotourism
should be sustainable and while some stress solely the ecological side, others
have included the social and economic dimensions (Weaver, 2001a).
In an article in Current Issues in Tourism, Fennell (2001) analysed different definitions of ecotourism during a span of 15 years. According to Fennell, the five
most common references are made to where the activity occurs, conservation,
culture, benefits to local people and education.
29
Table 1. Percentage of definitions that contained selected key words.
Of the 85 definitions analysed there was…
Reference to
where ecotourism occur
conservation
culture
benefits to locals
education
sustainability
impacts
62,9%
61,2%
50,6%
48,2%
41,2%
25,9%
25%
Source: Fennell (2001), p.407.
In examining the different definitions Fennel found that 80% of them did not
refer to ethics at all and 75% did not mention impacts. Even more interesting
was that almost 92% of the definitions steered clear of references to scale of
development and 96,7% of them did not include references to negative outcomes in human-animal interaction which ecotourism supposedly tries to
mitigate. Fennell concludes that during the 15 years the conservation, education and ethics components in the definitions has become more common
(Fennell, 2001).
Following the displayed relationships in figure 2 into figure 3 (see below),
Weaver (2001a) suggests that it is meaningful to look at the activities from a
spectrum of “hard” to “soft”. The active ecotourism, are made up of small
groups of individuals with an environmentally conscious approach who expects little or no service during the trip and can be found at the hard end of
the spectrum. The travellers are ordinarily more in favour of “enhancement
sustainability” and it is not uncommon that they provide donations or volunteer their activity for the cause. At the opposite end is the passive ecotourism,
which is generally signified by a short element of a trip that commonly has
several other purposes in where travellers expect a high degree of service and
comfort. Soft ecotourism is usually associated with “steady-state sustainability” - that is leaving the area the way one found it. This spectrum accordingly
helps to explain the huge discrepancies that one can find in both theory and
practice.
30
Hard (Active)
The Ecotourism Spectrum
Strong environmental commitment
Enhancement sustainability
Specialized trips
Long trips
Small groups
Physically active
Few if any services expected
Emphasis on personal experience
Soft (Passive)
Moderate environmental commitment
Steady-state sustainability
Multi-purpose trips
Short trips
Large groups
Physically passive
Services expected
Emphasis on interpretation
Figure 3.Characteristics of hard and soft ecotourism as ideal types
Source: Weaver (2001a), p.106.
The soft kind of ecotourism has a lot in common with mass tourism, for instance the volume and motivation of the tourists and the reliance on service
infrastructure, but also the multi-purpose appearance where shopping and
sightseeing might be some of the other elements involved in the trip (Weaver,
2001a).
4.4 Ecotourism - General information
In response to the pressures of mass tourism on the environment, ecotourism
has been seen as a way of working against the deterioration of the environment and for the local communities. As with other forms of alternative tourism, the linkage between ecotourism and small-scale development seems to be
fundamental as it assures a slow development, which permits maximum local
participation and stakeholdership. Ecotourism moreover generates money for
the community involved, which can be reinvested, and thus reduces the leakage to external interests (Gössling, 1999).
Ecotourism usually occurs in different types of protected conservation areas
or fragile environments, and the rapid growth of all types of nature-based
tourism has put a pressure on the demand for use and access to these. A few
decades ago a segment of tourism that focused on conservation and preservation of the environment grew stronger and resulted in so-called ecotour operators that used tourism as a conservation tool through political lobbying and
31
environmental education. Later on commercial tour operators have copied the
initial ecotour operators but without employing the conservation motive and
these likewise call themselves ecotour operators (Buckley, 1999). This has of
course added to the confusion around ecotourism.
As mentioned earlier, figure 1 does not conform to all the views of ecotourism and its place in the market. According to Manning & Dougherty (1999)
ecotourism is the kind of tourism that centres on the most sensitive environments and should therefore not even be used as a synonym for sustainable
tourism. The authors also insist that much of what is called ecotourism is in
fact more “eco-nomic” than ecologic on behalf of the tour operators operations at present. Wheeller (1993) even goes so far as to assert that ecotourism
in fact is pure ego-tourism. He states that this new branch of tourism has the
base in rhetoric and image. Ecotourism is thus sold through sophisticated images and advertisements that appeal to the tourist’s notion of using a better
and morally superior type of tourism. Wheeller stress that the actual problem
is that ecotourism is part of the mass movement that is the real threat to the
environment and frankly asserts that whatever the solution will be to this
problem it will certainly not involve restricting the tourists movements or
choices.
Ecotourism as a niche market could furthermore be a strategy of the industry
itself to differentiate from other markets in which they cannot compete, but it
must also be mentioned that this niche produces high yields even though it is
a low volume tourism and thus provides the company with a substantial
profit. Swarbrooke (1999) points to the fact that no tourism is inherently
more sustainable than any other as it all boils down to how it is managed and
Butler (1993) insists that even though the forms of alternative tourism (as
ecotourism) have been said to be sustainable, there are no universal data to
confirm this argument. There are, they conclude, even some situations where
this form might very well be more harmful to the environment and its inhabitants in the long run than other forms of tourism. Fennell (1999) also stresses
that alternative tourism and ecotourism can be just as harmful as mass tour-
32
ism if improperly managed. Therefore, ecotourism might very well show the
same dysfunctions as mass tourism.
Wunder (2000) puts forward that for ecotourism to combine environmental
responsibility and benefits to the local community, the nature conservation
have to build on economic incentives. Developments have nevertheless only
rarely benefited the local people, even though one of the main goals of ecotourism clearly cites this as a key factor (Horwich & Lyon, 1999). Added to this
is the problem of local, regional and foreign pressures on the resources involved. Loon & Polakow (2001) were more optimistic as they looked at three
different scenarios that could be combined in community-based ecotourism
projects. The third of the three scenarios were a partnership formed between
the community, the developer and an operator, and they concluded that it
very well could be a potential solution to the problem of poverty and conservation, but stressed the need of other changes in the structure of developments like accountability, transparency and democracy.
In Rethinking tourism and ecotravel, McLaren (1998) puts forward that respectful
and responsible travelling in itself is not enough for claiming sustainable tourism. As long as inequality persists between the developed and less developed
world this will not be possible. Stressing that most of the definitions out there
of ecotourism are so dispersed that almost anything could be argued to be
ecotourism, she is moreover critical towards the expansive development of
ecotourism that is exacerbating the negative impacts upon the environment.
Weaver (2001a) on the other hand has in his research has found that the soft
kind of ecotourism is preferred by the broad numbers of tourists and regards
governments that possibly will support this kind of tourism as rational since it
may generate essential revenues. Mass ecotourism can, if controlled properly,
be an opportunity according to Weaver.
Ecotourism has thus been promoted by different agencies and organisations
as a way of preserving the nature and to support the safeguarding of the biodiversity and ecosystems in less developed countries. Gössling (1999) argues
33
in his article that there could potentially be a problem along with the continuing growth of ecotourism since many of the protected areas already have
reached their carrying capacity. There is thus a possibility that nature tourism
might be more destructive than mass tourism, since this kind of tourism is
usually set in sensitive and remote areas and puts tangible pressure on ecosystems. Harrison (2001) also shares this concern, but moreover believes that
another aspect should be brought forward. Occasionally more emphasis has
been placed on the protection of the tourist product than on human rights
and democracy as the pressures to expand grows with the industry’s economical importance. Cazes (2000) even goes so far as to state that ecotourism is the
essential commercial manifestation of the relationship between the activity
and its impacts on the local environment.
4.5 Environmental conservation movements and tourism
According to Wearing & Neil (1999) is ecotourism conservation led and has
emerged as a response to global concern and is inherently linked to sustainability. Ecotourism is widely promoted as a mean to advocate what the conservation community calls responsible travel and environmental sensitivity.
This rise of interest in conservation issues has advanced improvements in
practices and general interests in nature. This increased public awareness has
for instance led to implementations of World Heritage areas, Biosphere Reserves and other types of conservation areas, however it has also put higher
demands on access to wilderness areas (Hall and Page, 1999). The management of environmental resources so they attain the uppermost sustainable
quality is thus generally based on the philosophy of conservation that can be
supported for manifold reasons such as sustainability of the environment,
ethical grounds or political motives (Jenkins, 2000).
This rise in environmental awareness and nature preservation can be observed, as mentioned earlier, in the increase of environmental movements. In
1972 the World Heritage Convention was set up by UNESCO to protect areas that are vital for the world’s cultural and natural heritage. The protection
34
of sites in the poorer nations that might lack domestic funding is funded by a
fund to which all the member states contribute (Burton, 1991). This increasing
trend in public awareness around environmental issues has moreover led to
heightening pressure upon the environment from the market, the media and
legal apparatus. Ecologists, environmental scientists and conservationists have
all proposed tourism as a potential tool to reduce the deterioration of the environment (Buckley, 1999). Another way of interpreting the purpose for environmental and cultural protection in Third World communities is given by
Mowforth and Munt (1998). They believe that it has its foundation in insuring
the maintenance of the resources for the enjoyment of the First World tourists – the environment has thus become a commodity.
The relationship between tourism and nature conservation is an interdependent one and can either be built on conflict, co-operation or symbiosis, where
the first two are the most prevalent ones (Jenkins, 2000). Acquiring protection
status for an area might result in conflicts, as has been demonstrated in several
cases (Harrison, 2001). The local communities do bear the high opportunity
cost of the lost alternative use, which in itself might have been sustainable,
and this results in many areas in illegal activities such as poaching and logging.
Vorlaufer (1997) therefore states that the conservation of the landscape and
wildlife cannot be divided from the social and economical development local
communities. This insight is expressed in the shift in protected area management strategies toward an integrated development.
Swarbrooke (1999) points to the fact that there seem to be a strong link between conservation movements in the developed world and sustainable tourism and furthermore puts forward that the power and influence of these conservation movements, which promotes this type of tourism, have most likely
expanded over the years. Tourism might also give the financial incentives for
governments to impose conservation policies since the environment and its
inhabitants often are the major attractions. This has resulted in that conservation of nature at times has been the main priority and consequently the community’s welfare has been irrelevant. As a result, a separation between conser-
35
vation and human rights has occurred (also noted by e.g. Harrison, 2001).
Another problem put forward by Harrison (2001) is the danger to conservation areas that are generally generated by the poverty of surrounding communities; hence it is imperative to obtain the communities’ direct involvement.
It will be a significant challenge for the conservation community to co-operate
with the travel industry, which is both powerful in size and strength. The potential revenues from tourism for the support of protected areas must be
weighed against the risk of misuse of the same. The traditional protected areas
in where conservation communities have earlier operated are today increasingly considered for tourism development and the tourism stakeholders might
become a dangerous contestant for the more fragile resources. The profit motive will always remain the primary one for the industry and therefore the conservation community will need to be more assertive and active in promoting
their objectives through lobbying. Tourism and parks may perhaps be able to
become a partnership that will foster ecological enlightenment, but increased
tourism can also bring on negative impacts such as disruption of wildlife,
overuse of limited resources and interference and even destruction of fragile
cultures to name a few examples (Giannecchini, 1993).
36
5. COMMUNITY-BASED DEVELOPMENTS
In Tourism- Passport to Development, de Kadt (1979) puts forward that small projects cannot be the building block per se for major contributions to the national economic development, but they can contribute maybe more than conventional projects at community-level. The commonly used top-down development concept has evidently not worked and participation is increasingly
necessary for a successful development. However, by employing a bottom-up
approach the projects are not insulated from falters and may not always be
successful, as Brohman (1996a) points out. At times there is a local elite
within groups that might monopolise the power and hence get all the benefits
from a project. Within ecotourism the community-based approach thus acknowledges that it must both support the conservation goal and the improved
life quality of the community. One of the large unresolved conflicts in the
ecotourism industry are community participation and uneven distribution of
revenues (Baez, 1996). It is therefore important to understand that applying a
community- based approach does not necessarily indicate that the development itself will be successful or sustainable.
5.1 Community based developments in ecotourism and conservation
projects
Many communities in less developed countries have ventured to merge community management and ecotourism to obtain an option for rural development. The communities control and manage the enterprise that attempts to
use the local and ethnic/biological diversity to increase the welfare of its people. These rationales are built upon the notion that ecotourism promotes local
conservation, but as many other authors Foucat (2002) recognises that this is
not the universal cure for the future of rural development.
When a development is to start it is clearly important that the role of the
community be defined, but in addition there are still comprehensive barriers
to be overcome before its implementation. These barriers can for instance
37
include lack of overall vision and interest in the development and a lack of
trained human resources and investment capital within the community, cultural barriers such as language differences between the planners and the
community and in addition there might exist a difference in time horizon and
political commitment from the government (Woodley, 1993). Economic factors such as ownership and investment are important for the control of the
development and therefore the community is the core component. The community-based projects suggest some control by residents, but Woodley (1993)
also stresses that it is naive to think that the community can control the market forces, and herein lies the problem of maintaining sustainability.
Participation is most of the time a difficult and rather time-consuming process
and it might be hard to persuade people to remain involved. Even so, sustainable development cannot be achieved without participation from the majority
and this indicates that attention must be given towards understanding power
relations within the communities (Brohman, 1996a). As Mowforth and Munt
(1998) stresses, the power struggle also involves debates whether involvement
actually means control and if so to what degree. Trying to win over different
interests with powerful positions in a local community to a common view is
challenging work and there is always a risk of a minority influencing the decisions taken and thus the process. The reasons for community involvement are
therefore manifold: to reduce the possibility of conflicts and to utilise the local
knowledge, to give the people a voice and to employ a democratic process. By
using not just a reactive but a pro-active approach it benefits both the process
and the people (Swarbrooke, 1999). Even though communities ordinarily
share common interests in the issue of prospective development, there might
be differences in opinion as to how it should come about. Non-governmental
organisations have here played an important role in the initiatives that have
begun on the community-based level (Brohman, 1996a).
Initiatives that are based on an environmental sensitive approach and as well
incorporate control over the activity and return of benefits to the community
should according to Akama (1996) be distinguished from the ecotourism pro-
38
jects that does not have the base in the community, but is operated by an outside interest. In certain cases the economic benefits have gone to the government, foreign tourism companies or local enterprises (Akama, 1996). Swarbrooke (1999) furthermore puts forward that it is also important to recognise
that the ability of the local community to control the development are sometimes severely weakened by the power of the tourism industry. The governments themselves might even impose strategies of tourism development upon
the community, which the community itself might oppose.
There might also be the case that some members of the community are more
interested in the profits than in conserving the environment and its inhabitants, consequently the process is not always smooth. Competition around the
resources within the local community, between different local communities
and between local communities and external tourist groups, organisations and
national governments have been verified and conflicts tend to intensify as
pressures upon the land set aside grows (Wearing & Neil, 1999). By empowering the local communities to control their own resources, whether private or
public, advancement towards giving them a political voice is made (Horwich &
Lyon, 1999).
Horwich and Lyon (1999) furthermore stresses that, as a tool for both community development and conservation, ecotourism should be used as a supplementary income allowing the people to stay instead of having to leave their
community to earn a living elsewhere. Ecotourism might create an increasing
interest in conservation if at the outset the local community and the government can economically benefit from it and perhaps later on this may preferably develop into a fuller conservation land caretaker ethic. The relationship between
economic earnings and preservation is at times a risky relationship. In some
cases the preservation is directly connected to the profits thus when tourism is
falling in numbers to the area the land might transform into other uses. Ecotourism is not a panacea and must therefore be evolved within the larger picture, and unless conservation is connected to empowerment of the local
population it will not work (Horwich and Lyon, 1999).
39
40
6. KENYA AND TOURISM
6.1 Background- general information
Kenya is located along the
east coast of Africa
bordering to Somalia and
the Indian Ocean to the
east, Uganda to the west,
Ethiopia and Sudan to the
north and northwest and
Tanzania to the south.
The Kenyan population,
about 31 millions in the year
of 2002, consists to the
greatest part of indigenous
people but other nonAfricans, especially those
Figure 4. Map of Kenya
from Asia, exercise a consideSource: Wheather hub Web Page
rable influence over the
economy (Dieke, 2001). These days Kenya is facing a number of challenges.
Like many of the other Sub-Saharan countries, Kenya has during the last decade shown excess mortality due to AIDS and in 2001 about 13,5% of the adult
population had HIV/AIDS. (World Fact book 2003 Web Page), resulting in a
reduction of economic growth.
