TOURISM IN PROTECTED AREASThe Nepalese Himalaya

Sanjay K. NepalUniversity of Bern, Switzerland

Abstract: The Himalayas in Nepal have become popular destinations for internationaltourism, which has rapidly increased in recent years with serious socioeconomic andenvironmental consequences. In the light of the recently concluded Visit Nepal 1998 Year, itis important to reconsider the environmental impacts of tourism, and reformulate strategiesthat would make tourism a viable industry and a sustainable alternative in this country.Drawing from the experience of the three most popular destinations in the NepalHimalayas, this paper discusses some national level policy and management issues. Thepaper concludes by stressing the need for more scienti®c research and forging a partnershipbetween local people, the service industry, and tourism professionals. Keywords: sustainabletourism, environmental impacts, protected areas, community involvement, policy. # 2000Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

ReÂsumeÂ: Le tourisme dans les reÂgions proteÂgeÂes: l'HimaÃlaya neÂpalais. L'HimaÃlaya du NeÂpalest devenu une destination priseÂe du tourisme international, dont la croissance rapide desanneÂes reÂcentes dans cette reÂgion a eu des conseÂquences socio-eÂconomiques etenvironnementaux seÂrieuses. Puisque le NeÂpal vient de feÃter l'AnneÂe 1998 de la Visite, il estimportant de reÂexaminer les impacts environnementaux du tourisme et de reformuler desstrateÂgies pour faire du tourisme une industrie viable et un choix durable dans ce pays. Enpuisant des expeÂriences des trois destinations les plus en vogue de l'HimaÃlaya neÂpalais, cetarticle examine la politique nationale et des questions d'administration. L'article se termineen soulignant le besoin de faire plus de recherches scienti®ques et d'eÂtablir une associationentre habitants, services et professionnels du tourisme. Mots-cleÂs: tourisme durable, impactsenvironnementaux, reÂgions proteÂgeÂes, participation communautaire, politique. # 2000 Else-vier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION

A large proportion of tourism in developing countries constitutesnature-based tourism, in particular, tourism in parks and protectedareas, a signi®cant number of which are located in mountainousregions (IUCN 1994). Their potential for tourism has been wellexploited, for example, in the Western European Alps, the NorthAmerican Rockies, and, to some extent, the Himalayas. While sig-ni®cant parts of such mountainous regions remain isolated, inac-

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 661±681, 2000# 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Printed in Great Britain0160-7383/00/$20.00

Pergamon

www.elsevier.com/locate/atouresPII: S0160-7383(99)00105-X

Sanjay Nepal, PhD in geography, is currently based at the Center for Development andEnvironment, Institute of Geography, University of Bern (Hallerstrasse 12, CH-3012 Bern,Switzerland: Email < nepal@giub.unibe.ch>). He has published a monograph on protectedarea management. His articles on protected area management and tourism have appeared invarious international journals. His current research focus is on tourism development and en-vironmental changes in the mountainous regions of Nepal.

661

cessible and remote, mountain communities are often marginalizeddue to the establishment of protected areas. Tourism in such areasoffers mountain communities some economic opportunities whilemaintaining a healthy natural environment. However, as a moun-tain destination experiences higher intensity of tourism develop-ment, the potential for con¯ict between maintaining a healthynatural environment and economic development also increases. Thishas urged planners and decision-makers to devise and adopt innova-tive approaches that seek to strike a balance between tourism(economic) development and nature conservation in the mountains.The UNCED Agenda 21 Chapter 13 focuses on mountain areas andprovides a good impetus to work together to mobilize global effortsand resources for the development of mountain areas. One of itsmain objectives is to ``diversify mountain economies, inter alia, bycreating and/or strengthening tourism, in accordance with inte-grated management of mountain areas'' (Robinson 1993:213).

The growing debate on the potential and pitfalls of this industryhas resulted in the search for better approaches to environmentallysensitive tourism. Since the advent of the concept of sustainabledevelopment, attempts have been made to link it with virtuallyevery aspect of development. Tourism is no exception, hence theterm ``sustainable tourism'' (de Kadt 1990; Hunter 1997; Nelson,Butler and Wall 1993). World Tourism Organization de®nes thissustainable form as one which improves the quality of life of hostcommunities, provides a high quality experience for the guest, andmaintains the quality of environment on which they both depend(WTO 1993). Sustainable tourism development seeks this goal atdestination areas through the promotion of economic developmentswhich conserve local natural, cultural, and built resources (Hunterand Green 1995).

It is in the above context that this paper reviews the major pro-blems of protected areas-based tourism in the Nepalese Himalaya.The discussion is set in the context of three popular mountain desti-nations. This paper aims to brie¯y discuss tourism growth in Nepaland the role of mountain parks and protected areas in this develop-ment; to highlight the major tourism-induced environmentalimpacts in three mountain destinations; to review some strategiesto rectify the problems encountered; and to suggest policy and man-agement related issues that must be resolved in order to promotetourism as a viable industry and a sustainable alternative in Nepal.The paper stresses the need for scienti®c research in sustainabletourism planning and forging a new partnership between localpeople (community), the service industry, and tourism professionals.It argues that this research should be considered an integral com-ponent in the partnership. The discussion is based on a synthesis ofseveral published studies and ®eld observations made by the authorin Sagarmatha (Mt Everest) National Park during November±December 1996 and September±November 1997, and in theAnnapurna Conservation Area including Upper Mustang duringMarch±May 1998.

PROTECTED TOURISM AREAS662

PROTECTED AREAS-BASED TOURISM IN NEPAL

The extensive network of protected areas has played a signi®cantrole in driving Nepal's tourism industry. The unique geological for-mation and rich natural and cultural heritage of the Himalayanregion in Nepal have long lured adventurers, trekkers, mountai-neers, and other pleasure seeking tourists from all over the world.Since the 50s when Nepal opened its borders for outsiders, therehas been tremendous growth in tourism, the impetus mainly comingfrom trekking and mountaineering. In 1949, Western mountaineersstarted coming to Nepal to climb in the Himalaya; however, it wasnot until 1955 that Thomas Cook offered the ®rst organized tour ofNepal for Western visitors (Karen et al 1994). In 1961, a little over4,000 tourists had traveled to Nepal; their trip, however, was limitedto Kathmandu owing to the lack of transportation and communi-cation facilities outside the valley. It was only in 1966 that, accord-ing to this source, the ®rst ever organized mountain trekkingstarted. Ten years later, there were more than 100,000 tourists. Thestatistics show a steady growth through the 70s followed by a level-ing-off period until 1985; a second phase of steady growth until 1988followed by a slump in 1989; a third phase of rapid growth until1992 followed by a second slump in 1993; and a fourth phase ofrapid growth until the end of 1998 (Figure 1).

