Ecotourism in conservation...achievement of ecotourism in a little-developed tropical forest region...

Geography Vol 96 Part 2 Summer 2011© Geography 2011

Ecotourism inAmazonian Peru:uniting tourism,conservation and communitydevelopment

75

Ecotourism inAmazonianPeru: unitingtourism,conservationand communitydevelopment

Jennifer L. Hill and Ross A. HillABSTRACT: With reference to two ecotourism

enterprises that operate within Tambopata, Peru,

this article evaluates key principles necessary to

enable the successful achievement of ecotourism in

a little-developed tropical forest region. In so doing,

it highlights the intricacies of the relationship

between ecotourism, environmental conservation

and local community development. Principles are

identified as i) empowering communities by

integrating them in an ecotourism venture; ii)

exchanging knowledge between a community and

tour operator; iii) managing forest resources jointly

between a community and tour operator; iv)

minimising local economic leakage; v) educating

tourists through interpretive programmes; and vi)

minimising environmental and wildlife disturbance.

The article offers cautious optimism that the

tourism enterprises are consciously helping to

protect the rainforest of Tambopata, while meeting

the socio-economic needs of the local communities.

IntroductionEcotourism has been defined as ‘environmentallyresponsible travel to natural areas whichconserves the environment and improves the well-being of local people’ (The Ecotourism Societycited in Western, 1993, p. 8). Ecotourism shouldinvolve local people, feed economic profit into localenvironmental protection, and contribute to themaintenance of local species diversity byminimising visitor impact and promoting touristeducation. The challenge is to accommodateincreasing numbers of visitors seeking anintrinsically environmental tourism experience,while minimising the costs and enhancing thebenefits associated with natural area tourism (Boo,1990; Cater and Lowman, 1994). As such,ecotourism is being promoted by governments andthe tourism industry alike as a sustainablealternative to mass tourism, despite criticisms thatit can be just as damaging to the naturalenvironment and local cultures (Wheeller, 1991;Conservation International, 1999; Kruger, 2005).

Peru is the third largest country in South America,comprising three distinct physical regions: thewestern desert coast, the central mountainousinter-Andean region, and the eastern lowlandtropical forest which occupies the upper reaches ofthe Amazon River (O’Hare and Barrett, 1999).Here, we investigate two ecotourism enterprisesoperating within the Department of Madre de Diosin south-eastern Amazonian Peru. We evaluate keyprinciples necessary to enable successfulachievement of ecotourism in a little-developedtropical forest region and thus highlight theintricacies of the relationship between ecotourism,environmental conservation and local communitydevelopment.

Study areaSouth-eastern Peru is a hotspot of biologicaldiversity and this is reflected in its status as oneof the most protected regions in Amazonia(Phillips, 1993; Myers et al., 2000; Hill and Hill,2001). This article makes reference to the

Geography Vol 96 Part 2 Summer 2011 © Geography 2011

76


Tambopata National Reserve (TNR), created in2000 with an area of 274,690ha, and the BahuajaSonene National Park (BSNP), first created in 1996and subsequently extended in 2000 to an area of1.1 million ha (Figure 1). Unlike National Parkstatus, the National Reserve designation officiallypermits sustainable use of forest resources intothe future (Matsufuji and Bayly, 2006). The TNRand BSNP together support 1300 bird species,200 mammal species and approximately 10,000plant species (INRENA, undated). The keyattractions for tourists include relatively abundantpopulations of monkeys, macaws, giant river ottersand harpy eagles.

In 2006 over 40,000 visitors passed throughPuerto Maldonado on their way to the Tambopatarainforest (Kirkby et al., 2008). While the keymotive for visiting the area is to experience an

exotic location relatively close to Cusco, touristshave also expressed an interest in learning aboutthe forest ecosystem and its conservation (Kirkby,2002). Increasing numbers of visitors to the regionhave prompted a rise in the number of eco-lodgesalong the Madre de Dios and Tambopata rivers:from 14 in 1998 to 37 by 2007 (Kirkby et al.,2008) (Figure 1).

Two ecotourism enterprises are examined here:Inkaterra, a Peruvian ecotourism company that hasoffered ecotourism experiences since the mid-1970s; and Rainforest Expeditions, a privateecotourism company founded in 1992 by twoPeruvian conservationists. Inkaterra’s mission is togenerate profit while simultaneously helping toresearch and preserve the local ecology as well asaiding the sustainable development of localcommunities. The company has established a

Figure 1: The Tambopataregion in the Departmentof Madre de Dios, south-east Peru, showing themany touristestablishments in the areaand their relationship toprotected areas. Source:Paul Revell.