Furthermore, since the early 1990s the population growth has exceeded the
economic growth, which is putting strain on the economy and the available
land. Consequently land pressure and antipathy to wildlife among landowners
along with hunting, logging and farming are encroaching upon protected areas.
Another major problem for Kenya is the corruption that is spread through out
the society. Kenya is said to be among the 30 most unequal societies in the
world and among the top 10 of low-income economies with high concentration
41
of income (Daily Nation Web Page 2003). This widespread corruption and the
weak governance has undermined the management and effectiveness of public
resources, the rule of law and accountability, and these disadvantages deter the
private investments that are needed.
6.2 Tourism and government policies
6.2.1 Pre-independence: The beginning of tourism in Kenya
As many of the countries in Africa, Kenya’s history is shaped by the influence
of external rule. Between 1895 and 1920 Kenya was a British protectorate, but
in 1920 it was declared a British colony. New settlers arrived from Europe,
primarily the United Kingdom, and South Africa and these new settlers made
up the base of the establishment of tourism. The socio-economic arrangements during the colonial period thus resulted in that mainly one class, the
white settlers, started building tourism facilities, accommodations and infrastructure. As in other African countries the Kenyan tourism was introduced
for the Europeans by the Europeans and visitors to Kenya prior to the 1930s
were for the most part wealthy Europeans and Americans who had the time
and money necessary for this trip (Harrison, 2000). The settlers furthermore
pushed for the creation of National Parks and Reserves, primarily as a way of
protecting the remaining wildlife that had been severely diminished by sport
hunting. In 1946 the Nairobi National Park was established and since then the
Kenyan government has employed a policy of protecting wildlife and opening
up these areas for tourism according to Sindiga (2000). During the colonial
rule indigenous Africans rarely possessed the financial or cultural capital to
invest in tourism and many were therefore marginalized by the colonial government through its allocation of land - first to white settlers then later on to
animals (Harrison, 2000).
One of the positive features for the pre- independent Kenya was that at independence it had a limited but well developed tourism infrastructure in comparison with other African countries, which meant that Kenya did not have to
42
start from scratch. Moreover, visitors such as Theodore Roosevelt, Karin
Blixen and Ernest Hemmingway, well known throughout the world have all
spent time in Kenya and contributed to its popularity as a wildlife tourism
destination (UN EAS Web Page 2003).
6.2.2 Post independence: Kenya as a tourism destination becomes established
On the 27th of December 1963 Kenya became an independent state and in
1964 it was declared a republic. At independence the Kenyan government had
realised the potential for growth in the tourism sector and tourism earnings,
consequently they set out to upgrade the existing infrastructure and invest in
new facilities. As a consequence of the growing tourism sector, the government created the Ministry of Tourism, Forestry and Wildlife (UN EAS Web
Page 2003).
A tourism policy offer the necessary guidelines and operates as a reference
point to which future development ought to be evaluated and the success of
the policies will be dependent on several factors, as for instance adequate
funding and organisational structure. Right from the beginning of independence tourism as a sector was acknowledged as having growth potential and
this was officially recognised in the first post-independence National Development Plan of 1966. It was recognised by the government that the tourist
dollar had multiplier effects. Basically, if a given amount of money is injected
into a region, the income of that region increases not by the amount of cash
injection but by some multiplier of it.
The government of Kenya thus promoted tourism, as it was perceived to generate employment opportunities for its people, and bring in foreign exchange
earnings through the increased tourism revenues due to for instance licence
fees, VAT on tourism services and entry fees to game parks, all of which contributed to the government’s budget. Furthermore, the government noticed
that tourism could contribute to diversify regional economies and as a comparatively non-pollutant industry, which moreover could play a part in envi-
43
ronmental and cultural heritages being preserved and promoted, it was
deemed an important sector of the economy. Therefore, strong government
backing of the tourism sector and partnerships were initiated with both local
and foreign investors (UN EAS Web page 2003).
The government formulated Sessional paper No 8 in 1969 on the Development of Tourism in Kenya, in where growth targets were identified and the
partaking of the government were outlined. In the paper the type of tourism
preferred was defined and it was put forward that protection and development of the attractions, tourist facilities and infrastructure were of utmost importance. It furthermore pointed to the necessity of the training of manpower,
research and promotion and marketing of the product abroad (UN EAS Web
Page 2003 & WTO 2003:1).
Experiencing the “big five”, that is: the elephant, the rhino, the lion, the buffalo and the leopard has always been the major attraction for tourists to
Kenya, but parallel to this wildlife tourism beach tourism was developed in
the 1960s and 1970s at the coast of the Indian Ocean where the visitors usually came on prepaid packages. At independence the market segment targeted
for tourism promotion was specialised groups from the upper end of the tourist segment, but later on this changed to targeting the middle-income segment
by offering in particular beach tourism (UN EAS Web page 2003).
The development of beach tourism was the beginning of Kenya’s mass tourism, which resulted in the paradox of increasing numbers of tourist arrivals to
Kenya at the same time as falling foreign exchange earnings. The combination
of safari and beach tourism was to many tourists considered a good value for
money. To promote the desired tourism the physical infrastructure was expanded during the 1970s by large investments in airports and roads and the
government encouraged both private developers and foreign investors. The
investments made in infrastructure and superstructure by the government for
the expansion of tourism were believed to be beneficial to other sectors in the
44
economy apart from tourism as well as regional development (UN EAS Web
Page 2003).
However, the development of tourism was so rapid in the initial period of independence that the government was unable to successfully plan and control
it, consequently the infrastructure development did not keep up with the
needs from the tourism. As time went by, the government noted the overconcentration of tourists to certain areas and the increasing negative impacts it
resulted in. Some of the negative impacts apart from the environmental degradation and adverse affects on the animal ecology included dependence on
foreign tourists and cultural decay through for example prostitution and drug
abuse (WTO 2003:1). To rectify this problem the Kenyan government developed a National Tourism Master Plan in where it clearly stated the need to
diversify the tourism product spectrum to open up new venues. Another important feature in the plan was that these developments should furthermore
not advance at the expense of environmental matters (UN EAS Web page
2003). At the same time tourism was as well said to promote conservation of
natural, historical and cultural sites as well as biodiversity (WTO 2003:1).
As a way of countering the negative impacts and trends of tourism and wildlife management policies during the earlier phase of tourism development the
concept of sustainable wildlife utilisation was introduced. The older policies of
wildlife management tended to overlook the interests of the local communities and excluded them from protected areas, but the new policies embraced
the idea of community participation. This concept of sustainable wildlife utilisation asserts that economic sense and the utilisation of the tourism product
are the corner stones and that these resources should be managed on a rational and sustainable basis (UN EAS Web Page 2003). The notion of the necessity of distribution of benefits from tourism developers to local communities living in the vicinity of protected areas, resulted in the concept of community participation being incorporated into the national policy by the Kenyan government. The Kenyan government acknowledged that to optimise the
45
benefits from tourism a coordinated approach by all stakeholders would be
required (WTO 2003:1).
Another major turning point in Kenyan conservation and tourism took place
during the years of 1977 and 1978 as the government enforced a total ban on
sport hunting and on the trade in game trophies as a way of protecting the
diminishing wildlife. Apart from the external pressures upon the government
for these bans, this was done primarily to alter its peoples mindsets into alternative uses of wildlife, however it also led to a crippling effect on earnings and
employment in the country (Dieke, 2001). Noted negative impacts from the
development of tourism were degradation of ecosystems and harassing of
wildlife and the exclusion of people from decision-making and land previously
used by them, which resulted in poaching, and at times sabotage of the activity
itself (UN EAS Web Page 2003).
In the era of the Cold War Kenya was an ally with the West. Furthermore, the
historical connection to the UK, combined with its relatively well-developed
infrastructure led to numerous international visitors, but from 1990 and onward the tourist numbers have started to decline. The relative economic and
political stability Kenya had demonstrated since independence supported the
tourism industry, but with the break-up of the Soviet Union and the collapse
of communism in Eastern Europe the West’s attention was refocused and it
was no longer necessary to support corrupted African regimes in the name of
containing communism (WB 2003:2).
This resulted in changes in the requests for future involvement in Kenya’s development made by external organisations and foreign donors. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and other major donors suspended aid and demanded that the government would do something about
the repression of opposition and hold multiparty elections, which also occurred. Nevertheless, in both elections of 1992 and 1997 the opposition was
divided along tribal lines and could therefore not defeat the KANU (WB
2003:2). This political situation resulted in ethnic clashes, which broke out in
46
1991 prior to the election of 1992, and by 1997 the Likoni tribal clashes had
reached the popular destinations at the coast that had a detrimental effect
upon tourism in the region. An additional wave of ethnic clashes blew up
again in 1998, this time in the northern part of Kenya (Sindiga, 2000).
The decline in tourism arrivals was therefore partly the result of the witnessed
political violence and insecurities associated with Kenya’s democratisation
process. Other circumstances that have contributed to the declining tourist
arrivals are the bombing of the US embassy in 1998, the latest bombing of a
hotel and the attempt to shot down an airplane in November of 2002 and the
heightened competition from old and new ecotourism destinations around the
world.
6.2.3 Kenya in spring of 2003
In the latest election on the 27th of December 2002 56,1% of the Kenyan voters
went to decide the future governance of the country. The new president Emilio
Mwai Kibaki from NARC (National Alliance Rainbow Coalition) was elected
for a five-year term, by 62,2% of the votes hence beating the KANU representative Uhuru Kenyatta (Election World Web Page 2003). The new government
has demonstrated a strong commitment to revitalising the ailing tourism sector.
Furthermore, creating productive employment opportunities and managing the
current AIDS problem are some of the many challenges the new government
will have to face and as the tourism sector can play an important role as a driving force of economic growth the government might turn to tourism as a
source of income to battle these problems are evident.
In 2002 the Kenyan economy demonstrated modest economic growth, mainly
because of declining export volumes and values as a result of weak international
demand and lower international commodity prises. Since the Kibaki government came to power in December of 2002, new efforts to control corruption,
create jobs and stimulate the economy has been initiated and this has led to the
prospect of the World Bank’s reinstatement of an aid package of US$40-US$50
47
millions to Kenya - providing that the government implements measures to
deal with corruption (AfricaOnline Web Page 2003).
Although agriculture is the base of the country’s economy and the main exports
are tea and coffee; tourism is still the second largest contributor. Recently the
terrorist attack on September 11th 2001 affected the whole world and particularly in the Kenyan economy the demand for air travel and tourism has been
impacted (Kenya Gov 2003:2). Furthermore, some of the obstacles for future
development in Kenya according to Diecke (2001) are the poor quality of the
infrastructure, depressed investments and labour instability. Even so, tourism is
given a high priority in the Kenyan national development plans. Recently the
Ministry of Tourism and Information launched the Tourism Trust Fund (TTF)
to support destination marketing within Kenya and improve the business environment within the sector (allAfrica 2003:3). Other new measures promised by
the new government are the improvement of the major highways and the upgrading of roads to national parks and a review of the visa fees paid by the
tourist entering the country (allAfrica 2003:6).
New destinations are increasingly being drawn into the business of world
tourism and according to WTO is Africa among the regions showing aboveaverage growth. Being an industry that largely depends on the perception of
the potential tourists of the destination, one of the major impediments for
African countries promoting tourism is the predicament of the mental images
of the African region. Perception of safety and security is highly important
when choosing where to travel. Poverty, war, violence and famine are among
the common negative stereotyped images presented in the media. Even within
Kenya critical voices are being raised against the Kenyan media for poor and
negative publicity of the country’s core issues, which is believed to have resulted in foreign tourists choosing to go elsewhere (allAfrica 2003:4). Recurrent travel warnings in Europe after the incident in November of 2002 resulted for instance in that Kenya Airways in December of 2002 lost Ksh 143
million (US$ 1.85 million) (allAfrica 2003:5).
48
6.2.4 Current trends in Kenyan tourism and policy
So the negative impacts of tourism had been noted in earlier policy documents but how is it today? At the moment, the National Tourism Development Master Plan highlights ecotourism and alternative forms of tourism.
There are demands on using tourism resources in a sustainable way through
conservation and preservation and among other central themes of importance
brought forward are the distribution of benefits and the respect and protection of local customs and culture. The Kenyan government acknowledges that
mass tourism and the “big five” mentality have resulted in degradation of the
environment and harassment of wildlife and as a way of departing from this,
ecotourism is introduced as it is said to have a clear commitment to nature
and use social responsibility. Moreover, it is also promoted as it is said to be
import saving since ecotourists prefer to use local assets and expertise (UN
EAS Web page 2003).
The National Development Master Plan of 2000 and beyond has its focal
point on better distribution of tourists which according to the plan could be
arranged by improving the travel conditions to less visited areas, but also by
re-examining the laws of wildlife conservation. In this document the government pushes for maximum community participation, development and promotion of sustainable nature-based tourism and the need to integrate conservation and management of wildlife (UN EAS Web Page 2003). The government has admitted that the creation of protected areas upon land which formerly was communities’ property has resulted in resentfulness and furthermore an exclusion by the communities from the tourism sector. New policies
and programmes have been initiated to rectify this, and central to the government has been to identify the key stakeholders and new opportunities for
ecotourism developments (WTO 2003:1).
The current plan furthermore states the need for aggressive promotion and
marketing of tourism through both conventional avenues as well as fully using
the potential of information technology. Another important task for future
49
tourism development is to facilitate investment opportunities of especially
small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). The diversification of the product and improving the standard is still important for the future of tourism in
Kenya and the government recognises the significance of ensuring the availability of skilled manpower in the sector for its success. The plan furthermore
states that the tourism in Kenya primarily relies on biodiversity conservation
and therefore ensuring sustainable tourism developments is imperative as it is
the basis of ecotourism (WTO 2003:1).
As Wright (2001) among others point out, growth estimates for ecotourism in
the world (7-30%) can differ significantly between, and even within, stakeholders, destinations and regions. Many estimates are moreover probably too
liberal, but it is clear that the growth rate of ecotourism and the more broad
based nature tourism are bigger than conventional tourism. The extent of the
ecotourism industry in Kenya is hard to account for as definitional and motivational issues clutter the calculations in where ecotourism often is clustered
together with nature tourism. As in many other less developed countries there
are no reliable tourism statistics due to the variations in collection method,
processing of data and definitions (Dieke, 2001).
Since figures on particularly ecotourism are scarce, general tourism statistics
can give an insight as to the flows and trends that the Kenyan tourism is currently demonstrating. Seen in a positive way the inbound tourists numbers
rose during the period of 1990 to 1999 from 814 000 to 943 000 (WDI 2001).
Nevertheless the international tourism receipts dropped over the same time
period, disagreements as to how big of a decline is clearly identifiable. Estimates for this period range from a drop from the 1990-level of US$ 443 millions to US$ 304 according to WTO (WTO 2003:2) and 256 millions by the
World Bank (WDI 2001).
In its Tourism 2020 Vision WTO has forecasted the development of tourism
up to the year of 2020 and in it Europe, East Asia and the Pacific and Americas will be the top three receiving regions. Nonetheless, Africa is estimated to
50
note growth rates over 5 percent per year which is above the world average of
4,1 per cent (WTO 2003:3).
Even so, the tourist industry has as mentioned earlier taken a downturn and
this can furthermore be observed in Kenya’s market share in the region,
which between 1995 and 1999 declined from 4,5% to 3,6% and thus only
demonstrated an average annual growth of 1,3%. In the same period other
African countries such as Tanzania showed an average growth rate at 18,6%
and Zambia a staggering 29,3% (WTO 2003:4).
Table 2. International Tourist Arrivals
(1000s)
Growth rate (%) Market Share (%)
2000
2001
00/99 01/00
2000
2001
AFRICA
27223
28405
3.7
4.3
100,0
100,0
South Africa
6001
5908
-0.4
-1.5
22,0
20,8
Tunisia
5057
5387
4.7
6.5
18,6
19,0
Morocco
4113
4223
7.8
2.7
15,1
14,9
Zimbabwe
1866
-11.1
6,9
Botswana
995
18.0
3,7
Kenya
899
841
4.3
-6.5
3,3
3,0
Algeria
866
901
15.7
4.1
3,2
3,2
Nigeria
813
955
4.8
17.5
3,0
3,4
Source: WTO, Tourism Highlights 2002, p 4.
As can be seen in table 2, the sub region within Africa with the highest share
of traffic (37%) and revenue (34%) in 2000 was the northern part of Africa.