With the exception of the Royal Chitwan National Park in thelowland Terai belt of Nepal, which receives the highest number oftourists, most (particularly trekkers) are concentrated in the moun-tain areas. About 23% of the total in 1996 were trekkers and moun-taineers mainly concentrated in the Everest, Annapurna, andLangtang regions (HMG 1996). Protected areas in the Far-westernregion remain virtually unexplored owing to lack of infrastructure,poor service facilities, and little exposure in the international tour-ism market. Based on visitation numbers and control imposed, trek-king areas in the Nepalese Himalaya can be divided into fourgroups: one, the Annapurna, Manang, and Jomsom circuit; two, the

Figure 1. 1962±1998 Arrivals (1998 Data Provisional). Source: HMG (1997a, 1997b)

SANJAY NEPAL 663

Everest, Helambu, and Langtang Valley trek; three, theKanchanjunga and Jumla trek; and, four, the newly opened but con-trolled areas: Mustang, Dolpa, Humla, and Manaslu trek. Almostall trekking is based in protected areas. In 1996, while 59% of thetrekkers were in the Annapurna region, 19% were in the Everesttrekking route and 10% were in the Helambu and Langtang Valleytrekking routes (Figure 2). Only a limited number of tourists areallowed in the controlled areas. For example, only 1,000 per yearare allowed in Upper Mustang where the permit fee costs $700 perperson for 10 days with $75 for every additional day.

The importance of tourism in Nepal is underlined by the fact thatit generated over $117 million in 1996, which is roughly 3.8% of thecountry's gross domestic product and 18% of the total foreignexchange earnings (HMG 1996). Although both the number of tour-ists and the resulting revenue have more than doubled between1979 and 1993, the average daily income per tourist did not showany signi®cant increase. This changed in 1994 when it increased to$39.4 compared to $24 in 1979 and $26.4 in 1993 (HMG 1996). Itincreased further to $42 in 1995 but declined again to a mere $31.9in 1996. This indicates a surge in budget tourists, considering thatbetween 1995 and 1996 the total number increased by 8.3%.Tourism is highly seasonal: 40% arriving during October andNovember. The average length of stay has remained between 10and 13 days for the past ten years. It is estimated that only 6% ofthe tourism expenditure is in rural areas, where the bulk of themoney is collected by a few ethnic groups such as the Sherpa in theEverest region and the Thakali in the Annapurna region (Metz1995). Tourism has created inequity in the distribution of wealth asa result of great disparity in income between villagers living on trek-king routes and those living away from them. Further, it has causedlocal in¯ation of essential goods and services and shortage of laborin agricultural activities (Stevens 1993). Similarly, retention of econ-omic bene®ts at the local level continues to be a major problem(Banskota and Sharma 1997).

Figure 2. Trekking Permits Issued During 1980±1996. Source: HMG (1996)

PROTECTED TOURISM AREAS664

Studies on tourism impacts in Nepal heavily focus on problemsencountered in the Sagarmatha National Park and AnnapurnaConservation Area (Figure 3). These studies highlight tourisminduced problems related to waste disposal, deforestation, andchanges in land use and agricultural practices, both in the physical

Figure 3. The Main Villages and Trails. Sources: HMG (1997a, 1997b); ACAP (1996)

SANJAY NEPAL 665

environment and in the social and cultural practices of the hostcommunities. Some studies have been conducted in the UpperMustang region, where impacts on cultural heritage are explored.

The Sagarmatha National Park

In the world tourism literature, the Mt Everest National Park hasearned infamous quali®cations such as ``the world's highest junk-yard'' (Hillary quoted by Sharma 1995c:5), and the trail to theEverest base camp as ``the garbage trail'' (Shrestha 1989).Established in 1976 and declared a World Heritage Site in 1980, thepark represents a vivid portrait of ecological, environmental, andcultural disruption (Bjùnness 1980; Byers 1987; Byers and Banskota1992; Robinson and Twyman 1995), though Stevens (1993) reportsthat some statements are exagerated.

The most evident impacts in the park are accumulation of gar-bage and deforestation, which are attributed to a high number oftourists, a lack of monitoring and management strategies, and alack of local institutions and government policies. During the ®scalyear 1996±97, there were 17,412 tourists accompanied by 13,389support staff and porters, 2,791 yak and zopkio (crossbreed fromyak and common cattle). In addition, there were 14,279 porters car-rying merchandize to Namche and several other settlements withinthe park (information obtained from the entrance post in Jorsalle).The alarming number of tourists and their crowding in certain lo-cations in the park poses a major challenge to the local environment(Nepal 1997). It is estimated that an average trekking group of 15generates 15 kg of non-biodegradable, non-burnable garbage in 10trekking days. Between 1979 and 1988, there were 840 mountain ex-pedition teams, which were responsible for 422 metric tons of dispo-sable garbage, 141 metric tons of non-biodegradable garbage, and207 tons of oxygen gas cylinders (Sharma 1995a). On average,waste disposal of 50±68 kg/km2 had been recorded along the trailfrom Gorkshep to the Everest Base Camp (Shrestha 1989). Theclean up costs are prohibitively high. Owing to the lack of properpolicy and management, hosts have become responsible for tourismwaste. The accumulation of beer bottles has become yet anotherproblem. Tourists are confronted with empty beer bottles waiting tobe airlifted at Lukla and Syangboche airports, in Namche Bazaar,and outside lodges along the trekking routes to Kala Pattar. It isestimated that a lodge in Namche produces, on average, 15,000empty beer bottles per year (SPCC 1997).