77


parallel non-governmental organisation, the INKATERRA Association (ITA-NGO), which is funded byprofits gained from ecotourism and which invests inresearch, conservation, social development andeducation. The company owns and operatesReserva Amazonica Lodge (formerly known asCuzco-Amazonico), which opened in 1976 as thefirst tourist installation along the Madre de DiosRiver. Rainforest Expeditions combines tourismwith environmental education, research and localsustainable development to support theconservation of the areas in which they operate.The company manages three rainforest lodges: theTambopata Research Centre (opened 1989),Posada Amazonas Lodge (opened 1998) andRefugio Amazonas Lodge (opened 2006). For thepurpose of this article, only Posada AmazonasLodge of Rainforest Expeditions and ReservaAmazonica Lodge of Inkaterra are examined.

The two enterprises were selected because of theirlong history in the region as well as their focus onenvironmental conservation and communitydevelopment through tourism. There is a notabledifference between the enterprises, however, withrespect to the extent of community participation.The Posada Amazonas venture is highlyparticipatory, displaying many characteristics ofcommunity-based ecotourism (Cusack and Dixon,2006). The lodge is owned by the Ese’eja NativeCommunity of Infierno (a mix of native Indians andimmigrant peoples) and is operated jointly with

Rainforest Expeditions. Reserva Amazonica, bycontrast, is owned and managed by Inkaterra andinvolves local community members as employeesand service providers. This difference is primarily aresult of the geographical locations of the lodgesand their relative accessibility to Puerto Maldonado(Figure 1). The Reserva Amazonica Lodge islocated on the Madre de Dios River, approximately13km east-north-east of Puerto Maldonado andless than 5km north of the TNR. The PosadaAmazonas Lodge is located on the TambopataRiver, approximately 25km south-south-west ofPuerto Maldonado. It falls just outside theprotected area of TNR and within the nativecommunity land of Infierno. These differences inlocation and participation help to draw out somedistinct issues for consideration with respect to theachievement of ecotourism.

Research methodsA case study approach was adopted to investigateecotourism in context and to provide a detailedsource of reference material (Buckley, 2003).Primary data were obtained by participant activity inthe ecotour products of the two companies. Fieldresearch was carried out for two weeks in April2006, when the authors undertook a three-dayecotour at Reserva Amazonica Lodge, followed by afive-day ecotour at Posada Amazonas Lodge andthe Tambopata Research Centre. In order to ensurean authentic experience and avoid bias in productdelivery, the authors elected to identify themselves

Figure 2: The receptionbuilding at Inkaterra’sReserva Amazonica Lodge.Photo: © Jennifer Hill


78


as academic tourists at the close of each ecotour.At this point they also obtained permission fromthe lodge managers and the tour guides to publishcomments and observations. Factual statementsoriginating from all interviewees are referred to aspersonal communications with the respondent’sinitials in the results.

Key informant interviews were undertaken with thelodge managers (Chris Blakeley at ReservaAmazonica and Malu Gutierrez at PosadaAmazonas) and allocated local interpretive guides(Yuri Torres and Oscar Mishaja at ReservaAmazonica and Posada Amazonas respectively).The lodge manager interviews were in-depth andsemi-structured, each lasting one and a half hoursand focusing on: the lodge’s tourism mission; theoperator’s role in mitigating the impacts of lodgeoperations and visitor activities on localenvironments and cultures; the role of visitoreducation in the ecotourism experience; the natureand extent of community participation in lodgeenterprises; and the destination of companyrevenue. Interviews with the interpretive guideswere shorter and more informal, focusing on therole of the guide in visitor education and the extentof local community involvement in lodgeoperations. Finally, after the authors’ return to the

UK, Kurt Holle, a co-founder and co-director ofRainforest Expeditions, answered the same semi-structured questions as the lodge managers viaemail. Mr Holle provided direct access to themotivations of Rainforest Expeditions and suppliedfirst-hand economic and socio-cultural data aboutthe company. Secondary data were accessed fromunpublished reports available from lodge librariesand staff during the field visits. This informationwas combined with published material from diversesubject backgrounds.

ResultsReserva Amazonica LodgeThe Reserva Amazonica Lodge (RAL) was opened in1976, and in 1977 the Peruvian governmentgranted the lodge an ecological reserve totalling10,000ha to administer ecotourism and research(Kirkby et al., 2000). In 1990, however, a newgovernment failed to renew the reserve status ofthe land and, subsequently, it was partiallycolonised by settlers. Undeterred, in 2004,Inkaterra obtained government approval for anecotourism concession over the land by signing abenefit-sharing agreement with neighbouringcommunities and demonstrating ongoingsustainable ecological management. The status ofthe Inkaterra Ecological Reserve today prohibits theextraction or conversion of natural resources bylocal inhabitants (CB personal communication).This allows Inkaterra to act as a direct agent ofconservation, but the arrangement necessitatesmaking payments to communities in cash and kindas described below.

Lodge buildings (including 34 private cabins) areconstructed from local materials in the traditionalarchitectural style of the native Ese’eja Community.The buildings consequently have a low visualimpact in the landscape (personal observation).The reception is thatched in the traditional styleand includes a circular mezzanine, built around thetrunk of a strangler fig, with balconies overlookingthe Madre de Dios River and surrounding forest(Figure 2). To minimise energy use by visitors, noelectricity is supplied to cabins, and kerosenelamps and candles provide lighting. Most cabinshave cold water supplies and visitors are advisedto use the resource sparingly (personalobservation). Non-biodegradable tourist waste istaken off-site and organic waste is composted atthe lodge or used as animal fodder by communitymembers (CB personal communication).