Nevertheless, in 2000 South Africa was the most favoured destination of all
the African countries with 22% of the total traffic, while Kenya was positioned on the sixth place with only 3,3% of the total traffic to Africa. The following year Kenya’s market share had further decreased and was now merely
3,0%. However, difference in figures are apparent and according to Kenyan
government figures, in 2001 the visitors arriving in Kenya had fallen from the
previous years by almost 43 000 to 993 600 (Kenya Gov 2003:1).
Table 3 demonstrates the current figures for the top tourism receivers in the
African region. As can be seen, Kenya has increased its international tourism
51
receipts between 2000 and 2001 even though it demonstrated a fall in the international tourism arrivals during these same years.
Table 3. International Tourism Receipts
AFRICA
South Africa
Tunisia
Morocco
Zimbabwe
Botswana
Kenya
Algeria
Nigeria
(US$ million)
Growth rate (%) Market share (%)
2000
2001
00/99 01/00
2000
2001
10793
11746
2,7
8,8
100
100
2707
2,7
25,1
1496
4605
-4,1
7,3
13,9
13,7
2040
2460
8,5
20,6
18,9
20,9
125
-38,1
1,2
313
33,8
2,9
276
308
-9,2
11,6
2,6
2,6
102
27,5
0,9
148
156
2,1
5,4
1,4
1,3
Source: WTO, Tourism Highlights 2002, p 4.
According to Kenyan government figures, the hotel bed nights occupied has
since 1997 fallen from 4 910 300 to 3 354 900 in 2001, a drop of almost 32%.
However, some attractions have not demonstrated the same decline in numbers as the tourism arrivals to Kenya as a whole. Kenya’s major attraction is,
as mentioned earlier, its game and in 2002 visitors to parks remained more or
less unchanged compared to the previous year. Furthermore, the employment
in the sector of Trade, Restaurant and Hotels have risen from 148 200 in 1997
to 156 900 in 2001(Kenya Gov 2003:1).
Even though the Kenyan government in recent years has made an effort to
shift focus from high volume low yield tourism to tourism that contributes to
environmental conservation (UN EAS Web Page 2003), the largest share of
occupied bed nights in 1997 had its concentration at the coast and beach tourism. Kenya’s tourism revenues stem mainly from the costal areas in where 3/5
of the revenue is generated. Even so, the tourism at the coast has witnessed a
sharp decline as a result of the political uncertainty and heavy taxation (allAfrica 2003:1 & allAfrica 2003:2).
The second largest concentration of occupied bed nights in 1997 was Nairobi,
which both attracted tourists as a business centre close to wildlife viewing and
52
as a result of being the major East African air transportation hub. This spatial
distribution pattern of visitors to Kenya is further skewed towards a small
number of cores of protected areas, in part due to their proximity to international gateways such as Nairobi. Lodges are spread throughout the country,
but they are generally situated near the various protected wildlife areas. Of the
National Parks and Reserves in Kenya there are signs of concentration of visitors to 7 main parks, namely Nairobi, Ambroseli, Tsavo West, Tsavo East and
Lake Nakuru National Parks and Maasai Mara National Reserve and the Nairobi Animal Orphanage (Sindiga, 2000) (For map of public protected areas in
Kenya consult appendix 1).
As a result of the proximity to Europe, this market is the dominant source of
tourists to Kenya, especially Germany and the UK that generates the largest
amount of tourists, and to a lesser extent the US. In 1998 the biggest generating market was Europe followed by regional countries such as Tanzania and
Uganda (Dieke, 2001). According to Sindiga (2000) among other commentators, Kenya needs to diversify its market as a protection against dependence
on too narrow a market. The decline in tourist numbers is not just a result of
external factors such as travel warnings in the main market sources and many
of the explanations can be found on the internal plane, for instance the degradation of the infrastructure, the biodiversity deterioration and the lack of personal security. Some of the challenges for tourism development in recent
years have therefore been the lack of diversification of the source markets
hence relying heavily on the traditional markets, insufficient funding and intensifying competition by rival destinations in the region and outside (Dieke,
2001). Another downfall for the future of all types of tourism is the corruption that imbeds the whole Kenyan society; the tourism sector is no exception. Recently the Kenya Tourism Development Corporation (KTDC), a government parastatal that manages tourist facilities discovered that KTDC funds
had inexplicably disappeared (allAfrica 2003:7 & allAfrica 2003:8).
As a consequence of the downturn in international tourists arrivals since the
early 1990s measures had to be taken to resolve this matter. Some of the posi-
53
tive measures for tourism in later years have thus been the liberalisation of
foreign exchange regimes, the withdrawal of government interest in the sector
and product diversification. These positive developments were, however offset by unfavourable public image in the international media marking Kenya as
an unsafe and insecure destination. The solution to this particular problem has
been aggressive marketing and promotion of Kenya abroad, the formation of
Kenya Tourist Board and the completion of a Tourism Master Plan (Dieke,
2001).
6.2.5 Outlook for future Kenyan tourism?
The future of Kenya as a reputable ecotourism destination is not unwavering.
There is stiff competition from up-and-coming tourist destinations with similar packages and today a wide range of destinations is available to prospective
tourists. South Africa is, as Kenya, well established as a tourist destination and
its diverse wildlife sanctuaries are one of the major factors why it has high potential for further expansion of ecotourism. In contrast to Kenya, the main
source market for South Africa is its neighbourhooding countries, in where
60% of the arrivals came in 1998 (Dieke, 2002, p.95).
The former tourist rival of Kenya Tanzania still has the potential to grow as
an ecotourism destination, given that its wildlife and environmental resources
are similar to Kenya. Tanzania has in fact during the last few years demonstrated a rejuvenation of the northern tourist circuit. Private tourism enterprises have been actively supported by the Tanzanian government and since
the mid-1990s the tourist arrivals and receipts have demonstrated a rapid
growth. Another country that in the future might grow as an ecotourism destination is Zambia. Currently the country’s potential is not fully developed
mainly due to the poor quality of the tourism infrastructure and services
(Dieke, 2001). As can be seen in table 3, Zimbabwe has shown a dramatic decrease in tourist arrivals and receipts due to the political turmoil at present. As
perception of security and quality of services are crucial to a country’s future
development as a tourism destination, Zimbabwe is facing a bleak future.
Dieke (2001) believes that cooperation between ecotourism destination coun-
54
tries in Africa should be encouraged, as they then will be able to benefit from
economies of scale.
6.3 Ecotourism/tourism venues
The activity of any one type of nature-based tourism is dependent on its natural resources and ecotourism especially so since it is the base of the activity
itself. Even though the activity of ecotourism could very well be situated in
non-protected areas, formally protected areas constitute the most central
venue for ecotourism activities.
Tourists choosing to visit countries with extensive flora and fauna usually do
so primarily because of the quality of the protected area system in hand and
not because of a particular unit. The savannahs of Kenya offer an ideal potential ecotourism venue and parks within this area are favoured mainly because
of the concentration and predictability of wildlife and the accessibility of these
areas from urban centres. Several films and magazines have furthermore given
the savannah a powerful public profile in the major ecotourism markets.
Opportunity to view wildlife was, according to a study made by the Risk and
Policy Analysts Ltd in 1996 the main attraction for 80% of inbound visitors
(Weaver, 2001b, p.260), but the relationship between protected areas and
tourism are at times ambivalent and quite a few people are not sure about the
actual comparability between tourism and environmental preservation. It has
for instance been demonstrated that some parks have been dependent on the
activity that may very well threaten the park. This readiness to view wildlife
combined with lack of appropriate management has caused landscape degradation, traffic congestion and harassment of wildlife by safari vehicles in Ambroseli National Park (Weaver, 2001b).
Distortion of the distribution of visitors to certain protected areas might lead
to the carrying capacity of these areas being transgressed while other areas
may not be living up to their full potential and a way of shielding the pro-
55
tected areas against overuse is by adopting a quota or introducing an escalating user fee. A danger with these instruments is that they might lead to a public good not being perceived as a public good per se (Lawton, 2001). The
Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) has employed a classification strategy in where
the visitor traffic within the parks and reserves are regulated through a differentiation of park entry rates based on their popularity among tourists. This
combined with park wardens are supposed to ensure that the activities within
the parks do not threaten the biodiversity in them (Mark Yobesia, personal
communication).
For sustaining the ecotourism product and the maintenance of biodiversity,
the spatial patterns of cluster, corridors and buffer zones are thought to be the
best strategies. By using clusters the wildlife have a greater range of movement
and buffer zones might offer accommodations and other services (Lawton,
2001). In Kenya the network of protected areas is widely distributed throughout the country and as a result occupying a diversity of ecological conditions.
The Mara-Serengeti Ecosystem in Kenya and Tanzania are connected allowing
migration of wildlife and the Amboseli National Park and Nairobi National
Park that have vibrant migratory corridors (Mark Yobesia, personal communication).
The distinction between parks and reserves is central as it clarifies the issue of
ownership, management and funding. It also defines the relationship between
the local communities and the protected areas and the distribution of benefits
accrued from them. National parks and Marine parks are situated on land
owned by the state that is managed and funded by the central government
exclusively for the preservation of flora and fauna, but may also be used for
educational, recreational and tourism purposes. National Reserves on the
other hand are protected areas declared by the government with the consent
of local authorities and only partially funded by the central government and in
these certain land uses such as grazing cattle are allowed (Sindiga, 2000). This
distinction is especially fascinating considering that a number of conflicts has
arisen between the communities living in the vicinity of these protected areas
56
and the management of them, but also between the communities and the
wildlife itself.
The Kenyan government states that it is said to have some excellent National
Parks and Reserves and approximately 10% of the land has been set aside for
conservation of wildlife and biodiversity (Akama, 1996). Today, KWS is mandated to manage a network of over 60 protected areas and zoning has been
employed in where core zones protect wilderness and redirect mass tourism
away while central zones have been set aside for the sole purpose of wildlife
viewing. These policies have nonetheless led to conflicts with the indigenous
people in the enforcement of them (Hawkins & Lamoureux, 2001). Furthermore, KWS has acknowledged that the continuing population growth coupled
with development requirements are going to make it impossible for Kenya to
conserve all the wildlife it has today. Therefore, KWS is addressing the issue
of identifying which areas that can be properly targeted through a network of
minimum conservation areas (MCAs) (ACC 2003:6)
If it for whatsoever reason exists an assumption that the public sector does
not have the financial and/or managerial resources to effectively provide a
venue for biodiversity conservation and ecotourism, private sector involvement might become considered necessary. Or it might be that, as in Kenya,
considerable parts of the wildlife are found outside of the formally protected
areas. The relationship between conservation of biodiversity and tourism and
private reserves are generally either of three things: the conservation is used as
a way of promoting tourism in the area, the conservation is the main target
and tourism is a way of supporting it or reserves might have a goal of combining profit with conservation (Langholz & Brandon, 2001). The relationship
between conservation and tourism in Kenya’s National Parks and Reserves
are of the second type and the example in this paper of the Eselenkei Group
Ranch and Basecamp Masaai Mara are of the third kind. There is no comprehensive list over how many private reserves there are in Kenya, but the more
well known are in the Laikipia area to the northwest of Mount Kenya. Lewa
Wildlife Conservancy, Borana, Colchechio are maybe the most well known
57
and are private game reserves that have the emphasis on participation with the
local communities (AH Web Page 2003).
Apart from reserves that are owned by a single family or an individual, private
reserves may also include lands that are owned by official ENGOs and other
non-governmental groups such as communities or indigenous groups. These
reserves can be situated on land that have been bought or leased by ENGOs
with the aim of conserving the biodiversity in the area. Reserves might also be
established by local community members that has set aside a part of their own
private land for the construction of an area that are managed in a common
manner. The third option is similar to the second and consists of land that is
owned, leased or managed by a community with the objective of tourism. All
these options tend to be supported by national and international conservation
organisations (Langholz & Brandon, 2001).
The biggest challenge for private reserves is the potential conflict of interest
between profit and protection. There might very well exist business people
that consider this a financial investment rather than a conservation measure
and may perhaps therefore cut down expenses in the implementation and operation, or overbuild facilities. One of the positive benefits of private reserves
in the vicinity of public parks or reserves is the extension of the ecosystem
and the possible enhancement of tourism in the area. On the other hand, private reserves could also drain benefits from the public parks, and since they
might not be under official government regulation or recognition private reserves may at times actually degrade the environment (Langholz & Brandon,
2001).
6.4 Stakeholders involved in the ecotourism development in Kenya
There are numerous stakeholders in the ecotourism business and every one of
them has a different aim for implementing projects. ENGOs and NGOs
might have the goal of conserving the biodiversity and/or alleviating poverty
for rural societies while some private businesses might just want to make a
58
profit. The ecological thoughtfulness may not be in the first room at all times
and economical gains may very well over cloud the genuine purpose of the
ecotourism activity. Sustainable tourism, such as ecotourism, has furthermore
been acknowledged by various organisations and donor agencies as a development strategy. Still, all stakeholders are to some extent constrained - the
government by for instance lack of managerial capacities and the private sector and the NGOs and ENGOs by lack of financial capital or support.
As a main stakeholder the Kenyan government are working towards maximum participation through partnerships between itself and the private sector.
The Ministry of Tourism and Information has here a leading role as it formulates and implements policies taken, while it at the same time attempts to coordinate planning, development, promotion and marketing of tourism abroad.
The government furthermore oversees the operations of state corporations
such as the Kenya Tourist Board, the Kenya Wildlife Service and the Kenya
Utalii College, all of which are important for the development of tourism in
Kenya (UN EAS Web Page 2003).
Closely working with the government is the state corporation of the Kenya
Wildlife Service (KWS) who is the primary custodian of the country’s flora
and fauna and therefore responsible for the biodiversity management, both
inside and outside the formally protected areas. KWS was created in 1989 following the failure of the then Wildlife Conservation and Management Department to manage National Parks and curb the poaching (WTO 2003:1).
Through its programmes “Winning space for Wildlife” and later on CORE
(Conservation of Resources through Enterprise) it tries to enhance conservation and bring back benefits of conservation to host communities. KWS
measures involve sensitisation and mobilisation through workshops, study
tours and training as well as educating and employing capacity building at the
relevant institutions and stakeholders (UN EAS 2003:1). In 1992 its Community Conservation Department was launched as a way of incorporating communities into the conservation scheme and by allocating some of the resources to the touched communities the conflicts between humans and wild-
59
life are minimised (KWS Web Page 2003). One of the major challenges for
future sustainable management for KWS is the lack of reinvestment in protected areas of revenues raised in these. In 1995 only 3 % of the total revenues
raised in protected areas were directed back to KWS (Hammit and Symmonds, 2001, p.330).
Non- Governmental Organisations (NGOs) play an important part in the
development of conservation and tourism in Kenya as many of the private
reserves (generally based upon Group Ranches) are wholly or partially funded
by various NGOs. These NGOs might, as mentioned earlier, have their concern in areas such as poverty alleviation for rural societies (general NGOs) or
have conservation of biodiversity as its main objective (ENGOs). Many conservation groups are therefore to a greater extent lending their support to
practical projects that give a greater degree of power and profit to the communities that have to bear the costs of hosting wildlife on their land. Some
NGOs and ENGOs strive to promote ecotourism through public education
in regards to conservation, by initiating developmental studies, holding workshops and seminars and publishing tourist information literature, while others
as well have set out to develop programmes linking conservation with socioeconomic development (UN EAS Web Page 2003).
Two of the biggest ENGOs involved in the funding and implementation of
ecotourism projects in Kenya are African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) and
African Conservation Centre (ACC).
African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) is a 40-year-old organisation whose
mission is to present solutions for the long-term cohabitation between animals and people living in the vicinity of each other. Through their African
Heartland Program that started in 1998 it has in Kenya tried to implement
projects that can contribute to the local communities livelihood (AWF
2003:1). Under its Samburu Heartland Project AWF has assisted a private
ranch and the neighbouring local communities in establishing an ecotourism
lodge called the Koija Starbed camp. The camp was built on land contributed
60
by the local communities and it is now a wildlife reserve. Among the reported
positive impacts of the project are the funds that have been raised towards
education and healthcare while the project at the same time has been able to
protect the traditional values and ways of the communities (AWF 2003:2).