Another publicized issue in the park is tourism-induced pressureon local forests and associated problems of soil erosion. Earlierassessments of this deforestation and subsequent land use changes(Coburn 1984; Hinrichsen, Lucas, Coburn and Upreti 1983) arereported to be fairly inaccurate (Stevens 1993). The earlier assess-ments had attributed the land use changes to rather recentphenomena, which, in fact, were a result of 400 years of human oc-cupation. Bjùnness (1980) reported a strong correlation between for-

PROTECTED TOURISM AREAS666

est clearance and heavily used trekking routes. With the prohibitionon tree cutting, deforestation within the park has been controlled;however, this has immediate impacts outside its boundary particu-larly on the southern slopes. Villages such as Monjo have nowbecome the ®rewood and timber trade center, where tourists hikealong long stacks of ®rewood on both sides of the trail. Constructionof new lodges and houses in the park has escalated demand for ®re-wood and timber. Individual lodge owners especially in NamcheBazaar hire people who make daily trips to the forested areas out-side the park searching for ®rewood. It is estimated that more than125 metric tons of ®rewood per year were imported into the parkfrom the lower regions. The tourism-driven ®rewood crisis is illus-trated by the fact that this demand for ®rewood is estimated toincrease local demand by roughly 85% (ERL 1989 cited in Sharma1995a). Similarly, a typical climbing expedition requires approxi-mately eight metric tons of ®rewood over the duration of twomonths compared to ®ve metric tons burned by a Sherpa hearthduring the whole year (Bunting and Wright 1984). Until now, thenational park administration has not been successful in imposingany restrictions on ®rewood use by the lodge operators within thepark boundary.

Trail damage throughout the park system is yet another problem.Soil erosion along trails, deep incisions, and excessive widths arecommon throughout the park. Tourists frequently come acrossmuddy trails, running water on them, multiple treads, and switch-backs. An assessment conducted during September±November 1997showed that 13% of the major trails are severely degraded whileanother 7% are moderately degraded (based on data obtained fromassessment of trails conducted by this author in 1997). Althoughhigh altitude and slope instability are the main factors, intensiveuse has triggered erosion and degradation. On steep slopes, trailsare poorly aligned, which makes them dif®cult to traverse. This is aproblem for pack stocks used mainly by mountaineering expeditionsand organized trekking groups. Usually, the pack stocks are heavilyloaded (average 60±70 kg.) which makes navigating the trails dif®-cult, hence they search for easy routes. Steep trail gradients anduse of pack stocks have resulted in several switchbacks along thetrekking route. This author observed that people used these switch-backs when trekking downhill to cut short the time taken to tra-verse the trail. Thus, at several locations slopes were crisscrossedwith trails and switchbacks even when one trail with good slopealignment would have been suf®cient. Lack of forest cover andground vegetation at numerous locations were also responsible fortrail erosion. However, some trail segments under good forest coverhave also suffered trail damage owing to intensive use by touristsand local people alike. One such example is the trail segmentbetween the Bhote Kosi/Dudh Koshi con¯uence in Jorsalle and theentry point to Namche Bazaar.

There are also problems related to alteration of traditional agri-cultural practices, including transhumance, and demographic conse-

SANJAY NEPAL 667

quences such as high mortality rates in the Sherpa population andthe long absence from the villages of male household members whonow work in trekking-related business. This has put an additionalburden on the female household members. Though there were ear-lier reports of tourism-related impacts on Sherpa culture (vonFurer-Haimendorf 1984), it is suggested that owing to the new af¯u-ence, the Sherpa have been able to maintain their distinctive andvalued lifestyles and customs. Restoration of temples, constructionof new shrines, expansion of monasteries, and introduction of newand enormously costly regional religious celebrations such as thefamous Mani Rimdu festival have increased greatly in recent years(Stevens 1993). Thus, many Western researchers have the im-pressions of Sherpas as people who adhere to their traditions andvalues. Observations made by this author have made him somewhatskeptical of the above statements. The Rinpoche (the incarnateabbot) of Thyangboche Monastery expressed his concern for dete-riorating traditional values among young Sherpas. Indeed, duringthe early years of tourism in Nepal, Sherpas were among the ®rst tocome into contact with foreigners and were exposed to drugs andother aspects of Western lifestyles. Currently, many young Sherpasdesire to live in Kathmandu rather than spend time with theirelders in the village or help them in agricultural activities duringoffseason periods. As tourism has become a highly pro®table enter-prise, even Lamas (monks) are now attracted to tourism. Forexample, the Rinpoche in Thame Monastery had made arrangementsfor the monks to take leave during peak tourism seasons to seekemployment. The Rinpoche himself had opened a lodge close to theMonastery and contributed a small portion of his income to theMonastery. Thus, tourism has been responsible for such changes,which may put Sherpa culture in jeopardy in the future.

The Annapurna Conservation Area

The Annapurna region is one of the most popular trekking desti-nations in Nepal. Designated as a Conservation Area in 1986, its7,629 km2 is believed to be the most geographically and culturallydiverse area in the world. Inhabited by about 100,000 ethnicallydiverse people, agriculture and trade have ¯ourished here since his-torical times. With the proliferation of tourism, over the past twodecades the Annapurna region has faced all kinds of environmentaland economic problems. The seasonality and concentration of trek-kers in three main areasÐthe Annapurna Sanctuary, the base ofthe 5,400 m Thorong Pass, and Ghorepani village (a major trailintersection)Ðhave caused severe environmental impacts in theseareas (Gurung and de Coursey 1994). Localized deforestationcaused by heavy demand for ®rewood and for timber for the con-struction of more than 700 lodges and teashops have altered wildlifehabitats including the famous rhododendron forests. This hascaused a signi®cant amount of soil erosion in the surrounding hills.Other problems include extensive littering and inadequate sani-

PROTECTED TOURISM AREAS668

tation. Several toilets pollute local streams and rivers as they areoften built at the edge of the streams. In¯ation of prices of essentialgoods, which are mostly imported from cities such as Pokhara andKathmandu, has been reported as well.

It is important to note that even before the introduction of tour-ism, environmental problems such as extensive deforestation andsoil erosion were common in the Annapurna region as a conse-quence of the politico-economy of Nepal (Eckholm 1976). The pro-blems were made worse by the advent of tourism as the region washardly prepared to receive such a huge number of tourists who haddemands of their own. In response to the growing environmentalcrisis, His Majesty's Government of Nepal decided to declare it aConservation Area and its management entrusted to the KingMahendra Trust for Nature Conservation, a local non-governmentalorganization (NGO) established in 1984. This arrangement wasunique for until then management of Nepal's protected areas hadbeen the responsibility of the government. Local people were con-sidered custodians of their natural and cultural heritage and wereassisted by the Annapurna Conservation Area Project (ACAP), anundertaking of the King Makendra Trust. The thrust of the projectis on participatory natural resources conservation. To realize thisobjective, arrangements have been made to derive tangible bene®tsfrom tourism related activities. As such, ACAP has been authorizedby special legislation both to charge fees to visitors (currentlyNepalese Rupees 1,000 per person per visit, equivalent to $14) andto retain the revenues to ®nance its activities. The success of thisapproach is re¯ected in the expansion of its activities from the in-itial project area of 200 km2 to 1,200 km2 in 1989 and the entireregion in 1993 (including the Upper Mustang region).