Figure 3: Section ofcanopy walkway close toReserva Amazonica Lodge.Photo: © Ross Hill


79


The lodge receives general interest tourists whousually stay for three days, predominantly as partof international package tours to Peru (CB personalcommunication). The lodge possesses the oldestrainforest trail system in the area, with fourmarked trails covering 8km and providing accessto a variety of forest types. Inkaterra offers guidedwalks along the shorter trails, with visitorsexploring the longer trails at their leisure. Visitorimpact on the environment is thereby limitedspatially to these trails. Additionally, Inkaterra, inpartnership with the World Bank and NationalGeographic Society, has constructed a canopywalkway close to the lodge (Figure 3). This consistsof 275m of bridges raised 30m above the groundproviding views of the rainforest canopy. In total,there are two towers accessing the vertical profileof the forest, six platforms for viewing wildlife andseven hanging bridges (personal observation). Asmall fee allows access to the walkway andprovides entrance to an interpretation centre.Information in the centre describes the verticalstratification of the forest and the specialisedtypes of flora and fauna that can be found indifferent forest layers. The economic benefitsderived from the walkway contribute to educationand conservation projects in the Ese’ejaCommunity (YT personal communication).

At RAL information is supplied to visitors in anumber of different ways. Pre-departureinformation includes ecological detail about thesite and its biological diversity. An interpretive eco-centre on site explains how tourist activitiesbenefit the local community and environment. Mostimportantly, field interpretation by guides is relatedto current research, and slide shows about thelocal ecology (including information gathered fromresearch projects on-site) are presented to touristsafter evening meals (personal observation).

Figure 4 shows the itinerary for a typical three-daystay. The manager at Inkaterra stressed theimportance of a small group experience to hisclients (CB personal communication). Walksundertaken by the authors on the lodge’s trailsystem consisted of tourist-to-guide ratios of 4:1 or2:1. Minimising visitor numbers per guide ensuresa personal experience and reduces disturbance towildlife. This has been demonstrated by a 23-month study into the relationship between touristtraffic on trails and the diversity of 26 species oflarge mammal across five lodges in the region,

including RAL. The study found no significantdifference in species richness of mammalsbetween tourist trails and non-trafficked pathways(Kirkby et al., 2000).

The Peruvian guide who accompanied the authorsduring their ecotour was very knowledgeable aboutrainforest ecology and conservation, providing highquality bespoke interpretation. During a visit toLake Sandoval, visitors walked 3km to an ox-bowlake, stopping at a visitor centre to examineinterpretive information. The guide walked thevisitors around information boards, explaining theformation of the lake and how successionalvegetation change is causing the lake to in-fillslowly over time, while contributing to local speciesrichness.

Inkaterra promotes biological research within itsEcological Reserve, most of which is driven by theacademic interests of visiting scientists. Revenuefrom its primary economic activity, ecotourism, isused to defray the expense of the biologistsworking in the reserve (CB personalcommunication). In association with the NationalInstitute of Natural Resources (INRENA) thecompany funds and manages a primate rescuecentre on Rolin Island in the Madre de Dios Riverto rehabilitate endangered monkeys and toreintroduce them into their natural habitat. Since2003, Inkaterra has operated the Amazon Centrefor Environmental Education and Research(ACEER). This initiative is sponsored by theNational Geographic Society and it co-ordinatesprojects that benefit the local communities, suchas an environmental education programme forschool students. Although accommodation at

Day 1 (half day)Boat journey (45 minutes) along theMadre de Dios River to the lodge.Introduction to the lodge, includingguest rules in camp and in theecosystem. Guided walk along thelodge’s trail system. Evening naturepresentation on Amazonecosystems and local communitiesin the eco-centre.

Day 2 (full day)Morning trip by boat to Rolin Islandin the Madre de Dios River to visitprimate conservation project and

then to Lake Sandoval by boat, footand canoe. Afternoon visits to thecanopy walkway to view birdlife andto a native Amazonian farm tosample regional fruits and learnabout farming practices. Eveningriver tour to encounter black, whiteand dwarf caimans. Nightwalk locallyaround the lodge to find tarantulaspiders and other nocturnal wildlife.

Day 3 (half day)Early morning visit to the canopywalkway and forest trails. Tour of abutterfly farm at Puerto Maldonado.

Figure 4: Itineraryexperienced by the authorsat Reserva AmazonicaLodge over a three-daystay.

ACEER is primarily for researchers, ecotourists mayalso visit the centre (see ACEER website). Theproject fosters awareness of rainforestconservation among local, national andinternational stakeholders, including communities,government agencies, tourists and academicgroups (CB personal communication).