Based in Nairobi the African Conservation Centre (ACC) is a regionally focused conservation organisation that is committed to implementing conservation through communities. It believes that the basic socio-economic factors of
the surrounding communities are important as it affects biodiversity and only
by developing community participation the conservation aim may be reached
(ACC 2003:1). Through its REED program (Resource Economics and Enterprise Development) ACC seeks to form partnerships with communities to
develop nature-based enterprises and cultivate entrepreneurial skills, this by
using economic tools in nature areas that are deemed worth conserving (ACC
2003:2). Furthermore, its Community Conservation Program strives to develop managerial skills and bring back economic benefits to communities living in the vicinity of wildlife (ACC 2003:3). Although ACC acknowledges
ecotourism as a potentially positive activity it has also recognised that indigenous communities in many cases have been trampled in the name of tourism
development and biodiversity conservation (ACC 2003:4).
These two ENGOs are thus assisting rural communities in finding ways of
alternative land and wildlife utilisations. This is done by for instance selecting
locals to be trained by KWS as scouts and by establishing agreements between
private businesses such as hoteliers and tour operators and communities to
provide management and marketing (Ecotourism Observer 2003:1).
Another stakeholder in Kenya is the Ecotourism Society of Kenya (ESOK).
The society was formed in 1996 and its main mission is to bring together the
business of tourism, conservation and communities through promotion of
responsible and sustainable tourism. The promotion and improvement of the
image of Kenyan ecotourism is one of their key tasks (ESOK 2003:1) and
ESOK believes an important step for upholding the integrity of Kenyan ecotourism in the future is the establishment of an ecorating system, which in
61
2003 has been launched. It furthermore works as a platform for resolving
conflicts relevant to conservation and the operation of tourism industry (UN
EAS Web Page 2003). Working to mobilise support and develop partnerships,
it strongly believes that without community involvement the biodiversity conservation will not succeed (ESOK 2003:2) and ESOK expects to implement a
number of community-based ecotourism projects with the help and funding
of United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Kenyan government. According to ESOK, one of the main problems with the ecotourism
in Kenya today is that there is a missing effective link between the projects
and the private sector and as a way of reaching out to potential markets
ESOK coordinates this (ESOK 2003:3).
Apart from the public protected areas of National Parks and Reserves various
Individual and Group Wildlife Sanctuaries constitute another of the stakeholders in Kenyan ecotourism, given that not all ecotourism activities are situated in public protected areas. Within these private reserves local communities
might implement and manage the ecotourism project or an outsider such as a
tour operator or an NGO/ENGO might do it.
A number of private businesses offering ecotourism activities have emerged
during recent years in Kenya and one of the strong stakeholders in the Kenyan tourism is therefore the Kenya Association of Tour Operators
(KATO), which consists of the 200 leading and most experienced tour operators in Kenya. The sheer number of members makes it a powerful partner in
negotiations and it works closely with Ministry of Tourism and other stakeholders. To ensure that KATO’s members are considered reputable as they
are governed by a code of conduct (UN EAS Web Page 2003).
62
7. FIELD STUDY
Arriving in Kenya a number of interviews with several of the stakeholders had
been set up, but the writer of this paper was also fortunate enough to be referred to additional stakeholders at site in Kenya. During the field study the
different stakeholders interviewed gave the writer many insights and greater
understanding into the issue of Kenyan ecotourism and the future of it.
7.1 Kenyan tourism today
Many of the stakeholders interviewed, but not all, think that there truly is a
need for a change from the current type of ‘safari tourism’ to ecotourism and
many of them have experienced how mass tourism has had a negative impact
on the Kenyan people and environment. Noted negative impacts from the
development of tourism were among other things degradation of ecosystems,
harassment of wildlife and the exclusion of local people from decision-making
and land, resulting in poaching and at times sabotage of the activity itself. Acknowledges among the interviewed stakeholders that tourism is a feeble market but that it still is very important to the Kenyan economy were common
and optimism about the future of Kenyan tourism were evident. The new
government and the new ministers for environment and tourism are by the
stakeholders regarded to be knowledgeable, supportive and truly interested in
the issues they are representing and furthermore understanding of the importance of conserving the natural resources including wildlife. The argument
that at this time mass tourism is a necessity for Kenya in order to bring in foreign exchange earnings are put forward several times. James Ndung’u Program Developer at ACC voices this opinion and believes that when the Kenyan economy will do better, and change will come about within 4-5 years, an
adjustment must be made - but for now Kenya must rely on mass tourism.
At the spring of 2003 there was no Tourism Master Plan, only occasional papers. This does not give clear directions for the parties involved and there is a
real need to connect all the different parts of planning together to achieve cer-
63
tain goals. In the current review of the Tourism Master Plan and the Wildlife
Act many of the stakeholders, like East African Wildlife Society (EAWS), are
brought in on an advisory role and more so since the change of government.
Robert Muhuhu at the conservation organisation EAWS claims that there is a
call for a full review of the current Wildlife Aact as no consumptive use of
wildlife are allowed contrary to the situation in South Africa. He believes that
there is a need to look into hunting scenarios as a way to raise money to protect wildlife. Munira Anyonge, the Projects Co-ordinator at KWS Community
Wildlife Service, also believes that the Wildlife Act requires to be updated but
mainly in order to close the loopholes that have led to bad practices.
On tourism, Muhuhu claims that the problems of today are a result of the lack
of initial planning after independence and foreign ownership of the Kenyan
tourism resources. Jake Greives- Cook in contrast puts forward an opposing
view. As the chairman of Kenya Tourism Federation he has a vast insight into
the tourism sector’s functioning and claims that there is no real leakage in the
Kenyan economy. This he claims is because all the sectors in the economy are
directly or indirectly connected to the tourism sector and important sectors
such as the construction industry and the food industry are based on materials
and products mainly from within Kenya. Furthermore, most of the hotels in
Kenya are in fact not foreign owned.
On the topic of regional cooperation and competition Kristofer Zachrisson,
Managing Director of Basecamp Travel and Basecamp Masaii Mara, believes
that cooperation between Tanzania and Kenya would promote tourism to the
region as a whole but since Kenya would benefit more of the two countries
Tanzania is more reluctant to develop the relationship. He obtains support
from Grieves- Cook who acknowledges that Tanzania and Kenya are not on
best terms and that the relationship is tainted by mistrust and “hostility”. Another potential platform for regional cooperation may arrive with the implementation of the East African Co-operation (EAC), a future economic integration built on a common market not much unlike the EU. David Onyango
at Kenya Association of Tour Operators (KATO) wishes that the implemen-
64
tation of EAC will be imminent and perceives an excellent marketing potential
of East Africa.
As previously mentioned, the future of Kenya as a reputable ecotourism destination is not unwavering. There is stiff competition from up-and-coming
tourist destinations with similar packages and today a wide range of destinations is available to prospective tourists. On the issue of the deepening competition from for instance South Africa, Anyonge recognises that it has
heightened and that competition will be fierce in the future. However, she
also claims that it is important to understand that Kenya cannot be compared
to South Africa as South African National Parks obtains funds from the South
African government, while KWS does not (hence the higher gate fees in
Kenya). Furthermore, the spatial distribution pattern of visitors to Kenya is
currently skewed towards a small number of cores of protected areas and according to Anyonge only five National Parks in Kenya bring in the bulk of
money from tourists, which in its turn is used to cover the cost of all National
Parks including security outside as well as inside the protected areas. Angyonge therefore considers the current level of entrance prices is acceptable.
7.2 Managing and maintaining the biodiversity
It has earlier been said that ecotourism might help to create an increasing interest in conservation, which in time may develop into a fuller conservation
land caretaker ethic. This idea is somewhat supported and there have been
occasions where KWS have had to shoot animals to protect the human safety,
but lately the communities are more and more siding with the animals says
KWS Tourism Development Manager Salome Gachago.
One of the biggest problems today, according to Muhuhu, is the high human
density in certain areas and the subsequent human encroachment upon National Parks resulting in for instance the cutting down of trees and poaching.
This has led to such drastic actions as in Abedare National Park where an
electrical fence has been installed. Furthermore, especially in western Kenya
65
the decreasing genetic pool of the wild animals have developed into an acute
situation as a result of the killing of the animals outside National Parks as they
are not protected through migratory corridors. This problem is also put forward by Anyonge. This is where a greater understanding of the benefits of
wildlife must be dispersed and where the connection between wildlife management and successful protection of protected areas are closely interlinked
with socio-economic realities of the individuals that are living in the surrounding areas.
Time and time again, the issue of mismanagement of protected areas and Masaii Mara National Reserve arises. Masaii Mara is the most visited protected
area in Kenya and many of the lodges are situated just outside the boarder of
the National Reserve. Unfortunately, mismanagement by the local council in
Narok who is in charge of Masaii Mara is apparent and a great deal of the
money received through gate fees disappears into the pockets of private persons. Furthermore, Zachrisson of Basecamp Travel states that the rules set are
not followed as in a National Park and by the usage of “bribes” a tour operator is pretty much allowed to do as it likes. Moreover, the Park Rangers that
KWS have stationed here had in the late spring of 2003 not been paid in three
months, the roads are not maintained and environmental degradation is evident. Mary Mwangi, the Enterprise Officer of the Samburu Heartland at AWF
in addition perceived a potential future threat to Masai Mara in the small land
plots owned by different families which might lead to an exacerbation of the
current over establishment of lodges.
Negative impacts and trends of tourism and wildlife management policies during the earlier phase of tourism development was recognised by the government and the concept of sustainable wildlife utilisation was introduced to
counter it. As mentioned earlier, it was said that the older policies of wildlife
management tended to overlook the interests of the local communities and
exclude them from protected areas and that these new policies embraced the
idea of community participation. But even though cooperation between the
local communities around the National Parks and National Reserves has to a
66
large extent been improved, there are still instances of animal-human conflicts
in villages adjacent to the protected areas, according to Gachago. Anyonge
acknowledges that there still is a problem with a great deal of snaring and an
increasing reduction of trees in and around National Parks and National Reserves. In managing and maintaining the Kenya’s biodiversity there is moreover the issue of governing the safari companies’ activity in and around National Parks in where KWS can either ban safari companies not complying to
the Codes of Conduct or impose hefty fines. Tour operators can in addition
be suspended from KATO and it regularly sends the list to the other stakeholders within the tourism sector. This cooperation between KWS and
KATO in regards to governing the activities of the tour operators in protected
areas was considered important.
7.3 Markets and marketing
As previously mentioned is the European market the dominant source of
tourists to Kenya, and Germany and the UK in particular generate the largest
amount of tourists, but also to a lesser extent the US and this situation correspond to the indications given in the interviews for both the public and the
private business sphere. The major markets for KWS are the US, Europe,
Canada and Middle East and the biggest markets for Porini Ecotourism are
the US and the UK. This reliance upon the traditional markets presented
problems following the American terror alert, the subsequent travel warnings
and the cancelled BA- flights in May of 2003. Grieves- Cook points to the fact
that an ecotourism venture is first and foremost a business and this were evident during the situation Kenya was in in where the cancellations of trips have
resulted in loss of money coming in while expenses according to the lease still
were going out.
Time and time again, the concern of Kenya not being sufficiently marketed
both outside and within the country was put forward in the interviews.
Anyonge indicated that the government has not promoted the domestic tourism enough; subsequently it cannot be used as a fallback when international
67
tourism diminishes. Regrettably there is no specific funding for marketing
within KWS. Greives –-Cook also stressed the urgent and real need for promotion of Kenya as a tourist destination abroad. On the other hand Muhuhu
suggested that a different problem for the future is connected to the Kenyan
government’s desire to raise the arrivals to two million tourists by the year
2005. He question where they all are supposed to go as it already in certain
areas are the issue of overcrowding and congestion.
In the marketing of the ecotourism projects the problem of connecting to the
markets lies on two levels. On the national level, ESOK believes that the
missing effective link between the ecotourism projects and the private sector
is a problem. In fact, the marketing link between different ecotourism projects
are quite weak in most cases, although there have been improvements done in
this area by the different organisations. ESOK for instance tries to market the
different projects by connecting the communities to tour operators. ACC on
the other hand is not involved in the marketing of the projects, but in the interview with ACC Program Developer James Ndung’u a suggestion was put
forward of the establishment of a clearinghouse for all ecotourism ventures in
Kenya which should serve as a gathering point for information for tourists.
This idea of collecting the different region’s projects in one place for marketing purposes or to propose a route between the different projects was supported by Mwangi at AWF. Unfortunately there is no funding for such a venture at this moment.
On the international level there are perhaps no more than five big tour operators that in 2003 are marketing Kenya abroad and thus there is a monopoly
that must be broken as Ndung’u at ACC put it. Furthermore, on the national
level Ndung’u was also concerned that the communities in many cases must
go through tour operators, which are predominately white people that might
capture most of the revenues from the tourists.
7.4 Kenyan ecotourism and its stakeholders
68
As mentioned earlier in this paper the issue of the somewhat diffuse definitions of ecotourism has promoted a wide range of ideas of what ecotourism is
or should be. Therefore, it has been necessary for all the stakeholders to, in
their own words, define what they mean by it. This predicament with conceptualising ecotourism has in many instances led to problems in the process of
educating both the donor society and the local communities in what ecotourism strives to be.
In the business of Kenyan ecotourism there are several stakeholders, all with
rather different purposes for implementing the projects and ways to go about
it. A number of Non- Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and conservation
organisations (ENGOs) are presently involved in the Kenyan ecotourism. The
latter’s means are to utilise ecotourism as a way to reach their first and foremost goal which is conserving the biodiversity, but they might also have their
concern in areas such as poverty alleviation for rural societies. Some, like ACC
and AWF, serves as a coordinating body between all stakeholders and help
communities to compose proposals to various funding bodies. Even EAWS is
involved in the Kenyan ecotourism, though to a lesser extent. As stated earlier, the support for practical projects in where the local communities receives
benefits in return for hosting wildlife are to a greater extent being employed.
All the ENGOs and KWS survey the concerned areas to find threats to wildlife and biodiversity and gather information surrounding the proposed projects and analyse it. Furthermore, they offer at the implementation stage their
advisory capacity to the communities involved and assist the local communities in legal matters. The main goal of the projects for these stakeholders is
that the communities eventually should take over the enterprise and have the
required knowledge of how to run it.
As a ‘protection’ against internal conflicts between individuals within a community most of the stakeholders work with whole communities - never individuals - and even though the project areas themselves might have a longer
lifespan, the projects supported are usually only 2-3 years long. Appearing in
69
several interviews was the issue of the desired size of the conservation area in
connection with the ecotourism project. Both Grieves- Cook and Mwangi at
AWF, asserted that the best areas for potential projects are Group Ranches
and bigger communities since the conservation area in those cases will contain
more land and thus not be solely contingent on one family’s decisions.
Grieves- Cook furthermore stated that he was only interested in areas with
semi arid land since more productive types of land should be used for other
purposes.
One of the corner stones in for instance ACC’s and AWF’s approach is capacity building that they point out is exceptionally important within the communities. In their work at AWF, Mwangi explained that they are doing a lot of
sensitation and the capacity building itself takes a long time, hence both the
Samburu Heartland and Kilimanjaro Heartland project areas have a lifespan
over 15 years. Other stakeholders such as ESOK are as well concerned with
ecotourism and its management and ESOK’s main work revolves around
promoting sustainable tourism practices but they as well develop projects and
attempts to negotiate a fair deal for local communities. Many in the tourism
sector perceived the newly initiated ecorating system for accommodations in
Kenya as a good initiative.
The Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) is another one of the major stakeholders
in Kenyan ecotourism simply for the reason that it is the guardian of all Kenyan wildlife, both within the protected areas and outside of them. As with
ACC and AWF, KWS identifies the areas in where a conservation project or
any other non-consumptive activity may benefit both the conservation aim
and the local community. The community has the final decision and it is
therefore imperative that there is more than one alternative.
Apart from the public protected areas of national parks and national reserves
various individual and group wildlife sanctuaries constitute another of the
stakeholders in Kenyan ecotourism, given that not all ecotourism activities are
situated within public protected areas. Within these private reserves local
70
communities might implement and manage the ecotourism projects or an outsider such as a tour operator or an NGO/ENGO might do it.
7.5 The ecotourism projects
The relationship between conservation of biodiversity and tourism and public
or private protected areas are as stated earlier either of three things: the conservation is used as a way of promoting tourism in the area, the conservation
is the main target and tourism is a way of supporting it or the protected areas
might have a goal of combining profit with conservation. The relationship
between conservation and tourism in some of the projects KWS are supporting are of the first kind while the relationship in Kenya’s National Parks and
Reserves are of the second kind. The examples in this paper of the Eselenkei
Group Ranch and Basecamp Masai Mara are of the third kind.