With the successful adoption of a participatory approach at thegrass-roots level, the Annapurna Conservation Area became famousin the international literature. There was a dramatic increase intourist numbers, which rose from 14,332 in 1980 to 33,620 in 1986and 44,733 in 1994 (HMG 1996). There was an increase of morethan 56% between 1985 and 1986 alone, which probably re¯ects thewide publicity ACAP received in the international literature at thattime. Since the launching of the project, high priority has beengiven to reducing the environmental impacts of tourism and toincreasing the local economic bene®ts from tourism. Within a shortperiod of time, ACAP has made considerable progress in motivatinga skeptical population to participate in natural resources manage-ment, achieving signi®cant improvement in environmental con-ditions, and generating local bene®ts. However, tourism-relatedenvironmental problems persist as a result of the huge in¯ux oftourists annually; for example, congestion of lodges and teashops ina small area have created localized environmental, health, and sani-tation problems. The Annapurna Sanctuary trail, particularly thetrail segment between Khuldighar and Deurali, needs proper designand maintenance, as this part of the trail is very unkempt owing towet trail conditions. Another problem is related to the distribution

SANJAY NEPAL 669

of wealth. As is the case in Sagarmatha National park, only a fewpeople (mostly lodge owners) have been able to take advantage ofthe tourism boom. For example, a case study in Ghandruk, ACAP'sheadquarter, suggests that only 12% of the active population isdirectly engaged in tourism. Most of the community developmentprograms initiated by this project are concentrated in theGhandruk area while the vast majority of poor farmers in otherareas have hardly bene®ted. Given this situation, a strained re-lationship between those who have bene®ted and those who havenot is likely to occur. Similarly, there is a signi®cant problem ofeconomic leakage from tourism. A recent survey in the Ghandrukand Ghorepani area showed only 55% of the income derived fromtourism retained locally, while a signi®cant proportion of the ruralpopulation did not receive adequate incentives or opportunities torealize tourism bene®ts through augmenting their production base(Banskota and Sharma 1997).

The Upper Mustang Region

With its success in the Annapurna region, the King MahendraTrust expanded its activities in the Upper Mustang region with thelaunching of the Upper Mustang Conservation and DevelopmentProject (UMCDP) in November 1992. The kingdom of Lo(Mustang) is a thumb like projection into Tibet located on thenorth central border of Nepal; only three trails link it with the restof Nepal to the south (Peissel 1965). The kingdom of Mustang datesback to the 14th century; the capital Lo Manthang is reported to be``one of the world's most unspoiled medieval walled cities''(Shackley 1994:18). The region is mostly barren and fragile withharsh climatic conditions. As a result of severe winter, it is esti-mated that almost 50% of the local population migrate to the southin search for seasonal employment (Gurung and de Coursey 1994).

Though guided by the ACAP philosophy, the focus in UpperMustang is on conservation of cultural heritage with the promotionof environmentally sensitive tourism. The Upper Mustang region isinhabited by Bhotias, speaking various Tibetan dialects and ruled bya local raja (king). Traditionally, these people were traders who con-trolled a major trade route between lowland Nepal and Tibet. TheUpper Mustang region was opened to tourists for the ®rst time inMarch 1992. Until then, it was a forbidden territory where only fewWesterners had been admitted. The Nepalese government hasimposed several rules and regulations to control tourism in theUpper Mustang region. Only a total of 1,000 are allowed per year;they must belong to an agency handled group tour; they must taketheir own supplies of kerosene, waste must be disposed of properlyor taken back, tourists must not give cash or goods to local children,and they must be accompanied by Nepalese liaison of®cersappointed for the duration of their trip.

In spite of these regulations, environmental problems inUpper Mustang had already occurred within the ®rst eight

PROTECTED TOURISM AREAS670

months of tourism (Shackley 1994). Regulations regarding thecompulsory use of kerosene had not been observed, resulting in®rewood collection in adjacent areas. The government hasencouraged camp-based trekking to discourage direct host±guestinteractions and to avoid pressure on limited local resources. Itwas found that the majority of the tents were pitched on aroof of a local inn. Pounding tent pegs into the mud roofobviously causes damage. Interviews with some tourists revealedthat they did not like to stay in tents owing to very strongwind conditions and heat during the day. As uninterruptedsleep is important for trekkers, dogs barking throughout thenight were often really a problem when camping on a roof. Iftrekkers were allowed to stay in local lodges, it would have pro-vided them some comfort and the lodge owners some economicbene®ts. There is even one up-scale lodge in Lo Manthangmanaged by an in¯uential person from Kathmandu, contrary toACAP's emphasis on community based tourism. Littering andhaphazard disposal of trash is a common sight in Lo Manthang.Toilet tents were sometimes located too close to streams andirrigation channels in some villages while the holes were shal-low, usually less than 12 inches deep. Similarly, tourists areconfronted with aggressive begging by children and donation-seeking mothers' groups. Those interviewed by this author com-plained that while they do not mind giving away small amountsof money as charity, they would like to be made aware of sucha situation before they begin the trek. Similarly, some com-plained that they had not been informed that they could buysouvenirs in Upper Mustang and hence did not bring enoughcash with them, only to ®nd people in every village willing tosell them crafts. Thus, tourists need to know that they can buygifts so that they can pump additional cash into the local econ-omy. This indicates the inadequacy of available informationeven though there are two tourist information centers in UpperMustang.