Inkaterra also supports development in thesurrounding native communities. Training insustainable forest management and agriculture(including crop rotation, natural pest control, soilmanagement) has been initiated for communitiessurrounding the lodge, with funding from the UnitedNations Global Environment Facility (CB personalcommunication). Tourists, with their interpretiveguide, can visit farms belonging to families of theLorin or Gamitana communities. Visitors areinformed about farming practices and areencouraged to taste the local ‘exotic’ fruits(personal observation). The farmers receiveremittance from Inkaterra for allowing tourists asvisitors and they gain extra money from the sale ofcraft items (YT personal communication). A smallshop at RAL also sells a variety of locally-sourcedhandicrafts, in addition to Inkaterra products(personal observation).

Posada Amazonas LodgeThe Posada Amazonas Lodge (PAL) is constructedfrom local materials purchased from the Ese’ejaCommunity and is relatively compact in size tominimise its ecological footprint (c. 1.5ha) (MGpersonal communication). The 30-room lodgecombines traditional indigenous architecture withlow-impact modern technology. The ‘walls’ ofrooms facing the forest are open verandahs toallow contact with nature, while those separatingrooms incorporate clay to regulate heat naturally(personal observation). The operation of the lodgefollows the same principles of resourcesustainability as described for RAL above (MGpersonal communication).

The Ese’eja Community became interested indeveloping an ecotourism partnership withRainforest Expeditions as competition fordiminishing resources within its communal landsincreased (Piana, 2000; UNDP, 2006). Themission of the partnership is to develop aprofitable ecotourism product that effectivelycatalyses the conservation of natural and culturalresources (Nycander and Holle, 1996). To this end,Rainforest Expeditions brings commercial expertisein the wildlife and cultural tourism market, and theEse’eja Community brings ownership of biologicallydiverse land and cultural heritage. A legal contractwas signed by both Rainforest Expeditions and thecommunity in 1996, producing a democraticallyelected 10-member Ecotourism Committee. TheCommittee represents the community in thepartnership and is elected by communal assemblyevery two years. It includes roughly equalparticipation of Ese’eja and immigrant men andwomen (Pauca, 2001). This 20-year contractguarantees that 60% of the profits from the lodgego to the local community and that decisionmaking is split equally among the two partners.Full operation of the lodge will be passed to thelocal community in 2016, entitling it to 100% ofthe profit. It is expected that by then thecommunity will have the capacity to manage thelodge without external assistance.

Rainforest Expeditions trains community residentsto occupy lodge positions and, currently, nearly allstaff members working at the lodge are from thenative community (Nycander et al., 2006). Apartfrom guides, the allocation of jobs follows arotational system where, after the EcotourismCommittee has shortlisted applications each year


80


Day 1 (half day)Boat journey (approximately 2.5hours) along the Tambopata River toPosada Amazonas Lodge.Introduction to the lodge, includingguest rules in camp and in theecosystem. Introduction to theEcotourism Partnership. Visit 35m-high tower to view rainforest canopyand wildlife. Evening videopresentation about the rainforest ofTambopata.

Day 2 (full day)Visit Tres Chimbadas ox-bow lake –a river otter habitat. Undertake araft ride around the lake to viewwildlife and to fish for piranha.Continue journey (approximately 6.5hours) to the Tambopata ResearchCentre. Lodge orientation andguided ecological walk on foresttrails (12km). Evening educationallecture on Tambopata macaws.

Day 3 (full day)Dawn visit to a local macaw/parrotclay lick. Guided ecological walk onforest trails. Guided walk to anobservation tower at a palm swampto view a macaw nesting site.Guided night walk on forest trails.

Day 4 (full day)Dawn visit to a local macaw/parrotclay lick. Return journey to PosadaAmazonas Lodge. Visit a local farmto view and taste the farm products.Guided walk along forest trails.

Day 5 (half day)Guided walk along forest trail fordawn visit to 35m-high canopytower. View rainforest canopy andwildlife. Return to PuertoMaldonado.

Figure 5: Itineraryexperienced by the authorsat Posada AmazonasLodge and the TambopataResearch Centre over afive-day stay.


81


and suitable training has occurred, each employeeworks at the lodge for two years before passing onthe position to another community member. Thishelps to spread income throughout the communityand means that community members leave asqualified workers. Currently, more than 50 ofapproximately 130 families in the community areinvolved in the venture; either directly as staffmembers, or indirectly as suppliers or members ofthe Ecotourism Committee. The partnership is alsocommitted to diversifying income. Thus, communitycrafts are sold at the lodge if they are equal inquality and price to those available elsewhere inthe market (MG personal communication). Thelocal community is able to express its voicethrough the Ecotourism Committee, which holdstwice-monthly meetings with Rainforest Expeditionsstaff to make decisions about hiring employees,solving staff problems and implementing itineraryimprovements (KH personal communication).