In order to maximise the ecotourism projects ability to succeed it is preferred
that they are situated within already recognized tourism areas or close to them,
which the interviewed stakeholders projects are. Nevertheless, there are a
number of differences between the projects supported by the ENGOs and
KWS on one side and the private businesses on the other. Moreover, not
much was mentioned among the stakeholders of what kind of tourists was
targeted and how it was done. Usually it was said that the targeted tourist for
the projects are those tourists that does little or no damage to the environment. Ndung’u at ACC even admitted that backpackers were not desired since
they have little money to contribute to the economy and he furthermore acknowledged that the best thing about ecotourism was the high yield and the
low volume and consequently low impact. On the question of future ecotourism within KWS, Gachago informed me “a 55 year old tourist wants comfort”, which then must be their main marketing target.
7.5.1 ENGOs and KWS
71
By supporting communities, which by and large are farmers or have cattle,
organisations such as ACC, AWF and EAWS tries to establish migratory corridors for the wildlife between the different public protected areas. However,
Muhuhu at EAWS recognises the risk of overcrowding and according to him
is the Ambroseli area at this moment especially overcrowded with lodges.
The ENGOs and KWS’s projects referred to in the interviews were not solely
pure ecotourism projects such as the building of ecotourism lodges or permanent tented camps. Many of them were like the ESOK’s projects of restorations of old Masaai buildings or the setting up of different enterprises like
fishing camps that the community can through revenues from tourism benefit
from.
The ecotourism projects discussed had been initiated by various stakeholders;
local communities, donor and conservation organisations, KWS or a third
party such as private businessmen. According to ESOK were the initiation of
their projects done by the local communities and this was as well the case
within KWS in where it is usually approached by the communities. Mwangi at
AWF explained that they are both approached by communities and approaches communities in the selected areas and after a PBOP (Proposals of
Business Opportunities Plan) is done for the area and the community involved, it is assessed what can be done and what the community can afford to
contribute to the project.
While the other interviewed stakeholders held that they either had been approached by local communities themselves (as ESOK) or that they themselves
had actively sought out ventures with the local communities (as ACC and
AWF), Muhuhu at EAWS stated that the ecotourism projects that they had
been involved in had as a rule been initiated by a third party approaching the
community.
Before funding of a project is granted the communities generally need to go
through a procedure of environmental assessment and assessment of the pro-
72
ject’s suitability for the area and the community. Muhuhu at EAWS tells me
that EAWS may very well deny funding to ecotourism projects if they are not
in the best interest of the community or the wildlife and in those cases other
non-consumptive activities are suggested. Funding of the different ecotourism
and community based conservation projects were mainly contributed by big
donor organisations and development funds. The majority of these stakeholders projects were as a rule financed by a third party (EU, USAID or
UNDP for example) but the funding were generally channelled through the
different ENGOs or KWS and a project usually only obtained an initial grant
or a loan. The funding from the EU that ACC, EAWS and KWS have received have mainly gone through its Biodiversity programme and AWF’s
partner is foremost USAID which in itself might not be that surprising since
AWF is an American organisation. In the spring of 2003 ESOK was waiting
for the funding for their projects to come through from UNDP.
7.5.2 Private businessmen
The admittance within KWS that the National Parks are seeing more competition rising from private game reserves and ranches brought the writer in on
the stakeholders within the private business sphere. The two businessmen,
Kristofer Zachrisson and Jake Greives- Cook, had each initiated an ecotourism project on the grounds of a vision and a belief that there is a demand
from the tourists for more ecologically, socially and economically sustainable
ventures. Zachrisson of Basecamp Travel and Basecamp Masaii Mara had
witnessed several examples of mismanagement particularly in the field of
waste disposal at different lodges. The conviction of both Zachrisson and
Grieves- Cook that a more ecologically sustainable business could be achieved
rested on the understanding that maintenance of the rich biodiversity in the
areas depended upon co-operation from the local communities and that they
indeed had to benefit economically from the management of the biodiversity.
In the case of Zachrisson, a travel agency (Basecamp Travel) and an ecolodge
(Basecamp Masaii Mara) was set up as separate bodies after Zachrisson and
one of his friends met up with a Norwegian investor who shared their view of
73
more ecologically orientated travel After taking up loans and signing a 33
years long lease agreement with the masai leader owning the land Basecamp
Masaii Mara was built on one family’s land, but there are 30-35 masaiis from
the surrounding area who are employed in the camp as guides, gardeners,
cooks etc. Limits to growth had been set in advance and the camp itself contains of 15 tents, 2 beds in each, and displays a relative low comfort level
compared to other lodges in Masaii Mara. The financial situation for the
ecolodge has steadily improved during the years, in 1999 the company lost
money on the project but in the years of 2000, 2001 and 2002 they broke
even. This last year has not been especially good for business as a consequence of the American terror alert and the subsequent travel warnings (For
further information about the project see Appendix 2).
Jake Grieves- Cook has a wealth of experience from the Kenyan tourism industry. He is the Chairman of ESOK, but also the Chairman of Kenya Tourism Federation. Furthermore, Grieves- Cook is the Managing Director of
Gamewatchers Safari Ltd and Porini Ecotourism Ltd. Porini Ecotourism Ltd
was set up as a separate company that pays a lease and bed nights for the
camp at Eselenkei Group Ranch to the community, while Gamewatchers Safari Ltd. brings in the tourists.
The Porini camp had in spring of 2003 been open for 6 years and had 12 beds
but the limit to growth has been set to 20 beds. Funding for the project came
through taking up loans and the camp requires 600 tourists a year to breakeven but Grieves- Cook aspires to reach 1000 tourists a year. The land set
aside for the conservation area was organised in cooperation with the community and the contract was completed through KWS to set up a game reserve. According to Grieves- Cook it is a fair and honest deal, where Porini
pays the community per bed night and entrance to the conservation area. The
deal is not based on shares of the revenues simply because that it can backfire
resulting in misunderstandings and mistrust between the two parties. Workers
want a steady income, preferably not depending on number of tourists that
arrives at the site. The local community thus obtains an income every month
74
through both salaries for the 30 individuals that have been employed in the
camp and the money from lease, bed nights and entrance fee that reaches to
the whole community. Furthermore, other benefits for the community has
been the building of a school, waterholes and certification of safari guides etc.
Today, the game reserve has significantly increased the amount of vegetation
in the area, and animals that had not been seen for decades have returned to
the area. The conservation area has even turned out to attract more different
kinds of animals than Ambroseli National Park (For further information
about the project see Appendix 3).
7.6 Community participation- a cornerstone for success
During the years that KWS has been involved in different community projects
they have learnt a lot along the way Anyonge acknowledged. It has become
evident that it is vital to educate the people involved about the benefits of
having wildlife in their environs prior to initiating a discussion and then an
implementation of potential projects. The establishment of the four-year programme CORE (Conservation of Resources through Enterprise) with the
funding from USAID was based on the central assumptions that the management of natural resources will not work if the local people do not feel that
they are in control of their destiny and that the local people will not care for
what they do not own. There was as well an underlying reason for helping
communities in the vicinity of protected areas, Gachago told me, and it was
that these projects also might promote tourism to the National Parks that they
are in the vicinity of. Anyonge informed that The Mwaluganje Elephant Sanctuary project near the South Coast is one of the CORE projects within KWS.
It took four years for the KWS to convince the local community to move out
of the elephants migratory corridor and voluntary contribute land to the reserve. KWS have since then trained people from the community in the running of a business but also to become Game Wardens and the local community is earning an income from the tourism to the sanctuary.
75
The key to a successful venture is based on the participation of the local
community and its contributions to the project. Anyonge admitted that KWS
would in the beginning supply everything for the projects running resulting in
that more often than not the community did not see it as their project and
hence it evolved into a dependency situation. The approach of requiring contribution from the local communities involved in the project is common
among the stakeholders, as in AWF’s projects where the local community sets
off a part of their land for the conservation area or as in ESOK’s projects
where the local community had contributed the time and labour to build
roads.
There are different views as to what extent the local community should be
involved in the running of the business and what kind of control it should
have. The concept of community-based projects suggest some control by
residents and the majority of the stakeholders interviewed would like the local
people to eventually own the enterprises and are therefore training the community to run the businesses through capacity building. According to
Ndung’u is ACC not always on good terms with the investors since it informs
the local people what they should expect and demand. Even so, in many instances the communities do not get the expected and deserved benefits.
Grieves- Cook on the other hand, truly believed that an ecotourism project
will not work or work very badly if a donor organisation merely hands over
the money to the local community. Relying on local people who are not educated in the areas of business could be fatal for the projects long-term survival
and he furthermore was of the opinion that capacity building does not work.
As a businessman Grieves- Cook was rather sceptical towards donor and conservation organisations involved in ecotourism ventures, as most of them
have little knowledge in the running of a business.
The difference in opinion about the absolute control between the ENGOs
and private businesses are not definite though. Mwangi at AWF perceived no
problem with private investors involvement in ecotourism ventures with local
76
communities, as long as they were giving the local community a fair deal. Muhuhu lifted forward that there are some shining examples of successful ecotourism ventures where communities have benefited as in Eselenkei where the
conservation motive has been strong and where the communities have been
involved. I’ll Ngwesi is as well an excellent example although it did take them
10 years to get a reputation. Grieves- Cook explained that the I’ll Ngwesi and
Tassia ecotourism and conservation projects were done on communal land
and the camps have been set up by loans from donors. One of the major
points Greives- Cook put forward as an explanation to their success were that
these communities had great help from the white neighbours, who he suspected had an ulterior motive and most likely wanted their own visitors to
look out upon untouched and conserved land.
7.7 Not always a success…
Comprehensive barriers must be overcome for implementation of a project
and even during the project’s life problems may arise. The ecological thoughtfulness may not be in the first room at all times and economical gains may
very well over cloud the genuine purpose of the ecotourism activity. Some of
the difficulties surrounding the projects implemented by the interviewed
stakeholders could be contributed to failing funds, time constraints and upcoming differences within the communities and with other stakeholders involved. Problems that are connected to mismanagement are apparent in some
of the Kenyan ecotourism projects, particularly in the case of Kimana Wildlife
Sanctuary. The sanctuary is a private conservation area near Ambroseli National Park, but as Grieves –Cook suggested what would have been a fine example of an ecotourism project has unfortunately demonstrated itself to be
pure exploitation by the safari company ASC (African Safari Club). In his view
this company only seeks to transport in as many tourists as possible to the
area resulting in degradation of the environment and exploitation of the workforce.
77
Regrettably there have thus been a number of bad experiences for the local
communities in the ecotourism business and concerns about dishonest investors were evident in some projects. Muhuhu gave examples in where the third
party had for instance kept two different books or had not bothered to fulfil
its obligations to educate the community in the running of the business. Subsequently when the lease agreement runs out the community had not acquired
the experience or knowledge to run the camp or market it. Furthermore, at
numerous times the treasurer or manager had stolen a project’s money and
run off with it Greives- Cook disclosed.
7.8 Diversifying for the future
According to the majority of the stakeholders, Kenya has better prerequisites
than many other countries to succeed in becoming a major tourism destination. Kenya has a relatively good infrastructure, a large portion of the people
is fluent in English and one can fly to most of the National Parks nowadays.
Kenya is thus “ well endowed” as Zachrisson expressed, with Nairobi as the
major flight hub in the region. As many of the other stakeholders, Zachrisson
believes that Kenya has a varied supply of experiences and should be able to
draw a large number of tourists. The Swahili culture, the beaches and diving,
the watching of flamingos and the Big Five and all the different National
Parks and National Reserves are all excellent experiences.
The marketing of the Kenyan tourism product has been, and still is, geared
towards beach and wildlife. There was a common belief among the stakeholders that there is a need to try and alter these flows of tourists and here
cultural tourism was just beginning to get noticed. Actively trying to diversify
the flows of tourists through its graded gate fee structure, KWS were hopeful
that the whole country would be seen and experienced and hence one of the
aims of the Tourism Department has been to try and direct the flows of tourists to western Kenya. Muhuhu agreed that there is a need to diversify the
product and gave examples of soapstone and bullfighting in western Kenya
and the Swahili culture at the coast that can be employed. Moreover, he be-
78
lieved there is both an urgent need to find a landmark to market Kenya
abroad but also to allocate more funds to do it.
On the question of diversifying the tourism product, some of the stakeholders
explained that this is problematical. In Zachrisson’s opinion, Western Kenya
does not offer too much to experience and there are no decent hotels, that is
to say decent enough for the Americans and the Britons that are the biggest
source markets. Nonetheless, Zachrisson and Basecamp Travel have attempted to include tours to ‘other’ areas but these are usually done by travellers who have been to Kenya for a couple of times. For a first time tourist to
Kenya a trip to well-known areas like Masaii Mara and Lake Nakuru are still
of top preference.
Earlier in this paper it was put forward by Sindiga (2000) along with other
commentators that Kenya needed to diversify its markets as a protection
against dependence on too narrow a market. Some of the challenges for the
future of Kenyan tourism will therefore be the lack of diversification of the
source markets hence relying heavily on the traditional markets, insufficient
funds in almost all areas of marketing and intensifying competition by rival
destinations within the region and outside. This dependence upon traditional
markets and its subsequent complications did become apparent during the
aftermath of the American terror alert and travel warnings. Being an industry
that largely depends on the potential tourist’s perception of the destination at
hand, and in particular the perception of safety and security at site, the success
or failure of the promotion of tourism abroad will be determined by the situation displayed in the media and eventual travel warnings that are issued at the
time the potential tourists choose where to travel. One of Kenya’s problems,
according to Zachrisson, is associated to the way Kenya has been an easy soft
target for terrorists. The recurring attacks on overall tourism targets, and especially American and British targets, have worked as a deterrent for prospective tourists. Furthermore, Zachrisson deems that the control of terror activity
within the country is not working at its best.
79
7.9 Future of Kenyan ecotourism?
As to the future of ecotourism in Kenya the views the different stakeholders
hold diverge a great deal. Many like Ndung’u is very optimistic about future of
Kenyan ecotourism and sees ecotourism as the way of the future, even though
the government up until recently has not been particularly interested or engaged in ecotourism. As was put forward by several of the interviewed stakeholders, there is a need for a consolidated approach to tourism in general and
ecotourism in particular. The need to unify the policies and have clear guidelines for the responsibilities of both the industry and the government is a prerequisite so that enforcement of what ecotourism is and what it is not can be
made. Others like Zachrisson are not so optimistic about the future of Kenyan ecotourism and at least the more ‘genuine’ part of ecotourism that probably not will be an expansive branch. This reasoning he based on the experience he has had in where tourists who might very well be taking a ‘once in a
lifetime’ trip to this distant destination ultimately wanted a certain degree of
comfort and luxury. In Masaii Mara for example the legendary Governors
Camp is very popular and tourists like the notion of staying where other celebrities have stayed during their travels.
80
8. CONCLUSIONS
To attempt to stop the increase in mass tourism to less developed countries
such as Kenya is almost fruitless, tourism is everywhere and more and more
locations are drawn into the system. Tourism can be a powerful force for environmental conservation and protection, but it generally brings with it a large
number of environmental problem such as erosion and pollution and exploitation of cultures and at times it seems like it is signified by an over consumption following the Western type of living. Nevertheless it is not tourism per se
that is destructive but the mismanaged or unmanaged tourism.
8.1 Rising interest in ecotourism
As mentioned in the introduction to this paper, the process of globalisation
has influenced the ways in which we communicate and transport ourselves.
New topics have furthermore entered the international political arena in
where environmental concerns has been recognised and brought up for discussion. According to Gare (1995) among others, the decline of Western
economies and the fragmentation of Western societies have coincided with
the emergence of postmodernism, which as a concept among many other
things tries to encapsulate the appearance of new cultural styles connected to
the new middle class. These new cultural styles have demonstrated themselves
in for instance the new middle class strong hold in environmental movements,
but also in the various consumption patterns that have emerged. Wheeller
(1993) has put forward that ecotourism in fact is pure ego-tourism in where
sophisticated advertisement and image building is used to sell this product.
The tourists hence choose a certain way of travelling as a way of defining
themselves as more responsible and “better” tourists than the mass tourists.
Choices people make of where and how to travel tells us who they are, or like
to be.