It seems that the government is determined to maintain theTibetan authenticity of Upper Mustang by not exposing it for masstourism. However, it is wrong to think that the government wouldsucceed in countering the forces of modernization by not lettinglocal people decide what kind of tourism they wish to have in UpperMustang. Culturally, as traders the Mustangis had been wellexposed to the outside world even before tourism reached theirdoorsteps; however, their number was limited. Today, the wholepopulation of Lo Manthang is suddenly exposed to the outsideworld because of tourism and through two video screening outlets,where night after night local Mustangis congregate to worship thelords and ladies of Bollywood (the Bombay ®lm industry) and theirmaterial world. Only time will tell if this will create any distractionfrom the spiritual world of Tibetan Buddhism the Mustangisstrongly believe in. Owing to lack of funds for restoration and main-tenance, several important monuments are in the verge of collapse.

SANJAY NEPAL 671

A once very important monument, the Samdruling Monasterylocated southwest of Lo Manthang, now no longer exists.

Earlier, ACAP had committed itself to returning 60% of tourismrevenues to Upper Mustang, which could have provided an annualbudget in the range of 19 to 20 million ruppees (between $3 and$3.5 million) adequate enough to support various community devel-opment activities. However, the government's annual contributionto UMCDP for the past three years has ranged from 18 to 22% andhas recently dwindled further. Thus, development opportunitiesafter the introduction of tourism in Upper Mustang have broughtvery limited bene®ts to the local people (Shackley 1996). ACAP's ac-tivities in Upper Mustang lack clear-cut perspectives and prioritiesin spite of its 12 years of experience in the Annapurna region(Banskota and Sharma 1998). Moreover, ACAP now ®nds itselfdragged into internal con¯icts among the local people in LoManthang. Once united by the local king, the local community inUpper Mustang is now divided among various political groups.Local land use and water rights con¯icts, which used to be solvedtraditionally with the king's intervention, have become a politicalagenda represented by various political parties and fought not forresolving the con¯ict but for escalating it for political gains. In thissituation, UMCDP will ®nd it very dif®cult to implement its pro-grams, particularly those requiring active local participation.

It can be deduced from the above discussions that the intensity oftourism development in sensitive areas is a critical factor to its sus-tainability. In Sagarmatha and Annapurna where the intensity oftourism development is relatively high, environmental impacts oftourism are most common. However, in the AnnapurnaConservation Area, tourism-induced problems are not as severe asin Sagarmatha because ACAP introduced timely programs based onprinciples of sustainability and local involvement. The UpperMustang case exempli®es that even if tourism is planned carefully,without local community's involvement and willingness to protectthe cultural heritage, very little can be achieved. Thus, a participa-tory approach to tourism management is crucial to minimize anypotential harmful effects caused by such developments. The in-herent destructive nature of the industry can be manipulated infavor of the environment where it takes place. This enhances thequality of the environment, and the experience of the visitors andlocal population, thus bene®ting both in several ways. The degree ofmanipulation varies with local conditions, the severity of the pro-blems encountered, and a general willingness of the public and pri-vate sectors to invest in remedial efforts.

Mitigating Tourism's Impacts

Several attempts have been made to resolve the tourism-inducedenvironmental problems. These include launching various commu-nity development activities, re-instating a traditional managementsystem, exploring alternative sources of energy, putting in place

PROTECTED TOURISM AREAS672

regulation and control mechanisms, forging partnership (amonglocal institutions, NGOs, government authority, and donoragencies), and mobilizing local resources and manpower. Variouscommunity and development projects such as building bridges,establishing health posts and schools, repairing trails and paths,providing safe drinking water, and reforesting denuded areas havebeen launched in the Everest and Annapurna regions. Conservationeducation is also one of the main features in such community devel-opment activities. Solid waste management and regular garbageclean-up campaigns are becoming effective in keeping the villagesand trails clean. While the traditional system of forest managementhas been re-instated in the Everest region, grass-root level insti-tutions have been set up in a wide range of activities in theAnnapurna region. These include Conservation and ManagementCommittees, Lodge Management Committees, and Mothers'Group. One of the major foci in both protected areas has been theemphasis on alternative energy sources, including micro-hydel pro-jects, solar energy, back-boiler water heaters, and enforcement of akerosene-only policy in ®rewood de®cit areas. In ACAP, owing tothe introduction of alternative energy and fuel ef®cient technol-ogies, popular tourism areas such as Ghandruk have changed sig-ni®cantly in the level of energy use as well as overall energyef®ciency among lodges (Banskota and Sharma 1997).

Perhaps one of the most important aspects of tourism develop-ment has been the partnership among local NGOs, governmentauthority, and donor agencies. In the Everest region, theSagarmatha Pollution Control Committee is now established toaddress garbage disposal and sanitation problems. Run by localSherpas, the committee receives support from the Ministry ofTourism and Civil Aviation and World Wildlife FundÐUSA. Thecommittee has also been able to form alliance with several otherlocal and international agencies, such as Nepal MountaineeringAssociation, Russian Mountaineering Federation, and the AustrianOko Himal. The latter was instrumental in constructing a 620 kWpower plant in Thame, which now supplies electricity to eight vil-lages within the Mt Everest National Park. Since 1994, the pollutioncommittee has collected more than 550 metric tons of disposableand non-disposable garbage from the Everest region (SPCC 1997).Similarly, ACAP has been working in close collaboration with theAmerican Himalayan Foundation, which is supporting various con-servation activities in the Annapurna region. Recently, theFoundation has also extended its support to UMCDP in the restor-ation of monasteries in Upper Mustang. One advantage that ACAPhas over Mt Everest National Park is that it has a regular source offunding as it collects entrance fees to support its activities, whereasthe entrance fee from the park goes to the central treasury.

The efforts made in the three areas have met with varyingdegrees of success. One common aspect of these efforts is that theyhave been reactive rather than proactive; in other words, measureswere developed in response to the problems rather than to prevent

SANJAY NEPAL 673

the problems. In the Everest region, efforts made in reducing ®re-wood consumption and garbage clean-up have been good; however,problems abound, mainly because of increasing tourist numberswhich exert tremendous pressure on local resources. One major pro-blem in the Everest region is the general lack of local participationin conservation-related activities. In the Annapurna region tourism-induced problems are of lesser magnitude and more manageable,because local people are willing to participate in ACAP sponsoredactivities. The success achieved in Annapurna signals the need for aparticipatory approach to tourism planning and related develop-ment activities. This approach conceives tourism as one importantcomponent of the overall resource base and not the only resource,as it is conceived in the Everest region. The exclusionary policyadopted in the Upper Mustang further strengthens the argumentfor a participatory approach.