Visitors to PAL travel predominantly with all-inclusive tour operators and they generallyundertake between three- and five-day tours (MGpersonal communication) (see Figure 5). Thetourist-to-guide ratio does not exceed 10:1 in orderto minimise environmental impacts anddisturbance to wildlife (OM personalcommunication). The authors actually experienced

a tourist-to-guide ratio of 2:1 on a five-day ecotour,undertaken with a guide from the Ese’ejaCommunity. Rainforest Expeditions directorsrecognise the importance of interpretive guides tovisitors: ‘The guides make or break the guest’sexperience’ (KH personal communication). Theguide accompanying the authors proved to beextremely knowledgeable about local species,ecosystem functioning and conservation issues.During a visit to Tres Chimbadas Lake, for example,he indicated that it is the responsibility ofcommunity members to protect the lake. Heconveyed to visitors how this occurred during a rafttrip round the lake (Figure 6). Following a FrankfurtZoological Society management plan to preservethe populations of endangered giant river ottersthat inhabit the lake, tourists are restricted to itseastern half. The western half, which has highbanks suitable for otter holts, is off-limits totourists. This management plan has reducedhuman impacts on the otters, which have beenrecorded swimming, fishing and relaxing on theeastern side of the lake on a regular basis, evenwhen visitor boats are present (Dehnert, 2003).

The contract between Rainforest Expeditions andthe Ese’eja Community involves communityresponsibility for biological conservation (KHpersonal communication). PAL is located within

Figure 6:Wildlifeobservation from amanually powered raft onTres Chimbadas Lake.Photo: © Jennifer Hill


82

Editorial

82


10,000ha of communally owned land, 2000ha ofwhich are protected voluntarily (Nycander et al.,2006). Hunting of wildlife considered a tourismresource, such as jaguars, harpy eagles andmacaws, is prohibited on this land. Likewise, thecommunity has committed not to fell trees in theareas designated for ecotourism (Nycander andHolle, 1996). There is an ongoing community

project aimed at conserving macaw populations onthe community’s lands, assuming that this will bebeneficial not only to the breeding success of thebirds but also to the long-term success of thelodge (Figure 7). Over the short term, the projectprovides employment in the form of projectassistants and offers small cash rewards forfamilies that agree to host a macaw nest box ontheir land (roughly US$25 initially plus a furtherUS$25 if one or more chicks fledge). Over the long-term, the project aims to increase the quality andquantity of tourist macaw sightings by increasingmacaw reproduction rates (Brightsmith, 2001).

A number of community projects have beenestablished to promote capacity building andprofitable business opportunities (KH personalcommunication). A computer house has beenconstructed for primary and secondary students,financed by families who work at PAL and who havechildren in the schools that will be serviced by thecentre. In 2000 a US$50,000 World Bank granthelped to initiate an artisans committee with 25community residents using local materials tocreate tourism products (Pauca, 2001).

Income generated from the lodge is invested in thecommunity. In 2000, net profits paid from thelodge to the community were approximatelyUS$15,000 – three-quarters of which was dividedamong community members and the remainderused for investment in education (UNDP, 2006). By2007 the figure had risen to US$148,000, againdistributed between private improvements in livingstandards and communal projects (KH personalcommunication). Positively, most families continueto engage in a variety of economic activitiesincluding farming and livestock-tending, thusavoiding becoming totally reliant on a single sourceof income (Stronza, 2007).

DiscussionSuccessful ecotourism requires fulfilment of socio-cultural, economic, natural and political objectives.Rainforest Expeditions adopts a fundamentalsocial principle with respect to the achievement ofecotourism; committing to community integrationin the ecotourism venture (Cole, 2006; Okazaki,2008). Community empowerment is identified as apriority, a responsibility that is recognised by thecommunity. A survey of 69 community members,undertaken by the Critical Ecosystem PartnershipFund, found that 87% of the respondents feltinvolved in the business of PAL (RainforestExpeditions, undated). However, in diversecommunities, culture and gender differences canlimit democratic co-management of ecotourism andconservation (Mitchell and Eagles, 2001; Mitchelland Reid, 2001; Southgate, 2006). Some conflictsof interest exist in the Ese’eja Community due toethnic differences among community members (KHpersonal communication). Likewise, in terms ofgender, Stronza (2001) found that fewer womenparticipated in the Posada Amazonas venturesimply because taking up employment at the lodgemeant living there and neglecting their householdduties. However, at the time of writing, thepresident of the Ecotourism Committee and 80% ofhandicraft suppliers were women. Additionally, themajority of lodge managers appointed byRainforest Expeditions have been women (KHpersonal communication). Conversely, there hasbeen less integration of local communities into themanagement of RAL. Inkaterra owns and managesthe lodge entirely, but it does employ localcommunity members as lodge workers, artisans,guides and boat handlers. This situation can beexplained largely by historical forces. Withdegradation of forest occurring rapidly in the early

Figure 7: A scarlet macaw,one of the key touristattractions in theTambopata rainforest.Photo: © Ross Hill


83


1970s, due to uncontrolled land speculation (Yu etal., 1997), the establishment of an ecotourismlodge and associated ecological reserve was thefastest and most effective way to protect athreatened resource.