The rise in environmental awareness and nature preservation among the public in the developed countries has advanced the growth of environmental
81
movements, but also contributed to the rise of ecotourism as a concept and a
form both in developed and less developed countries as this partly is because
of the connection to the flows of tourists from the developed world. A strong
link has been noted by for instance Swarbrooke (1999) between the developed
world’s conservation movements (which has grown in both in power and influence) and the rise in different forms of sustainable tourism. The conservation community has thus promoted ecotourism as a way of travelling responsibly and being environmentally sensitive. Moreover it has promoted the
community-based approach as a way of ensuring that the benefits of conserving nature and wildlife extend to the people who are involved and touched by
the projects. In Kenya the conservation community strongly favours both
ecotourism and the community-based approach. During the years the understanding has increased that in order to maintain biodiversity, tackle human
encroachment upon protected areas and mitigate human- animal conflicts the
people concerned must be involved and the community-based approach has
thus become the crucial instrument.
Tourism is said to be the world’s largest industry and ecotourism the fastest
growing segment of it. Consequently the attention and interest in ecotourism
from both researchers and the public have increased as time has passed. It has
not only been seen as an alternative to mass tourism, but also as a means of
economic development and environmental conservation. This latter line of
thought is particularly clear within conservation organisations such as ACC,
AWF and EAWS but can also be found in ESOK and KWS. Tied in with the
main conservation motive is thus a strong connection to economic development of local communities and this twofold concept combined with the employment of the community-based approach is the base upon which the projects are developed and implemented.
Kenya has a long history of tourism based upon the nature’s resources, but it
has also been paved by problems stemming from tourism. It was put forward
by Muhuhu at EAWS that especially the lack of initial planning after independence and the foreign ownership of the Kenyan tourism product has pre-
82
sented problems like economic leakages that are still evident today. It is here
we might find some support for the theory of underdevelopment, development theory and the usage of the core- periphery concepts. The idea that the
historical structure of Kenya’s tourism sector still is evident today and that
Kenya is dependent upon foreign tourists arriving in the country for its economy were put forward several times during the interviews conducted. However, Greives- Cook disagreed with this statement and claimed that there was
no substantial economic leakage from the tourism sector and currently, contrary to common belief, the majority of for instance the Kenyan hotels are not
foreign owned. Depending on which perspective the informants had (national
arena or international arena) the answer on the question if the Kenyan tourism
sector is out of the Kenyans hands or not will of course vary.
Compared to tourism in the African region, Kenya is not a major destination
for foreign visitors. In year 2001 Kenya’s market share of international tourism arrivals (table 2) was merely 3,0% and the recent bombing incidents in
November 2002 and terror alerts will certainly result in a further decrease of
it. The Kenyan tourism has during the years heavily relied upon the concept
of wildlife and beach and diversifying this product might be difficult as was
expressed in several of the interviews.
Within Kenya certain areas such as Maasai Mara National Reserve and Ambroseli, Lake Nakuru and the two Tsavo National Parks have a high public
profile outside of Kenya associated with wildlife. It is thus not surprising that
tourists would prefer to go to these areas, resulting in a skewed spatial distribution of visitors. Diverting the flows will take time and a great deal of effort
and funding. Another problem for the future of Kenyan tourism and particularly ecotourism is that both Kenya as a destination and the projects are not
marketed enough neither within Kenya nor abroad.
Since independence the Kenyan government has concentrated on further developing the tourism sector, first by expanding the existing infrastructure
which was required for the future growth of tourism and allowing foreign in-
83
vestment and ownership and later on by initiating policies that was intended
to protect the environmental resources upon which the majority of this industry is built on. The concept of community participation was early included in
policies surrounding conservation and tourism but rarely put into practice.
Lately, the Kenyan government has tried to shift the focus it has had on mass
tourism to develop a more ecologically suitable tourism. In the recent policy
documents ecoturism is perceived as a potential but even so, it is just beginning to get noticed by the government. The current lack of coordinated effort
within the government policies, rising competition from destinations with
similar packages and the over- reliance upon traditional source markets are
obstacles and challenges to be overcome in the future.
Some of the researchers and authors in the reviewed literature believe that
forms of sustainable tourism (such as ecotourism) potentially can focus the
benefits of tourism to the local population and the environment while at the
same time minimizing negative impacts, whereas others remain to a certain
degree sceptical, warning that ecotourism has not yet been proven to be either
beneficial or sustainable. These two points of view were expressed by the
stakeholders and although the first view was more common many agreed that
it is too early to say if ecotourism will have all these positive traits in the long
run. No tourism is inherently more sustainable than any other since it all boils
down to how it is managed as Swaarbroke (1999) put it.
8.2 What is ecotourism?
How ecotourism should be distinguished from other types of tourism (according to the writer) is displayed in figure 1. Alternative Tourism (AT), also
called Sustainable tourism by some authors, incorporates different forms of
socio-cultural tourism, adventure tourism and ecotourism and as Fennell
(1999) states, this type of tourism is one that priorities the natural and cultural
resources of a destination. Nevertheless, I argue that Alternative Tourism and
Sustainable tourism are two different concepts that should be separated. AT is
according to the writer of this paper, only the part of the smaller circle in fig-
84
ure 1 that is situated on the left side of the dotted line. Furthermore, one
should not include the area situated on this side that are connected to the larger circle of mass tourism.
As understood by the term sustainable tourism it must employ sustainable
practices - but reality has demonstrated that there are signs of the activities
moving towards the mass tourism settings or forms that it was supposed to be
an alternative to. Grieves-Cook particularly expressed this concern. Sustainable tourism (Alternative Tourism) is a less controversial term than ecotourism, but it is not more clear-cut. In most of the literature the spheres of Alternative Tourism and mass tourism are separated and not interconnected as in
figure 1. It should also be noted that definitions of ecotourism require the current activity to be of sustainable practice, hence I argue that only the part of
ecotourism that is situated on the sustainable side in the figure can be classified as true ecotourism. An example of “ecotourism” that may lie on the unsustainable side is the motorised wildlife safaris that are conducted in several
of the National Parks and Reserves in Kenya.
Ecotourism can be seen as a part of the more broad-based nature tourism,
which is considerable in Kenya. Nevertheless it claims to be more dependent
on the natural resources and excludes culture as the first motivation and adventure tourism for the reason that the activity itself is the dominant attraction. It is also said to have a more distinct educational element, which in turn
is supposed to distinguish it from other forms of nature-based tourism. A
more ethical view towards the natural environment is displayed through the
emphasis that ecotourism should be non-consumptive and sustainable. While
some stress solely the ecological side of sustainability, others have included
the social and economic dimensions.
As mentioned earlier in this paper the issue of the somewhat diffuse definitions of ecotourism has promoted a wide range of ideas of what ecotourism is
or should be and as the debate is more geared towards value judgements than
empirical evidence it will surely change over time. Whether the Kenyan ecot-
85
ourism will as this paper’s title states become a potential and build upon perfect partnerships or simply be employed as rhetoric and a marketing device
only time will tell. As mentioned earlier have the Kenyan government’s recent
policy documents stated that ecotourism has a potential for perfect partnerships and is worthy of striving towards for reasons such as protection of the
environment and its inhabitants and respect for and benefits to the local
communities It is however clear that in some cases the label ecotourism simply have been used as a marketing tool to attract tourists. Some actors that
label themselves as ecotourism should obliviously not be calling the activities
or destinations ecotourism as it does not incorporate the basic values and
measures (as for instance the educational component and true ecological
thoughtfulness) and thus at best it could be termed sustainable tourism.
8.3 Community participation and control
Ecotourism should work for a decrease of outside influence by supporting the
project forms that are said to be more favourable for the local community and
for this reason the use of the community based approach at implementations
of developments are widely promoted by local communities and various institutions and organisations. As Gössling (1999) among others emphasise,
maximum local participation and stakeholdership can best be accomplished by
small-scale developments with the community-based approach. Local control
over the resources is furthermore the key to prevent many of the problems
resulting from implementation of ecotourism projects according to a growing
number of researchers. However, as has been revealed in the interviews this is
not always necessarily true. The local control does not prevent problems associated with the projects such as internal conflicts, disputes and resentment
within the local communities due to uneven power structure and struggle for
power and authority or the problem with failing market link that had demonstrated itself in some of the projects. Furthermore, total control as the owning
and running of projects might not always be desired by the communities and
it may not be the direct control of the resources per se that are crucial but the
way the community receives a fair deal and are treated with respect.
86
It has also been said that by scaling down of the developments and returning
the power to the local community the economic leakages may be mitigated,
the negative impacts of projects minimized and the benefits captured. Ecotourism that supports the goals of conservation and the improved life quality
of the community may generate money for the community that can be reinvested, hence reducing the leakage to external interests. This has resulted in
the growing interest for this kind of development in less developed countries
such as Kenya, but maintaining the control might be hard due to the structure
and nature of the international tourism. It is also important to recognise that
the ability of the local community to control the development is sometimes
severely weakened by the power of the tourism industry. Local communities
in Kenya and other less developed countries might not have the political
power required or the business connections necessary to be able to compete
with the tour agencies in the developed countries as was also put forward during the interview with James Ndung’u, Program Developer at ACC.
The concept of community participation in Kenyan governmental policy papers is not a new idea, but reality has demonstrated that not much have been
done to incorporate it into practice over the years since it was first introduced.
Even so, community participation is today widely used by all the interviewed
stakeholders, but to different degrees. The reasons for community involvement are manifold: to reduce the possibility of conflicts and to utilise the local
knowledge, to give the people a voice and to employ a democratic process.
Within Kenyan ecotourism and conservation projects the ENGOs and KWS
generally serve as an advisory body assisting the communities with legal matters such as the drawing up of contracts and carrying out project assessments
of their suitability for the area at hand. The main goal for these organisations
is that the communities should own and run the business and as KWS Projects Co-ordinator Munira Anyonge explained “They will not care for what they do
not own”. As community participation is a rather time-consuming task all the
stakeholders need to exercise great patience to achieve the goal set out and
87
here it is vital to continuously educate the local communities of the benefits of
hosting wildlife. In addition, community participation is in many cases linked
to capacity building of the communities and is especially employed by the
ENGOs and KWS. It could be said that the interviewed private businessmen
also have employed a form of capacity building in the training of the locals to
take positions within the project. However, since the communities do not
own the businesses they are not found on the highest part of the management
level.
8.4 Ecotourism definitions
The field of ecotourism is still in its infancy and this is clearly illustrated in the
numerous definitions of ecotourism that have arisen, while all the same no
universally accepted definition has been acknowledged. Worthy of noting are
the findings of Fennell (2001) in his analysis of 85 different definitions of
ecotourism during a time span of 15 years. Most astonishing to me are that
80% of the examined definitions did not refer to ethics at all and 75% did not
mention impacts. For ecotourism to take the guise of being a more ethically
and impact sensitive type of tourism it is remarkable that not even the definitions cite it. Even more so is that 96,7% of them did not include references to
negative outcomes in human-animal interaction which ecotourism supposedly
tries to mitigate. In accordance to the findings of Fennel, the proposed definitions given in the interviews with the stakeholders are mainly geared towards
conservation, benefits to the local community and sustainable operation. This
might be because the measures taken to control these things are more easily
detected, measured and implemented.
Looking back at figure 2 it is interesting to note the distribution in the reviewed literature of what is defined as ecotourism and its activities. The different definitions and arguments one can find in literature can be placed
within this range of passive to active in this figure. The definitions of Ceballos- Lascuráin (cited in Blamey, 2001), Weaver (2001), the International Ecotourism Society and the Kenyan government all fall on the passive side of the
88
spectrum. This soft kind of ecotourism does state that there should not be any
negative impacts from the activity but is more oriented against the tourist than
the environment. The reference to environmental status quo among them
demonstrates this and one can for instance place the activities within the Kenyan National Parks and Reserves on this side.
On the opposite side of the spectrum the active approach is found and it
might very well be a desirable ideal, but especially Weaver finds it unrealistic
and states it results in an elitist activity. Among the authors that do promote
and employ the active type of definitions and arguments are Fennell (1999),
Manning and Dougherty (1999) and Giannecchini (1993). This latter type argues for a more restrictive ecotourism that entails actions contributing to the
improvement of the environment, not just leaving it unchanged. Basecamp
Masaai Mara had to some extent used this approach, in where the founders
had planted trees intended for the surrounding communities to use in order to
mitigate the cutting down of trees in Masaai Mara National Reserve (see Appendix 3 for more information). Nonetheless, one might ask if it always is desirable to actively intervene to improve the environment and who decides
what should be done where and why?
As figure 1 demonstrates I argue that ecotourism should be separated from
cultural tourism and adventure tourism simply because I believe that it will be
more helpful to the industry and tourists if there are clear lines. Like many
others I moreover believe that ecotourism should be based upon the conservation philosophy, actively promote conservation and that it should be a nonconsumptive activity. My view is therefore more of a protectionist one than a
conserving one and hence can be found on the right side in figure 2 and to the
left in figure 3.
Just because my view is more of a protectionist one it is not to say that I agree
with the way some powerful external organisations at times seem to dictate
the way it is supposed to be in a country. External interests, whether they are
foreign or national, should not force tourism or conservation down the
89
throats of the indigenous people and for this reason I think the employment
of the community-based approach coupled with continuous local participation
is of utmost importance. Local participation in both planning and management are desired as it may lead to a more acceptable development, which in
turn might be more economically sustainable.
8.5 The interviewed stakeholders and their projects
Some proponents have suggested using the development of ecotourism projects as aid in less developed countries. Formed in the right way, as a partnership between organisations and communities, I believe it has a potential to
develop into a motor in rural development. However, ecotourism projects
cannot be initiated in all places. It is important to point out that all the projects implemented by the interviewed stakeholders are based in recognized
tourism areas or in the vicinity of them and I believe that this fact is a prerequisite for accumulating visitors at least in the beginning of the projects lifespan. I furthermore stress that it must be remembered that an ecotourism
projects first and foremost is a business, even though the conservation might
be the main target. Projects need to be socially, ecologically and economically
sustainable over time, which has not yet been proven.
The Kenyan ecotourism sector is packed with numerous stakeholders and
only a few have been incorporated in this paper. Within Kenya the government and its Kenya Wildlife Service plays an important part of how ecotourism will develop in the future as they determine the policies and are the guardian for all flora and fauna respectively. The Kenyan ENGOs (AWF, ACC and
EAWS) are also highly involved, but employ mainly ecotourism as a way to
conserve biodiversity. ESOK’s main mission is to bring together the business
of tourism, conservation and communities through promotion of responsible
and sustainable tourism, but they have as well initiated several projects. With a
conviction that it was possible to combine profit with conservation and
guided by a vision the private businessmen had initiated the projects.
90
Among the various stakeholders some differences and similarities between the
projects discussed have been noted. There are for instance differences in the
degree of control and participation by the local communities (in owning and
running the business for instance), the reasons for initiating the project (business opportunity and biodiversity management) and who did it, where the
funding was obtained (USAID, EU, IFAW etc. and private loans) and the ultimate goal of the project. Even so, there also are several similarities such as
the will to improve the life situation for the communities touched and the understanding that maintaining the rich biodiversity lies upon cooperation with
the local communities and to accomplish that the local community must benefit from the projects. I think it is imperative to recognize that there is not only
one type of development or way to go about it. Different conditions need different solutions.
There are some successful ventures found in Kenya in where the local communities have benefited from the implementation of ecotourism projects as
has been put forward in this paper - but there are also failures. Failures and
difficulties connected to mismanagement, failing funds, time constraints, an
overoptimistic prognosis and failing markets links between the projects and
the tourists. Furthermore, some members of the community might be more
interested in obtaining profits than in conserving the environment and its inhabitants, consequently the process is not always smooth. Not only individual
ecotourism projects are given to failures as the example of Masaai Mara National Reserve’s mismanagement have demonstrated in where private persons’
self-interest has been put ahead of management of the biodiversity.
As mentioned earlier in this paper, all of the interviewed stakeholder had incorporated some degree of community participation or employed the community-based approach when initiating the projects. This was done through
maintaining a continuous dialogue where all the parties involved both had a
say and had to contribute to the project.
91
The local communities can indeed benefit from engaging in the ecotourism
business as was demonstrated in the cases of Basecamp Masaii Mara and Eselenkei Conservation Area. In both cases the benefits have not merely been
contained to a few individuals but the whole community have benefited. In
Appendix 2 about Basecamp Masaii Mara one can read that as a result of this
project employment opportunities for the local community had been granted
and a tree plantation with 15 000 trees have been initiated by the camp allowing the community to gain firewood when the trees are full-grown and thus
mitigating the growing problem of deforestation in the area. Furthermore, in
Appendix 3 about Eselenkei Conservation Area some positive outcomes of
the project have been the construction of two school buildings, two new waterholes that have been drilled and a wind pump at the largest borehole in the
community that has been installed. The initiation of this project have also resulted a number of scholarships for local students and the creation of 24 new
jobs in the camp and conservation area
8.6 Is conservation and biodiversity management and tourism really
compatible?