Tourism Perspectives

Since the last decade, environmental protection has been on topof the national agenda in Nepal. This is re¯ected by the active invol-vement of various national and international NGOs in this ®eld.Recently, His Majesty's Government has given ``environment'' aministry level status by creating the Ministry of Population andEnvironment. The Department of Tourism is now seriously consid-ering environment-related issues in its policy and is interested inpromoting quality tourism. With respect to the tourism-related en-vironmental issues, the Nepal Environmental Policy and Action Plan(on which this discussion is based) has recommended actions toensure ®rewood is not used by trekkers and trekking companies, topromote the use of bio-degradable materials, and to encourageeffective waste management systems in national parks (HMG1993). Similarly, suggestions have been made for developing en-vironmental management plans for tourism routes and destinations,both those presently used and those to be opened up in the future.Much remains to be seen as to whether these plans turn into con-crete actions. As mentioned earlier, the issue of ®rewood is ratherdif®cult to solve, even if alternative energy sources are available.For example, in the Everest region, it is estimated that ®rewoodconsumption in households with electricity has been reduced by 25%only (based on a discussion with the manager of Thame HydroPlant Project). Reforestation has been a slow process as it has beenprimarily a government initiative. There is no motivation amonglocal people to plant trees. It has been found elsewhere that wherepeople do not have a sense of ®rewood scarcity, they are least pre-pared to plant trees (Nepal and Weber 1993). Although this is notthe situation in the Everest region, many villages did not have forestcover in their vicinity. An interesting observation was made inPhurte, the location for the tree nursery. There was good forestcover along the trails in and around Phurte but within a short dis-tance towards Thamo, forest cover gave way to open areas devoid of

PROTECTED TOURISM AREAS674

vegetation cover. Why there is no forest cover beyond Phurte is aninteresting matter for exploration.

Regarding the question of garbage disposal, expedition teams arerequired to make deposits which could be forfeited should they notobserve these regulations. The amount of such a deposit is quitehigh, ranging between $2,000 and $4,000. However, setting theprice at a high level does not ensure that garbage is collected prop-erly. Arrangements must be made for environmental liaison of®cersto be permanently stationed at the base camps for major peaks withthe power to enforce regulations. Currently, temporary liaison of®-cers are appointed for each expedition. These of®cers are nottrained in environmental matters and are responsible only for resol-ving any potential con¯icts between expedition team members andlocal support staff. During discussions with some expedition mem-bers and staff, it was revealed that most of the liaison of®cers prefernot to accompany the team and stay behind at safer altitude andwait for the expedition to be over. The liaison of®cers are notappointed based on their skill but on personal acquaintance andfavors from the top-level of®cials at the Ministry of Tourism andCivil Aviation.

In the economic sector, NEPAP has recommended to establish atask force to improve the current system of revenue sharing, and toidentify a mechanism for assessing appropriate tourist fees for entryto national parks, trekking, and mountaineering (HMG 1993). Arecent amendment to the National Parks and Wildlife ConservationAct (1973) provides 30±50% of retention of locally generated rev-enue for development projects, yet it has been hardly implementedin practice. Similarly, suggestions have been made that the entryfees to protected areas be based on their sensitivity and popularity.In other words, if a protected area is considered ecologically and cul-turally sensitive and is also very popular among tourists, the entryfee would be much higher compared to other areas. Attempts havebeen made towards achieving a regional balance in tourist visitationto protected areas. The dif®culty, however, is that not all desti-nations have the same level of facilities; hence, the majority of tour-ists visit popular destinations even if they are overcrowded.

Too often, the argument that protected-area tourism offers jobsand employment to local people does not hold true, as is the case inthe Upper Mustang region. Even when tourism is under the controlof local people, differential income from it poses a problem. A goodmeasure of sustainable development is the degree to which earningsfrom tourism are distributed equally, not only among the ``involvedpeople'' but also the peripheral population, by putting in place effec-tive mechanisms to let bene®ts trickle down. Assessing ACAP's suc-cess, Banskota and Sharma (1997) report that while it has beenable to improve the social and environmental carrying capacity, ithas paid little or no attention to the economic carrying capacity, sovital for improving the economic conditions of the local people andpromoting sustainable mountain tourism. Few mountain commu-nities can rely on tourism as a dependable source of year-round

SANJAY NEPAL 675

employment and income. There is a considerable amount of riskinvolved to local communities if tourism dwindles in places likeSagarmatha and Annapurna. Therefore, a priority concern shouldbe to expand the economic base of destinations.

With respect to policy related issues, NEPAP recommendationsare, one, to determine the appropriate mix of high and low budgettourists, and identify suitable strategies to achieve this mix; two, toimprove the current system of issuing permits; three, to determinethe basis for new areas to be opened up for tourism; and, four, toencourage the role of the private sector in identifying, developing,and marketing new products and activities in new areas (HMG1993). A major problem in tourism in countries like Nepal is that asigni®cant proportion of the revenue is generated and retained inthe places of origin (developed countries). Much of the remainingexpenditures of an average tourist are collected by the city-basedtour operators. The expenses made by a tourist in a national parkor its periphery are little, thus limiting the income opportunities forthe local people. Further, the majority of the protected areas in thedeveloping countries lack adequate services and facilities, therebylimiting the tourists' ability to spend. While in the national contextit is sensible to favor high-budget tourists, in the local context, thiswill help very little. High-budget tourists often participate in pack-age trips, usually of short duration. In contrast, the majority of low-budget arrivals are independent tourists who have the tendency tostay much longer. The former spend more time and money in therural areas compared to the latter who pay a huge amount ofmoney to the city-based tour operators while spending very little atthe local level. Thus, controlling numbers and determining the mixof tourists are rather challenging, for tourism in Nepal is notdemand-driven but rather a supply-driven industry.