It is important to facilitate knowledge exchangebetween the ecotour operator and the community,and to foster the equitable spread of informationthroughout the latter (Vincent and Thompson,2002). Communities must be able to state theirdemands and negotiate equitable relationshipswith agencies in ecotourism development so as tomake informed decisions about their tourismdevelopment (Cole, 2006). There is an importantrole here for community organisations such as theRainforest Expeditions Ecotourism Committee,which allows ongoing interchange betweencommunity members and the company directors.At RAL, with a diversity of ethnic groupssurrounding the lodge (making information transferand community consensus difficult), there iscurrently less of a two-way articulation betweentour operator and the community compared withRainforest Expeditions. This means thatenthusiasm and vision come primarily from thetour operator (top-down) rather than the community(bottom-up).

Training in managerial skills is necessary ifcommunities are to accept increasingresponsibility for ecotourism ventures in the future(Victurine, 2000). To overcome the challenge ofinstilling these skills, Rainforest Expeditionsemploys an adaptive management strategy(learning by doing) in the operation andmanagement of its lodges. Likewise, Inkaterratrains local community members to managesectors of its activities in order to improvecommunity managerial capacity.

Joint management of natural resources between acommunity and tour operator can offer a means ofutilising resources sustainably. Ceding of authorityto a local community and allowing its members todecide how local resources are used, can be apowerful incentive to alter behaviour towardsconservation and thereby protection of naturalresources. This is witnessed in the Ese’ejaCommunity commitment not to hunt wildlifeconsidered a tourism resource, nor to log forest inareas designated for ecotourism. As onecommunity member noted ‘we do not have many

development options, but we do have flora andfauna’ (Stronza, 2001, p. 9). This is supported bya constant message from the ecotour operator thatnatural resources attract tourists and henceprovide revenue for the community.

Economically, income generated by tourists to aregion should be maintained in place and not lostto outside companies who transmit their wealth toheadquarters in distant cities (Ashley and Roe,1998). By offering a full range of tourist servicesthrough the companies directly (includingemployment of local people and using localproducts) both Rainforest Expeditions and Inkterrareduce such economic leakage. Integration of thecommunities into lodge operations ensures thatthe local people gain direct financial investment.

Environmentally, ecotour operators should aim todevelop visitors’ knowledge and awareness of thenatural environment and minimise local wildlifedisturbance (Lee and Moscardo, 2005). Bothlodges examined explicitly link tourism andeducation via interpretive programmes for visitors.Tourists are restricted to small groups in the forestin order to minimise impacts on ecosystems, and(as stated above) there is evidence that suchmanagement is protecting species diversity locally.Eco-lodge owners depend upon the protection ofthe surrounding natural assets as part of theirbusiness plans. A primary aim at RAL is tomaintain the biodiversity of its ecological reserveunder increasing pressure from human activities.The reserve is under threat from illegal loggerswho operate businesses in nearby PuertoMaldonado and from some community membershunting within the reserve. This venture highlightsthe tension that can exist between theconservation interests of ecotourism and thelivelihood interests of communities (Salum, 2009).In recent years the tension has been resolvedpartially through formal agreements with localcommunities in which they receive assistance toimprove their quality of life without damaging theforest. This has included technical assistance toimprove farm yields and to manage the forestsustainably. In return, the communities agree tohelp protect the ecological reserve.

Politically, for successful ecotourism to spreadmore widely (a strategic direction of Peru’s Ministryof Tourism) there needs to be government supportin terms of legal land entitlement. The Ese’eja

Community holds legal title to its land; andInkaterra holds an ecotourism concession whichaffords it management control over the forestsurrounding its lodge. At both lodges, therefore,tourist income is invested directly in forest andwildlife protection. Legally reserved status forbroad areas of tropical forest, in whichconcessions are awarded based on ecotourismmerit, would ensure protection of much larger andless fragmented areas of forest. Such extensiveareas of forest are necessary to maintainecosystem processes (Hill and Curran, 2001,2003, 2005) as well as to support ecotourism.Thus, any controlled expansion of ecotourism inthe rainforest of Peru, via community participation,is likely to be most effective as a component ofbroad conservation and development strategies,linked to national policy legislation.

ConclusionsConscientious ecotour operators adopt four broadcodes of socio-ecological and political conduct:indigenous community participation/development(employing and consuming locally, impartingmanagement skills); visitor education (provision ofpre-departure guidelines, in situ interpretation);environmental conservation (operating in smallgroups, minimising visitor environmental impact,avoiding wasteful practices); and minimisingeconomic leakage (employing local people,consuming local products).