My opinion is that biodiversity management ought to be compatible with
tourism if the tourism introduced is contained, regulated and of small-scale.
The relationship between conservation of biodiversity and tourism and public
or private protected areas is as stated earlier either of three thing. In some of
the projects KWS are supporting the conservation is partly used as a way of
promoting tourism in the area, while in Kenya’s National Parks and Reserves
the conservation is the main goal and tourism a way of supporting it. The examples in this paper of the Eselenkei Group Ranch/ Eselenkei Conservation
Area and Basecamp Masaii Mara are based on the goal of combining profit
with conservation. However, if ecotourism is the sole basis for upholding the
conservation it must be warned that the relationship between economic earnings and conservation at times is a risky relation. In some cases where the
conservation is directly connected to the revenues the land might transform
into other usage when tourism is decreasing to the area. This valid concern
92
was expressed in several of the interviews, as was the issue of the growing
competition between the public protected areas and the private ones.
I acknowledge that the fears of ecotourism being the thin edge of the wedge
are correctly founded. Some might call me a cynic but I believe that the profit
motive is a strong one and as pressure to expand grows so does the possibilities of an ecotourism project turning from a sustainable into an unsustainable
one. Therefore must limits of growth be set in advance and this prerequisite
must also be applied to ecotourism as a segment of tourism, not just individual projects. For ecotourism not to develop unsustainable practices the issue
of regulation and guiding policies becomes vital especially as the Kenyan government has a desire to reach two million arrivals per year by 2005. It is thus
imperative that strict guidelines and policies are drawn up which protects the
environment, its inhabitants and the local communities and thus regulation of
the activity must be sensitive to the resource base and have the local people as
a first priority. National governments and international organisations involved
in guiding tourism development must therefore bear the primary responsibility
of sound, ethical ecotourism programmes. Putting the ideas into practice is
where the greatest challenge lies. This guidance was in the late spring of 2003
lacking in Kenya, but there were high hopes of the then current review of the
Tourism Master Plan and the Wildlife Act
8.7 A fair deal
The intent of conserving nature and wildlife must be related to the people that
are living amongst it and there might be little or no point in appealing to idealism or altruism to protect the environment and its inhabitants if the people
around have no other economic means of making a living and are starving.
This awareness has strengthened in organisations involved in the conservation
and ecotourism business such as the Kenyan ENGOs and KWS.
To return to the statement I made in the introduction about control and who
in reality has it, I think that even though it in some cases is not desirable or
93
even possible for local communities to be the main controller of the project, it
is essential to strive for. However, a community does not necessarily need to
own the business to have control over it as control can be incorporated
through the way the contract is written. Even more important is that the
communities in reality benefits from the ventures. If the local community do
not own and run the project it is imperative that the community receives a fair
deal. That is: that they receive economic benefits from the project, that all
members of the community have some say in decisions taken and are respected and consulted during the projects lifetime. Even so, it must be said
that control over flows at the destination does not mean that communities can
control the international flows and herein lay the problem of maintaining sustainability.
8.8 A final remark
There is a common belief among the interviewed stakeholders that there is a
real need of change from the current type of ‘safari tourism’ to ecotourism,
but for now it is necessarily to rely on mass tourism. Tourism is a feeble market as was demonstrated in the late spring of 2003, but still it is enormously
important to the Kenyan economy and optimism about the future of Kenyan
tourism was unmistakable in the stakeholders. As to the future of Kenyan
ecotourism the views the different stakeholders holds diverge a great deal.
Some believe it is the way of the future while others are more sceptical, at
least to the notion that ecotourism will be the main segment in Kenyan tourism. The suggestion of the establishment of a clearinghouse for all ecotourism
ventures is in my view an important step in promoting the different ecotourism ventures. Nevertheless, the lack of funding to overall promotion of
Kenya, ecotourism and different projects is another one of the major obstacles for the future.
I do believe that ecotourism could be used as a possible development strategy,
especially for certain rural communities. However, as was put forward by
Horwich and Lyon (1999), I am of the opinion that it should preferably not
94
be the sole economic activity in the area but be a complement to other activities. It ought to be remembered that tourism is an utmost sensitive and vulnerable product that can be changed merely by the tourists altered image of
the destination. Above all, the perception of safety and security at site determines the choices made by the tourists. This was apparent during the situation
Kenya was in the late spring of 2003 when an American terror alert, the subsequent travel warnings and cancelled BA- flights led to a dramatic decrease in
arrivals to Kenya.
My answer to the question in this paper’s title is that ecotourism could very
well be a potential and a perfect partnership if honest, straightforward and
truly interested stakeholders are involved. However, this is not always the
situation in reality. People with ulterior motives will continue to highjack the
term and give the local communities a raw deal. This is perhaps more evident
in less developed countries such as Kenya in where uneducated or even illiterate local communities might not comprehend the economic value of the project and its conditions. Furthermore, they might not know which are the appropriate authorities to turn to if there is a breach of contract. Therefore, I
again stress the importance of regulation of this activity and the responsibility
of the stakeholders to develop sustainable (economically, ecologically and socially) practices.
The characteristics of Hard (active) ecotourism in figure 3 might seem a little
rigid, but still I think this kind rather than the soft type of ecotourism that
should be called ecotourism. The objection of Weaver that this kind of ecotourism results in an elitist activity is valid, as to a certain extent one can presume that tourists generally do not want to live rough without the amenities
they are used to on their vacation and a touch of luxury and comfort are generally desired. As Zachrisson put forward, I too believe that the more ‘genuine’ part of ecotourism in Kenya will probably not be an over expansive
branch. However, what has been labeled soft ecotourism will certainly grow,
and it is here I agree with Wheeller (1993) that many tourists may choose this
kind of tourism as it is assumed to be morally superior to mass tourism. All
95
the same, this will not solve the problem, as there will still be the mass movement itself that is a threat to the environment. It is therefore clear that more
research, more time and vigorous discussions with everyone involved need to
be done to fully understand the impacts and potentials of ecotourism over the
long term.
96
REFERENCES
Published books
Apostolopoulos, Y., Leivadi, S. & Yiannakis, A. (Eds.) (1996): The Sociology of
Tourism. Theoretical and empirical investigations. Routledge Advances in
Tourism, Rouledge, London.
Backman, K.F. & Morais, D.B. (2001): Methodological Approaches Used in the
Literature. In: Weaver, D (2001) The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism. CABI
Publishing, Wallingford.
Baez, A (1996). : Learning from the Experience in the Monteverde Cloud
Forest. In Price, M (Ed.) (1996): People and Tourism in Fragile Environments.
Jonh Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Blamey, R.K. (2001): Priciples of Ecotourism. In: Weaver, D (2001) The
Encyclopedia of Ecotourism. CABI Publishing, Wallingford.
Briassoulis, H. & van der Straaten, J. (Eds.) (1992): Tourism and the Environment.
Regional, Economical and Policy Issues. Kluwe Academic Publishers,
Dodrecht.
Britton (1982): The Political Economy of Tourism in the Third World. University of
Canterbury, Christchurch.
Brohman, J. (1996a): Popular Development. Rethinking the theory and practice of
development. Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Oxford.
Buckley, R. (1999): Sustainable Tourism and Critical Environments. In
Singh, T.J. & Singh, S (Eds.) (1999): Tourism Development in Critical
Environments. Cogniziant Communication Corporation, New York.
Buhalis, D. & Fletcher, J (1995): Environmental impacts on tourist
destinations: An economic analysis. In Coccossis, H & Nijkamp, P.
(Eds.) (1995): Sustainable Tourism Development. Avebury Ashgate Publishing
Limited, Aldershot.
Burton, Rosemary (1991): Travel Geography. Pitman Publishing, London.
Butler, R.W. (1993): Tourism – An Evolutionary Perspective. In Nelson, J.G.,
Butler, G. & Wall, G. (1993). Tourism and Sustainable Development:
monitoring, planning, Managing. Department of Geography publication
Series, Department of Geography, University of Waterloo.
Cazes, G (2000): Alternative Tourism. In Jafari, J. (Ed) (2000): Encyclopedia of
Tourism. Routledge, London.
Cohen. E (1995): Contemporary tourism- trends and challenges. Sustainable
authenticity or contrived post-modernity?. In Butler, R. & Pearce, D.
(eds.) (1995): Change in Tourism. People, Places, Processes. Routledge, London.
Cristaller, W. (1963): Some Considerations of Tourism Location in Europé: The
peripheral regions – underdeveloped countries – recreation areas. Regional Science
Association Papers 6, p 95-105.
de Kadt, E (1979): Tourism- Passport to Development. The World Bank and
UNESCO, Oxford University Press.
Dieke, P. (2001): Kenya and South Africa. In Weaver, D (2001) The
Encyclopedia of Ecotourism. CABI Publishing, Wallingford.
Fennell, D. (1999): Ecotourism: an introduction. Routledge, London.
Gare, A.E. (1995): Postmodernism and the environmental crisis. Routledge, London
Hall, C.M. & Page, S.J. (1999): The Geography of Tourism and Recreation.
Environment, place and space. Routledge, London.
Hammitt, W.E. & Symmonds, M.C. (2001): Wilderness. In Weaver, D (2001)
The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism. CABI Publishing, Wallingford.
Harrison, D. (ed.) (2001): Tourism and the less developed world: Issues and case studies.
CABI Publishing, Wallingford
Hawkins, D & Lamoureux, K. (2001): Magnitude of Ecotourism. In Weaver,
D (2001) The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism. CABI Publishing, Wallingford.
Holme, I.M. & Solvang, B.K. (1997): Forskningsmetodik: om kvalitativa och
kvantitativa metoder. Studentlitteratur, Lund.
Horwich, R & Lyon, J (1999): Rural Ecotourism as a Conservation Tool. In
Singh, T.J. & Singh, S (Eds.) (1999): Tourism Development in Critical
Environments. Cogniziant Communication Corporation, New York.
Jenkins, J. (2000): Conservation. In Jafari, J. (Ed.) (2000): Encyclopedia of
Tourism. Routledge, London.
Langholz, J & Brandon K. (2001): Privately Owned Protected Areas. In
Weaver, D (2001): The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism. CABI Publishing,
Wallingford.
Lawton, L. (2001): Public Protected Areas. In Weaver, D (2001)
The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism. CABI Publishing, Wallingford.
Manning, E & Dougherty, D. (1999): Planning Tourism in Sensitive
Ecosystems. In Singh, T.J. & Singh, S (Eds.) (1999): Tourism Development
in Critical Environments. Cogniziant Communication Corporation,
New York.
McLaren, D. (1998): Rethinking tourism and ecotravel: the paving of paradise and what
you can do to stop it. Kumarian Press, West Hartford.
Miller, M. A. (1995): The Third World in global environmental politics. Open
University Press, Buckingham
Mowforth, M & Munt, I. (1998): Tourism and Sustainability: new Tourism in the
Third World. Routledge, London.
Sindiga, I. (2000): Tourism Development in Kenya. In Dieke, P. (Ed.) (2000):
The Political Economy of Tourism Development in Africa. Cognizant
Communication Corporation, New York.
Swarbrooke, J. (1999): Sustainable Tourism Management. CABI, Wallingford.
Vorlaufer, K. (1997): Conservation, Local Communities and Tourism in
Africa. Conflicts, Symbiosis, Sustainable Development. In: Hein, W.,
(Ed) 1997: Tourism and Sustainable Development, Schriften des Deutschen
Übersee-Instituts 41, Hamburg.
Vanhove, N. (1997): Masstourism. Benefits and costs. In Wahab, S. & Pigram,
J. (1997): Tourism, Development and Growth. Routledge, London.
Wearing, S. & Neil, J. (1999): Ecotourism. Impacts, Potentials & Possibilities. Reed
Educational and Professional Publishing Ltd, Oxford.
Weaver, D. (2001b): Deserts, Grasslands and Savannahs. In Weaver, D (2001)
The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism. CABI Publishing, Wallingford.
Woodley, A. (1993): Tourism and Sustainable Development: The Community
Perspective. In Nelson, J.G., Butler, G. & Wall, G. (1993): Tourism and
Sustainable Development: monitoring, planning, Managing. Department of
Geography publication Series, Department of Geography, University of
Waterloo.
Wright, P. (2001): Ecotourists. In Weaver, D (2001) The Encyclopedia of
Ecotourism. CABI Publishing, Wallingford.
Published articles
Akama, J. (1996): Western environmental values and nature-based tourism in
Kenya. Tourism Management, Vol.17(8), pp.567–574.
Brohman, J (1996b): New Directions in Tourism for Third World
Development. Annals of Tourism Research, Vol.23(1), pp.48-70.
Fennell, D. (2001): A Content Analysis of Ecotourism Definitions. Current
Issues in Tourism, Vol. 4(4), pp.403-421.
Foucat, V.S. Avila. (2002): Community-based ecotourism management
moving towards sustainability, in Ventanilla, Oaxaca, Mexico. Ocean &
Coastal Management Vol.45, pp. 511–529
Giannecchini, J. (1993): Ecotourism: New Partners, New Relationships.
Conservation Biology, Vol. 7(2), pp.429-432.
Gössling, S. (1999): Ecotourism: a means to safeguard biodiversity and
ecosystem functions? Ecological Economics, Vol.29 pp. 303–320
Loon, R.M. & Polakow, D. (2001): ECOTOURISM VENTURES. Rags or
Riches? Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 28 (4), pp. 892–907
Orams, M. (1995): Towards a More Desirable Form of Ecotourism. Tourism
Management, Vol.16(1), pp. 3-8
Weaver, D. (2001a): Ecotourism as masstourism. Contradiction or reality? The
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 42(2), pp. 104-112
Wheeller, B. (1993): Sustaining the Ego. Journals of Sustainable Tourism,
Vol.1(2), pp121-129
Wunder, S. (2000): Ecotourism and economical incentives- an empirical
approach. Ecological Economics, Vol. 32(3), pp. 465-479.
Database
The 2001 World Development Indicators CD-Rom.