In the majority of parks and protected areas in Nepal, their re-spective authorities have jurisdiction only within their area, evenwhen off-site impacts are signi®cant, as is illustrated by theSagarmatha case where an internal prohibition on ®rewood collec-tion has impacted forests in the vicinity. The staff is frustrated withits lack of control over the activities of tour operators and lodgeowners, both inside and outside. They are responsible for maintain-ing a healthy park environment but have no control over visitornumbers. Similarly, marketing activities geared towards the pro-motion of less used trekking destinations, particularly in the far-western region of the country are required to ease the pressure onheavily used destinations. However, trekking and tour operatorscomplain that because of the ®xed quota for the restricted areas,they are less inclined to promote them. Publicizing them as attrac-tive destinations may cause problems should there be a suddenincrease in the number of potential tourists (Sharma 1995c).Recently, King Mahendra Trust has launched an ecotourism projectin the Ghale Kharka area in southern Annapurna (Sharma 1995b).The emphasis is on a small-scale, community-based developmentwith a view to create demand for tourism rather than respond to its

PROTECTED TOURISM AREAS676

demand. So far, the investment made in the project has not beenrecovered from tourism, given the present volume of arrivals. Thishas important implications for sustainable tourism; for example, itraises the question of scale and impact: with low scale operation,positive impacts are also minimal. However, if the number of arri-vals is allowed to grow, the potential for negative impacts to exceedpositive ones will be greater. This is a classic dilemma.

There is a rich literature on tourism impacts in Nepal, particu-larly with respect to the environmental problems in the Everest andAnnapurna regions. Most of the studies, however, are either donordriven or are conducted by independent researchers in their owninterests. As such, there is no coherence in the subject matter andintegration in the overall framework. The information base in thethree areas is rather poor which has implications in the tourism pol-icy. In his discussion of problems of soil erosion in Sagarmatha,Byers (1987) noted that the park policy was in¯uenced to someextent by preconceived ideas of general, rather than site speci®clandscape degradation, which, in turn, could have obscured theidenti®cation of problem areas. The same applies in tourism relatedissues; detailed site-speci®c impact studies have not been conducted,but de®nite conclusions are made based on some simple obser-vations. There has been no systematic effort to examine, monitor,and mitigate the environmental impacts caused by this industry.Detailed inventory of site characteristics is required to establish asound basis for monitoring impacts. The information base shoulddescribe the nature and severity of resource impacts and the com-plexity of the relationships between tourism management and bio-physical factors. Similarly, there is a dearth of scienti®c research onthe impacts of pilgrimage tourism in the Himalayas where themechanization of roads has facilitated mobility for the tourists aswell as for a signi®cant number of domestic pilgrims. This providesa new avenue for research.

CONCLUSION

Based on current scienti®c knowledge of tourism development inthe Himalayas, neither an unconditional endorsement nor an over-all rejection of tourism can be rationally justi®ed (Robinson andTwyman 1995). Without suf®cient management and a realisticthreshold based on adequate coherent data, the ecological, environ-mental, sociocultural, and economic problems associated with thisindustry will signi®cantly increase. Nepal's tourism-induced environ-mental problems are part of a larger picture in which populationgrowth, poverty, environmental deterioration, and politics are inter-twined. The Himalayas are part of this complexity; however, theyare even more disadvantaged owing to their remoteness and iso-lation. Development has further increased the degree of marginali-zation, as integration of mountain economies with that of the plainshas left their communities even more vulnerable and in a state ofcomparative disadvantage. Tourism offers the opportunity to break

SANJAY NEPAL 677

this vulnerability, but, much careful planning and management isnecessary to ensure that the mountains enjoy the same privileges asthe plains. The industry has caused signi®cant environmentalimpacts in the Himalayan protected areas. Its policies in Nepal aredictated by the need to earn foreign exchange; sustainability of itsresources (natural, cultural, and human) has been largely ignored.None of the destination areas discussed in this paper have manage-ment plans. Local bene®ts from tourism have been minimal, withthe exception in the Everest region where Sherpas have been ableto derive substantial bene®ts. Where returns have been substantial,differential earnings from tourism have generated the potential forstrong strati®cation among local communities (Nepal 1997). Noattempt has been made at the local level to link tourism with thewider economic base, particularly with agriculture. Nepal's newtourism policy, made public in 1995, addresses many of the issuesdiscussed above. The policy emphasizes development of rural tour-ism, expansion of the adventure type, human resource development,regional balance, greater private sector involvement, and marketingand promotion activities. How these policies will transform into con-crete actions is a matter of great interest for those concerned withthe overall development of Nepal.

The potential for sustainable tourism in the Himalayan protectedareas is signi®cant, as exempli®ed by the Annapurna study.However, intensi®ed development could also cause irreversible en-vironmental damage such as in the Everest region. The challenge isto strike a balance between development and conservation in a waythat negative aspects of tourism are greatly reduced while the posi-tive outputs are maximized. This requires a good understanding ofthe natural processes (of the environment) as well as a thoroughknowledge of the tourism dynamics at the local, national, regional,and international levels. This purposeful and comprehensive under-standing should be complementary to local knowledge both of thenatural and the socioeconomic system. Thus, not only an interdisci-plinary approach to research is essential, partnership at the locallevel (with institutions and community) is equally important. Thescienti®c circles, tourism entrepreneurs, and local communities allshould be active in promoting sustainable tourism. Moreover,research should be an ongoing process within the framework of thispartnership. However, caution should also be taken not to spendconsiderable time just in collecting information without concreteactions at the local level. For it has been proven elsewhere thatwithout some immediate tangible bene®ts local communitiesremain indifferent to long-term development and research activi-ties. This should be an important lesson for future tourism strat-egies in Nepal.

The recently launched Visit Nepal 1998 Year has failed to attracthalf a million tourists as orginally planned by the Ministry ofTourism and Civil Aviation. Available estimates suggest that therewere 460,000 arrivals during that period, which is neverthelessmuch higher compared to the previous years (The Kathmandu Post

PROTECTED TOURISM AREAS678

1999). Although additional economic bene®ts from an increasednumber of tourists is likely, the potential for severe negative socioe-conomic and environmental implications in already crowded areascannot be ruled out. There is a need to achieve a regional balancein tourism and diversify its tourism product with a new marketingcampaign. Incentives and disincentives should be carefully plannedso as not to exceed the limits to both the kinds and intensity of ac-tivities. Government agencies, tourism operators, and local peoplemust be interested in protecting the park ecosystem for itself Ðnot only for the sake of tourism alone, but also to achieve a sustain-able environment and quality of life for all.&

AcknowledgmentsÐThe author wishes to express his sincere gratitude to the SwissFoundation for Alpine Research, Zurich, Switzerland, for providing generous fund-ing support for this research. This paper has bene®ted from discussions withRichard Butler (University of Surrey, UK) and Urs Wiesmann (University of Bern,Switzerland). Their constructive comments on earlier versions of this paper arehighly appreciated.