The research presented here describes two largelysuccessful examples of ecotourism, but the extentof success is influenced by the level of communityparticipation. While Inkaterra has, to a largeextent, protected the forest surrounding its lodgeand spread the economic benefits of ecotourismthroughout the local communities by offering directemployment opportunities and supplying goodsand services to local residents, a lack of fullcommunity participation has resulted in partialdisturbance of its ecological reserve by localinhabitants and the company is unable toengender the capacity for residents to plan asustainable future for themselves. Conversely,Rainforest Expeditions has encouraged localresidents to be active participants in makingtourism a long-term option for their livelihoods. ThePosada Amazonas Lodge enterprise provides agood example of community integration inecotourism with respect to employment of localpeople, inclusive decision-making and stakeholder

ownership. However, the positive impact of fullparticipation may not be universal (Wunder, 2000).It depends on the ability of the ecotour operatorand local community to work together to securelong-term financial and technical support in orderto establish a foundation of indigenous leadershipand management.

Overall, this research offers cautious optimismthat ecotourism at Inkterra’s Reserva AmazonicaLodge and Rainforest Expeditions’ PosadaAmazonas Lodge is consciously helping to protectthe rainforest of Tambopata, Peru, while meetingthe socio-economic needs of the localcommunities in a largely sustainable fashion. Withdue acknowledgement of their varying social andgeographic contexts, the enabling principlesidentified here might be considered in other areasof the wet tropics.

ReferencesAmazon Centre for Environmental Education and

Research (undated) ‘ACEER facilities’. Availableonline at www.wcupa.edu/aceer/facilities.asp (lastaccessed 31 March 2011).

Ashley, C. and Roe, D. (1998) Enhancing CommunityInvolvement in Wildlife Tourism: Issues and challenges.London: International Institute for Environment andDevelopment.

Boo, E. (1990) Ecotourism: The potentials and the pitfalls(Volume 1). Washington: World Wildlife Fund.

Brightsmith, D. (2001) ‘Macaw conservation andmanagement in Tambopata, Peru IV: work with thenative community of Infierno’. Abstract of paperspresented at the Eleventh Canadian Congress onLeisure Research, 17–20 May. Nanaimo: Departmentof Recreation and Tourism Management, MalaspinaUniversity College.

Buckley, R. (2003) Case Studies in Ecotourism.Wallingford: CABI Publishing.

Cater, E. and Lowman, G. (eds) (1994) Ecotourism: Asustainable option? Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

Cole, S. (2006) ‘Information and empowerment: the keysto achieving sustainable tourism’, Journal ofSustainable Tourism, 14, pp. 629–44.

Conservation International (1999) The Green Host Effect– An integrated approach to sustainable tourism andresort development. Washington: ConservationInternational.

Cusack, D. and Dixon, L. (2006) ‘Community-basedecotourism and sustainability: cases in Bocas delToro Province, Panama and Talamanca, Costa Rica’,Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 22, pp. 157–82.

Dehnert, K. (2003) ‘Human impact on giant river otters inLake Tres Chimbadas’. Tambopata Summer ResearchOpportunity, Unpublished project report. Stanford:Stanford University.

Hill, J. and Curran, P. (2001) ‘Species composition infragmented forests: conservation implications ofchanging forest area’, Applied Geography, 21, pp.157–74.

Hill, J. and Curran, P. (2003) ‘Area, shape and isolationof tropical forest fragments: effects on tree species


84



85


diversity and implications for conservation’, Journal ofBiogeography, 30, pp. 1391–403.

Hill, J. and Curran, P. (2005) ‘Fragment shape and treespecies composition in tropical forests: a landscapelevel investigation’, African Journal of Ecology, 43, pp.35–43.

Hill, J. and Hill, R. (2001) ‘Why are tropical rain forests sospecies rich? Classifying, reviewing and evaluatingtheories’, Progress in Physical Geography, 25, pp.326–54.

National Institute for Natural Resources (undated)Reserva Nacional Tambopata. Lima: INRENA.

Kirkby, C.A. (2002) Análisis inicial del impacto económicodel turismo en Puerto Maldonado y periferia, Madre deDios, Perú. Lima: WWF-OPP.

Kirkby, C.A., Doan, T.M., Lloyd, H., Farfán, A.C., Arriaga,W.A. and Marín, A.P. (2000) Tourism Developmentand the Status of Neotropical Lowland Wildlife inTambopata, South-eastern Peru: Recommendations fortourism and conservation. Puerto Maldonado, Peru:Tambopata Reserve Society-Research and MonitoringStudies.

Kirkby, C.A., Day, B., Turner, K., Soares-Filho, B.S.,Oliveira, H. and Yu, D.W. (2008) ‘Ecotourism financesbiodiversty conservation in the Peruvian Amazon’.Unpublished paper. Norwich: Centre for Ecology,Evolution and Conservation, University of East Anglia.

Kruger, O. (2005) ‘The role of ecotourism in conservation:panacea or Pandora’s box?’, Biodiversity andConservation, 14, pp. 579–600.

Lee, W.H. and Moscardo, G. (2005) ‘Understanding theimpact of ecotourism resort experiences on tourists’environmental attitudes and behavioural intentions’,Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 13, pp. 546–65.