Win*STARS version 4.2, 32 bit
WDI 2001
Personal Communication
Email
Mark Yobesia, Asst. Warden Tourism at Kenya Wildlife Service
Interviews
Anyonge, Munira K., KWS Projects Co-ordinator, Community Wildlife
Service at Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS), 2003-05-29
Gachago, Salome. Tourism Development Manager, Tourism Department at
Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) 2003-05-13
Greives- Cook, Jake. Managing Director of Gamewatchers Safari Ltd.,
Managing Director of Porini Ecotourism Ltd., Chairman of Kenya
Tourism Federation, Chairman of ESOK, 2003-05-28
Kepher- Gona, Judith. ESOK’s National Liaison Officer at Ecotourism
Society Of Kenya (ESOK), 2003-05-05
Muhuhu, Robert. Volunteer at East African Wildlife Society (EAWS),
2003-05-14
Mwangi, Mary. Enterprise Officer for Samburu Heartland at African Wildlife
Foundation (AWF), 2003-05-30
Ndung’u, James. Program Developer at African Conservation Centre (ACC),
2003-05-20
Onyango, David. Administration Manager at Kenya Association of Tour
Operators (KATO), 2003-05-30
Zachrisson, Kristofer. Managing Director of Basecamp Travel and Basecamp
Masaai Mara, 2003-05-27
Internet sources
African Conservation Centre Web Page
http://www.conservationafrica.org/Profile.htm
http://www.conservationafrica.org/REED.htm
http://www.conservationafrica.org/Conservation.htm
2003-03-02
ACC 2003:1
ACC 2003:2
ACC 2003:3
http://www.conservationafrica.org/communities-ecotourism.htm
ACC 2003:4
http://www.conservationafrica.org/detailed.php?id=61
ACC 2003:5
http://www.conservationafrica.org/Conservation_reports/westernKWS.pdf
ACC 2003:6
2003-02-27
African Horizons Web Page
http://www.African-horizons.com/Kenya/private_reserves.htm
AH Web Page 2003
2003-02-27
AfricaOnline Web Page
http://www.africaonline.com/site/Articles/1,3,52102.jsp AfricaOnline 2003
African Wildlife Foundation Web Page
http://www.awf.org/about/
http://www.awf.org/success/starbeds.php
2003-03-02
AWF 2003:1
AWF 2003:2
allAfrica.com Web Page
htpp://allafrica.com/stories/200211290150.html
htpp://allafrica.com/stories/200211080356.html
htpp://allafrica.com/stories/100301300209.html
htpp://allafrica.com/stories/200302180213.html
htpp://allafrica.com/stories/200302140042.html
htpp://allafrica.com/stories/200302110070.html
htpp://allafrica.com/stories/200301310125.html
htpp://allafrica.com/stories/200301300223.html
2003-02-24
allAfrica 2003:1
allAfrica 2003:2
allAfrica 2003:3
allAfrica 2003:4
allAfrica 2003:5
allAfrica 2003:6
allAfrica 2003:7
allAfrica 2003:8
2003-02-06
CIA World Fact book Web Page
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ke.html
World Fact book 2003 Web Page
Daily Nation Web Page
2003-02-06
http://www.nationaudio.com/News/DailyNation/03052002/News/News00
1.html
Daily Nation Web Page2003
2003-02-27
Electionworld.org Web Page
http://www.electionworld.org/Kenya.html Election World Web Page 2003
2003-01-24
HMNet Web Page
http://www.hmnet.com/Africa/Kenya/ke_tourist/kenyatmap.html
2003-02-27
Human Development Report Office Web Page
http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2002/en/indicator/indicator.cfm?File=cty_f_KEN.
htmlHDIH
HDI 2003
Kenya Government Web Page
http://www.cbs.go.ke/Kenyafacts.pdf
http://www.cbs.go.ke/adhu.html
2003-02-13
Kenya Gov 2003:1
Kenya Gov 2003:2
Kenya Wildlife Service Web Page
http://www.kws.org/conservation.htm
2003-04-10
KWS Web Page 2003
2003-01-20
My Travel Web Page
http://www.mytravelgruppen.se/HR/jobba_i_storsta.htm
My Travel Web Page
Porini Ecotourism Ltd. Web Page
http://www.porini.com/search/background.html
http://www.porini.com/search/index.html
http://www.porini.com/search/current2.html
http://www.porini.com/search/current.html
2003-02-24
Porini 2003:1
Porini 2003:2
Porini 2003:3
Porini 2003:4
The Ecotourism Society of Kenya Web Page
http://www.esok.org/
2003-02-27
ESOK 2003:1
http://www.esok.org/Projects.htm
http://www.esok.org/Showcase.htm
ESOK 2003:2
ESOK 2003:3
The International Ecotourism Society (TIES) web page 2003-01-09
http://www.ecotourism.org/
TIES Web Page 2003
2003-03-18
The Ecotourism Observer Web Page
http://www.ecotourism.org/observer/112001/community.asp
Ecotourism Observer 2003:1
http://www.ecotourism.org/observer/072001/community.asp
Ecotourism Observer 2003:2
United Nations Economic and Social Development Web Page
2003-02-27
http://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/niau/kenyanp.htm
UN EAS Web Page 2003
Weather Hub Web Page
http://www.weatherhub.com/global/ke_map.htm
2003-02-13
Weather Hub Web Page
2003-02-13
World Tourism Organisation Web Page
http://www.worldtourism.org/sustainable/IYE/Regional_Activites/Mozambique/Mozambique
-cases/Kenya-Okungu.htm
WTO 2003:1
http://www.worldtourism.org/market_research/facts&figures/statistics/t_itr00country.pdf
WTO 2003:2
http://www.world-tourism.org/market_research/facts&figures/menu.htm
WTO 2003:3
http://www.worldtourism.org/market_research/facts&figures/statistics/t_ita00country.pdf
WTO 2003:4
World Bank Group Web Page
2003-02-27
http://www.worldbank.org/data/countrydata/aag/ken_aag.pdf WB 2003:1
http://www.worldbank.org/afr/ke2.htm
WB 2003:2
Appendix 1: Map of selected public protected areas in Kenya
Source: HMNet Web Page, 2003-01-24
Appendix 2 Basecamp Masai Mara
Masai Mara has been one of Kenya’s major tourist attractions for years due to its
rich biodiversity, the occurrence of the Big 5 and the migration of the wildebeest
two times a year between Masai Mara and Serengeti, Tanzania. For this reason the
number of camps and lodges around the boarders of this National Reserve have
risen during the years. Since being a National Reserve and not a KWS-governed
National Park the Narok County Council is in charge of the reserve and derives all
the revenues from tourism.
After witnessing several examples of mismanagement, particularly in the field of
waste disposal, at different lodges the project of Basecamp Masai Mara (formerly
known as Dream Camp) was initiated by its founders Kristofer Zachrisson and his
friend. Previously having used the area for camping safaris they were familiar to the
area and the local community.
For some time the founders had been thinking that here has to be a way to run a
more ecologically sustainable business with the understanding that maintenance of
the rich biodiversity in the area lies upon co-operation with the local communities
and that they indeed must benefit economically from the management of it. When
the founders met up with a Norwegian investor who shared their view, a travel
agency and the camp was set up as separate bodies. Taking up loans and signing a
33 years lease agreement with the masai leader owning the land, the ideas was set
into reality. After an environmental impact assessment was done in 1998 the
construction started. However, Kenya was ravaged by el Nino and the founders
was though a little bit odd to implement the project at that time. However, not
discouraged the tents in the camp were put on poles and construction proceeded.
Perched on one of the bends of the Talek River that serves as a boarder to Masai
Mara and overlooking it Basecamp is ideally situated. One can say that the
accessibility to Masai Mara and the Basecamp ecolodge is good; one can either
arrive by air (which is preferred) or by road though it must be said that the roads in
Narok County where Masai Mara is situated is in dire need of repair or even a total
remaking. The camp itself is made up of 15 tents (2 beds in each) mounted on
fixed structures and scattered around the campground, all unique in their
appearance. With a porch at the front and an open aired bathroom in the back one
is never far from the surrounding nature with all its wildlife, yet at the same time it
is very private as a result of all the vegetation surrounding the tents and on the
campground.
All of the structures in the camp have thatched roofs and most of the woodworks
are made from cut-offs (wood that would otherwise have been discarded). The
camp is built and operated after the environmental principles the founders in
collaboration with the environmental organization Friends of Conservation in
Kenya had set up. The Talek River serves as the water supply is from where the
water is pumped up to the camp, medicated and stored in the containers connected
to the solar panels that heats the water.
In accordance to the environmentally sensitive approach no flush toilets have been
installed but bio-toilets that separates the liquid from the solids and everything is
recycled in one way or the other after it has been neutralized. Even the water from
the showers are purified and re-used to water the trees around the camp. The
management of waste is done so to have the minimum impact upon the
environment and at the camp everything is sorted and dealt with accordinglywhatever cannot be burnt is recycled or composted.
In all the tents there are electricity. Derived from the panels that converts solar
energy into electricity and stored in a battery bank the energy consumption is
furthered lowered by using low energy bulbs further lowers energy consumption.
This makes a huge difference both in fuel consumption for the camp and
consequently the emissions to the air, since there is no diesel generators needed,
but also in the experience for the visitor of not having the constant humming
interrupting the sounds of the surrounding nature and wildlife. The opting for solar
power led to a considerable expense initially, but the 25-year guarantee on the
panels and the fact that the batteries in the battery bank only have been needed a
change one time during six years it was soon confirmed that within two years the
installation had paid for itself and instead of the fuel expenses one person is
currently hired to solely be in charge if the lights around the camp.
The visitors to the camp get their meals served in the dining hall, a big structure
with thatched roof and open sides where the bar and the library is situated.
Whatever food is needed is driven in from Nairobi once a week, but the local store
also benefits from the camp. The products are bought in Kenya, but prepared in a
western way and cooked by gas as not to exacerbate the growing problem of
deforestation.
The ultimate management of the camp lies with the managing director of
Basecamp Travel; local people are in all but camp management positions- though
recently a Masai woman has been employed in the position of assisting camp
manager. Most of the 30-35 staff are masais from the surrounding area and three of
the masai leader’s sons are currently working at the camp as drivers and guides. All
in the staff have their own room at the camp and the staff has their own cook. At
the moment the head chef and the second chef are local people that have been
trained for their positions, furthermore during the night Masai askaris are guarding
the camp. If the visitor is satisfied with the service the common tip box in the
dining area is used.
Experiences are geared towards wildlife viewing with different types of game
drives, balloon safaris and walking safaris. As a visitor one can also take a guided
Camp Walk free of charge where one can learn more about the camp itself and
how the management perceives ecotourism and sustainable tourism in practice.
The camp and its management have worked closely with the local Masais in
bringing benefits from the project back to the community. Not too far from the
camp a tree plantation with 15 000 trees have been initiated by the camp allowing
the community to gain firewood when the trees are full-grown and thus mitigating
the growing problem of deforestation in the area. Furthermore, support has been
given to the local community to build Talek Primary School and local art is sold at
the camp as souvenirs for the tourists.
The linkage to the source markets are of importance and are primarily made
through the Basecamp Travel offices in Oslo, Norway, Stockholm, Sweden and the
local office in Nairobi but there are also collaborations with other travel agencies
bringing visitors to the camp.
So how does the future look for Basecamp Masai Mara? Well, as almost everything
in life it all boils down to basic economics. To date the camp has not shown a
profit, mainly because of the loans takes to initiate it and the future depends on the
visitors’ willingness to pay for this experience. Since a limit has been set from the
beginning the camp itself should be socially, ecologically and economically
sustainable in the long run.
Appendix 3: Eselenkei Group Ranch /Eselenkei Conservation Area
Porini Ecotourism Ltd. is based in Nairobi and was established by Jake GrivesCook with the aim of assisting rural communities living in the vicinity of protected
areas with the desire to make the most of wildlife habitat as a resource through
partnership with the local landowners (Porini 2003:1). Porini Ecotourism Ltd is a
separate company that pays a lease and bed nights to the community, while
Gamewatchers Safari Ltd. brings the tourists to the camp. Porini Ecotourism Ltd.
has entered a land lease agreement with the local communities of
Eselenkei/Emotoroki Group Ranch in where it announced that it would develop
the infrastructure necessary to enable ecotourism activities to operate (Porini
2003:2).
The Eselenkei Group Ranch lies north of Ambroseli National Park bordering to it
in the south. The area has about 10 000 residents and was established in 1997 on 75
000 hectares of private land (ACC 2003:5). The community has hardly any facilities
and have thus lagged behind the national development and the people in this area
are therefore completely dependent on their livestock as a way of livelihood.
Traditional grazing areas have, as time has gone by, been lost due to of over grazing
and drought resulting in environmental degradation and consequently resentment
of wildlife and as competition over the scare resources are heightened (Porini
2003:4).
After an exchange visit to the Maasai Mara a committee decided to start a game
sanctuary and thus set aside Osinkiran as a conservation area, which was
subsequently leased out to Porini Ecotourism Ltd. The lease agreement runs over
15 years with a rental of Kshs 350 000 per year increasing 5% yearly (ACC 2003:5).
The local people turned over less than 10% of their land to the construction of the
conservation area and worked for keeping the cattle out of this with the exception
of in extremely dry times. Invariably this project needed external assistance, which
it got from AWF and ACC and the conservation area was set up with loans from
the International Fund for Animal Welfare (Ecotourism Observer 2003:2).
According to Mr Grieves- Cook it is a fair and honest deal in where Porini
Ecotourism is, as mentioned before, paying a lease rental on the camping site and
an entry and bed night fee is taken out for every visitor. This has led to the gaining
of trust on the part of the communities as the benefits of this project have slowly
revealed itself.
The camp itself is driven by solar power and careful waste management has been
used. Some positive outcomes of this project are the construction of two school
buildings, two new waterholes have been drilled and a wind pump at the largest
borehole in the community has been installed. It has also resulted a number of
scholarships for local students and 24 new jobs in the camp and conservation area
(Ecotourism Observer 2003:2). Porini Ecotourism has furthermore assisted the
community by providing the Community Game Scouts with uniforms and
installing and improving infrastructure. The key in this project has been the sense
of ownership by the communities and a change of attitude towards wildlife
conservation. According to Porini Ecotourism Ltd the snaring or spearing of
wildlife has come to an end and the community is eager for wildlife to relocate into
the area (Porini 2003:3).
Appendix 4: Interview guide
Community- based ecotourism projects and conservation
Can community- based strategies be the answer to mitigating the conflict between
wildlife and humans? Or is it just another way for organisations and institutions to
get their way?
• What is ecotourism in their words (Definition)? How is it lived out in the
reality?
• What rules if any are set for a project to be seen as an ecotourism project?
• What is the main aim of the project/ projects?
Planning:
• A planned approach carefully assesses the impacts and benefits before
development of a project begins. Has any such thing been done? By whom?
• Is there any tourism in the region that can be tapped into?
• Any examples of projects in the area? If so, is there any cooperation between
the projects (in marketing for instance)?
• Who initiated the idea for the project? Why?
• Had a limit as to the growth or size of the project/s been set from the
beginning?
Funding for the project
• Financed by whom? In what way? On what terms?
• Continuous funding or just initial funding?
Land acquisitions:
• Unless the project is located on the boarder of a national park- land
acquisition will be a major component of the project’s financing. How did
the area come about?
Financial situation:
• How has the price of the experience been set? On what grounds?
• Any minimum number of tourists a year for the projects to break even?
• Is the project at this time economically self-sufficient? If not, any idea as to
when?
Linkage to market source:
• How has the project been promoted? In what forums?
• What kinds of tourists are targeted?
The area/ project
Access
• Transportation infrastructure is truly a challenge in the development (and
accessibility) of projects. Is the access easy or hard?
• Are there any doubts as to negative impacts upon the environment by the
eventual expanding infrastructure?
• Have a limit to growth been set? If so, on what grounds?
Water supply and sewage
• How is the water supply and sewage treatment in the project/s handled?
Lodging
• Size of the project/s?
• Built from local material? Local architecture?
• Power source, if any?
• Food services? Local food or imported products form other areas?
The experience:
• What kind of experience is offered? Is there more than one option?
• Who decided it?
Support?
• How did the support come about? From what sources?
• Political support? Or lack of government incentives for ventures?
• Has the local authorities been positive or negative to the projects?
• Are there any other stakeholders or sources that are putting pressure on the
local communities?
• Where only a minority benefits from wildlife conservation, only a minority is
likely to support it. Does the projects have the local support it needs to be
socially sustainable?
• Rural communities are often inexperienced in representing their own
interests. Do they have help from external sources?
• If not indigenous-run, do local communities receive and equitable share of
the profits or any other direct benefits, such as training? Or do only a few
individuals or families benefit?
Negative/positive impacts?
• What positive impacts of the project/s have been demonstrated? (Building
of schools, drilling for water, less ecological damage, new businesses or jobs
for the local community?)
• Has any negative impacts demonstrated itself? (Displacements of people,
commercialisation of the experience? Congestion and noise pollution?)
• Has the influx of money disturbed the balance in the community? Has the
introduction of a degree of competitiveness into a normally cooperative
village structure changed the behaviour?
Management of the project/ projects
• Who operates the program? Is it operated communally or do only a few
individuals or families profit? Or is it operated by any other external source?
• Have there been any problems with the management of the projects?
Friction between the local individuals? Unreliable administrators?
• Are local people in the middle or upper management of the firm or the
projects?
• Is respect shown for indigenous/local people? Respect for wildlife? Are
precautions taken?
• What degree of environmental education delivered in the product? Are pretrip and trip information provided?
• Contribution to conservation, either financially or physically?
• Appropriate and controlled marketing? To draw a certain kind of tourist.
• Have there been language barriers to overcome between the involved
stakeholders?
Profits?
• Have there been any generation of profits? If not when is the project /s
expected to show a return?
• Have the profits permitted a coordinated development of the community
and its activities?
• Has the profits been allocated to improving community facilities, such as
health and maternity clinics, youth centres and classrooms?
Outcomes?
• Demonstration effect- changing behaviour among the residents? If so, have
any restrictions upon the tourists been initiated?
• Have the aims of the project/s been reached?
If so, how?
If not, what will be done for it to be reached?
Future
• How does the future for the project/s look?
• Will the project/s be sustainable in the long run?
• Are there any possibilities that the project, if not run by local people at
present, will be run in the future by them?
IF NATIONAL PARKS /NATIONAL RESERVES
• Projects with the local communities in the vicinity of these areas: Conflict or
cooperation?
• Exclusion of people from areas: Any sabotage of the activity? Hostility?
Illegal activities?
• How are the limits to the number of tourists admitted set?