REFERENCES

Annapurna Conservation Area Project (ACAP)1996 A New Approach in Protected Area Management. Pokhara: Annapurna

Conservation Area Project.Banskota, K., and B. Sharma

1997 Case Studies from Ghandruk, Kathmandu. Kathmandu: InternationalCenter for Integrated Mountain Development.

1998 Mountain Tourism for Local Community Development in Nepal Ð ACase Study of Upper Mustang. International Center for Integrated MountainDevelopment: Kathmandu.

Bjùnness, I.1980 Ecological Con¯icts and Economic Dependency on Tourist Trekking in

Sagarmatha (Mt Everest) National Park, Nepal: An Alternative Approach toPark Planning. Norsk Geogra®sk Tiddskrift 34(3):119±138.

Bunting, B., and R. M. Wright1984 Annapurna National Park: The Nepal Plan for Joining Human Values and

Conservation of a Mountain Ecosystem. Washington DC: World WildlifeFund.

Byers, A.1987 Landscape Change and Man-Accelerated Soil Loss: The Case of the

Sagarmatha (Mt Everest) National Park, Khumbu, Nepal. Mountain Researchand Development 7(3):209±216.

Byers, A., and K. Banskota1992 Environmental Impacts of Backcountry Tourism on Three Sides of

Everest. In World Heritage Twenty Years Later, pp. 105±122. Gland: IUCN.de Kadt, E.

1990 Making the Alternative Sustainable: Lessons from Development forTourism. University of Sussex, Sussex: Institute of Development Studies.

Eckholm, E. P.1976 Losing Ground. Environmental Stress and World Food Prospects. New

York: Worldwatch Institute.Gurung, C. P., and M. de Coursey

1994 The Annapurna Conservation Area Project: A Pioneering Example ofSustainable Tourism? In Ecotourism: A Sustainable Option?, E. Cater and G.Lowman, eds., pp. 177±194. New York: Wiley.

Hinrichsen, D., P. H. C. Lucas, B. Coburn, and B. N. Upreti1983 Saving Sagarmatha. Ambio 12(34):203±205.

SANJAY NEPAL 679

HMG.1993 Nepal Environmental Policy and Action Plan. Kathmandu: Environmental

Protection Council.1996 Nepal Tourism Statistics. Kathmandu: Ministry of Tourism.1997a Nepal Tourism Statistics. Kathmandu: Ministry of Tourism.1997b Solu-Khumbu District, Topographical Map, 1:50000 scale. Map sheets

No. 2786 03 and 04, and 2886 15 and 16. Kathmandu: Survey Department.Hunter, C.

1997 Sustainable Tourism as an Adaptive Paradigm. Annals of TourismResearch 24:850±867.

Hunter, C., and H. Green1995 Tourism and the Environment: A Sustainable Relationship. London:

Routledge.IUCN

1994 United Nations List of National Parks and Protected Areas. Gland: TheWorld Conservation Union.

Karen, P. P., H. Ishii, M. Kobayashi, M. Shrestha, C. Vajracharya, D. Zurich, andG. Pauer

1994 Nepal: Development and Change in Landlock Himalayan Kingdom.Moutain Seindica No. 25. Tokyo: Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.

The Kathmandu, Post.1999 Private Sector Dominance in Tourism (May 20).

Metz, J. J.1995 Development in Nepal: Investment in the Status Quo. GeoJournal

352:175±184.Nelson, J. G., R. Butler, and G. Wall, eds.

1993 Tourism and Sustainable Development: Monitoring, Planning andManaging. Waterloo: The University of Waterloo, Department of Geography.

Nepal, S. K.1997 Tourism Induced Environmental Changes in the Everest Region: Some

Recent Evidence. Bern: The University of Bern, Center for Development andEnvironment.

Nepal, S. K., and K. E. Weber1993 Struggle for Existence: Park-People Con¯ict in the Royal Chitwan

National Park, Nepal. Bangkok: Division of Human SettlementsDevelopment, Asian Institute of Technology.

Peissel, M.1965 Mustang, Remote Realm in Nepal. National Geographic 128(4):579±604.

Robinson, D., and D. Twyman1995 Alternative Tourism, Indigenous Peoples, and Environment: The Case

of Sagarmatha (Mt Everest) National Park, Nepal. Environments 23(3):13±35.

Robinson, N. A., ed.1993 Agenda 21: Earth's Action Plan Ð Annotated. IUCN Environment Policy

and Law Paper No. 27. New York: Oceana Publications.SPCC

1997 Annual Report for the Fiscal Year 1996±1997. Namche: SagarmathaPollution Control Committee.

Shackley, M.1994 The Land of Lo, Nepal/Tibet. The First Eight Months of Tourism.

Tourism Management 35:17±26.1996 Too Much Room at the Inn? Annals of Tourism Research 23:449±462.

Sharma, P.1995a Sustainability of Mountain Tourism in the Hindu Kush Himalayas.

Towards an Agenda for Action. In Paper Presented at the InternationalHimalayan Environment Program and Action Projects Conference held inNew Delhi, India, February.

1995b Tourism for Local Community Development in Mountain Areas:Perspectives, Issues and Guidelines, Conference Proceedings, Kathmandu,ICIMOD.

PROTECTED TOURISM AREAS680

1995c Culture and Tourism. De®ning Roles and Relationships. Kathmandu:ICIMOD.

Shrestha, T.1989 Impact of Tourism in the Himalayan Ecosytem of Nepal. In Impact of

Tourism in Mountain Environment, T. V. Singh, ed., pp. 41±62. New Delhi:Himalayan Books.

Stevens, S. F.1993 Claiming the Highground. Sherpas, Subsistence, and Environmental

Change in the Highest Himalaya. Berkeley: University of California Press.von Furer-Haimendorf, C.

1984 The Sherpas Transformed: Social Change in a Buddhist Society of Nepal.New Delhi: Sterling Publishers.

WTO1993 Sustainable Tourism Development: Guide for Local Planners. Madrid:

World Tourism Organisation.

Assigned 14 May 1997. Submitted 27 July 1998. Accepted 3 March 1999. Final version 8July 1999. Refereed anonymously. Coordinating Editor: Anton F. Gosar

SANJAY NEPAL 681