Matsufuji, D. and Bayly, T. (2006) ‘Areas naturalesprotegidas en Peru, La Reserva Nacional Tambopatay El Parque Nacional Bahuaja-Sonene’ in RainforestExpeditions (ed) Guia Interpretativa de RainforestExpeditions (thirteenth edition). Tambopata, Peru:Publication 16 of the Tambopata Research Centre,pp. 69–81.

Mitchell, R.E. and Eagles, P.F.J. (2001) ‘An integrativeapproach to tourism: lessons from the Andes ofPeru’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 9, pp. 4–28.

Mitchell, R.E. and Reid, D.G. (2001) ‘Communityintegration: island tourism in Peru’, Annals of TourismResearch, 28, pp. 113–39.

Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., daFonseca, G.A.B. and Kent, J. (2000) ‘Biodiversityhotspots for conservation’, Nature, 403, pp. 853–8.

Nycander, E. and Holle, K. (1996) ‘Rainforest expeditions:combining tourism, education and research insoutheastern Amazonian Peru’ in Miller, J.A. andMalek-Zadeh, E. (eds) The Ecotourism Equation:Measuring the impacts. New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity, Yale School of Forestry and EnvironmentalStudies Bulletin Series (Volume 99), pp. 169–81.

Nycander, E., Holle, K., Napravnik, M. and Zapatar, L.(2006) ‘Nuestros albuergues en la selva’ inRainforest Expeditions (ed) Guia Interpretativa deRainforest Expeditions (thirteenth edition).Tambopata, Peru: Publication 16 of the TambopataResearch Centre, pp. 265–8.

O’Hare, G. and Barrett, H. (1999) ‘Regional inequalitiesin the Peruvian tourist industry’, The GeographicalJournal, 165, pp. 47–61.

Okazaki, E. (2008) ‘A community-based tourism model:its conception and use’, Journal of SustainableTourism, 16, pp. 511–29.

Pauca, E. (2001) ‘Rainforest expeditions and the nativecommunity of Infierno: a joint venture for profit,development and conservation’. Unpublished report.

Phillips, O.L. (1993) ‘Comparative valuation of tropicalforests in Amazonian Peru’. Unpublished PhD thesis.St Louis, MO: Washington University.

Piana, R. (2000) ‘Traditional forest uses and ecotourismat the Infierno native community: two differentincome generating activities and their impact on localpeople’s economy’. Unpublished Master’s thesis.Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen.

Rainforest Expeditions (undated) ‘Posada Amazonas:social impact’. Unpublished report. Lima: RainforestExpeditions.

Salum, L.A. (2009) ‘Ecotourism and biodiversityconservation in Jozani-Chwaka Bay National Park,Zanzibar’, African Journal of Ecology, 47, pp. 166–70.

Southgate, C.R.J. (2006) ‘Ecotourism in Kenya: thevulnerability of communities’, Journal of Ecotourism,5, pp. 80–96.

Stronza, A. (2001) ‘Revealing the true promise ofcommunity-based ecotourism: the case of PosadaAmazonas’. Paper presented at the SustainableDevelopment and Management of Ecotourism in theAmericas Preparatory Conference for theInternational Year of Ecotourism 2002. Cuibá, Brazil,22–24 August.

Stronza, A. (2007) ‘The economic promise of ecotourismfor conservation’, Journal of Ecotourism, 6, pp. 210–30.

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) (2006)‘Community action to conserve biodiversity: linkingbiodiversity conservation with poverty reduction.Case studies from Latin America and the Caribbean’.Available online at www.undp.org/biodiversity/biodiversity_library.shtml (last accessed 31 March2011).

Vincent, V.C. and Thompson, W. (2002) ‘Assessingcommunity support and sustainability for ecotourismdevelopment’, Journal of Travel Research, 41, pp.153–60.

Victurine, R. (2000) ‘Building tourism excellence at thecommunity level: capacity building for community-based entrepreneurs in Uganda’, Journal of TravelResearch, 38, pp. 221–9.

Western, D. (1993) ‘Defining ecotourism’ in Lindberg, K.and Hawkins, D.E. (eds) Ecotourism: A guide forplanners and managers (Volume 1). Vermont: TheEcotourism Society, pp. 7–11.

Wheeller, B. (1991) ‘Tourism’s troubled times:responsible tourism is not the answer’, TourismManagement, 12, pp. 91–6.

Wunder, S. (2000) ‘Ecotourism and economic incentives– an empirical approach’, Ecological Economics, 32,pp. 465–79.

Yu, D.W., Hendrickson, T. and Castillo, A. (1997)‘Ecotourism and conservation in Amazonian Peru:short-term and long-term challenges’, EnvironmentalConservation, 24, pp. 130–8.

Jenny Hill is Deputy Head of the Department ofGeography and Environmental Management,University of the West of England (email:[email protected]) and Ross Hill is Readerin Geoinformatics, Bournemouth University(email: [email protected]).

Ecotourism in conservation...achievement of ecotourism in a little-developed tropical forest region...

Documents

Transcript of Ecotourism in conservation...achievement of ecotourism in a little-developed tropical forest region...