Banking on Protected Areas - Promoting sustainable protected area tourism to benefit local economies - World Bank Document
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized
Areas
tourism to benefit local economies
Protected
Promoting sustainable protected area
Banking on
© 2021 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or currency of the data included in this work and does not assume responsibility for any errors, omissions, or discrepancies in the information, or liability with respect to the use of or failure to use the information, methods, processes, or conclusions set forth. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Nothing herein shall constitute or be construed or considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. editor Mark Mattson designer Sergio Andres Moreno Tellez cover photo Wandel Guides, Shutterstock.com
SUPPORTED BY:
Contents
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ 7
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 9
How was the study done?...................................................................................................10
What did the study find? ...................................................................................................... 11
What lessons can countries draw from the study?....................................................... 13
Recommendation 1–Protect the Asset............................................................................ 13
Recommendation 2–Grow and Diversify the Business.............................................. 13
Recommendation 3–Share the Benefits........................................................................ 14
1. Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 16
1.1. The State of Biodiversity ......................................................................................................... 17
1.2. Benefits of Protected Areas .................................................................................................. 18
1.3. Protected Area Coverage ....................................................................................................20
1.4. Protected Area Challenges ..................................................................................................20
1.4.1. Protected Area Funding .......................................................................................... 23
1.4.2. Community Benefits ................................................................................................ 24
1.5. Rationale for the Study .......................................................................................................... 26
2. Assessing the Economic Impacts........................................................................................30
2.1. Methodology............................................................................................................................. 32
2.1.1 Estimating the Economic Impact of Tourism in Protected Areas .................... 32
2.2. Avenues for Economic Impacts of Protected Areas ..................................................... 34
2.3. Lewie Model ............................................................................................................................ 36
2.4. Data Collection ....................................................................................................................... 37
3. Findings .........................................................................................................................................39
3.1. Country Context and Summary Statistics ......................................................................... 39
3.2. Key Findings From Country Case Studies........................................................................ 48
Effects of Protected Area Tourism on Local Economies ........................................... 48
Return on Government Spending ................................................................................... 52
Impact of Conflicts and Shocks........................................................................................ 53
Impact of Government Policies......................................................................................... 54
3.3. Study Limitations..................................................................................................................... 57
4. Policy Recommendations...................................................................................................... 58
4.1. Protect Natural Assets............................................................................................................60
4.1.1. Formalize Protected Areas.......................................................................................60
4.1.2. Increase Public Investment in Protected Area Management.........................60
4.1.3. Build Capacity of Protected Area Managers...................................................... 64
4.1.4. Regularly Assess the Effects of Visitor Spending............................................. 64
4.2. Grow and Diversify Tourism Businesses .......................................................................... 64
4.2.1. Diversify Tourism Offerings..................................................................................... 64
4.2.2. Develop Concession Policies to Promote Tourism in Protected Areas ....65
4.3. Share Benefits with Local Communities .......................................................................... 68
4.3.1. Formalize Benefit Sharing Arrangements........................................................... 68
4.3.2. Strengthening Income Multipliers........................................................................69
4.3.3. Mitigate and Compensate for Human-Wildlife Conflict.................................. 70
4.4. Green Recovery ..................................................................................................................... 70
5. Conclusion..................................................................................................................................... 74
References.........................................................................................................................................76
authors Banking on Protected Areas is the result of a collaborative effort between the World
Bank (Urvashi Narain, Hasita Bhammar, Phoebe Spencer) and the University of
California, Davis (Prof. Edward Taylor, Heng Zhu, Edward Whitney, Anubhab Gupta,
Mateusz Filipski, Elisabeth Earley). We are also thankful to Jo Pendry and Laura Onofri
for their contribution to the report.
This global study synthesizes information from four country case studies. We are grate-
ful to the co-authors of these studies:
BRAZIL
Prof. Carlos Eduardo F. Young, Alexandre Kotchergenko Batista, Camila Rizzini
Freitas (University of Rio de Janeiro); Sylvia Michele Diaz and Bernadete
Lange (World Bank.
FIJI Prof. Stuart Kininmonth (University of South Pacific); Jessie McComb (IFC).
NEPAL Sindhu Prasad Dhungana (Government of Nepal); Tijen Arin (World Bank);
Siddhartha Bajra Bajracharya (National Trust for Nature Conservation); and
Sagar Raj Sharma (Kathmandu University).
ZAMBIA Iretomiwa Olatunji, Ngao Mubanga (World Bank)
P RO MOT I N G S USTAIN AB L E PROTE CTE D AR E A TOU R IS M TO B ENE F IT LO CAL E CONOM I ES 7
acknowledgements This report is supported by passionate individuals across many institutions and organi-
zations who are banking on protected areas to promote conservation and development.
The team is grateful for the support, encouragement, and overall guidance of Karin
Kemper, Iain Shuker, Christian Peter, Garo Batmanian, Raffaello Cervigni, Christophe
Crepin, Charlotte De Fontaubert, Ann Jeannette Glauber and Valerie Hickey.
Peer reviewers included: Richard Damania, Giovanni Ruta, Kirk Hamilton, Ross
Hughes, Shaun Mann, Juan Pablo Castaneda, Mimi Kobayashi, Maurice Rawlins, Julie
Rozenberg, Bernadete Lange, Renato Nardello, Lisa Farroway, Kasia Mazur, Jessie F.
McComb, Andre Aquino, Fei Deng, Sylvia Michele Diaz, David Kaczan (World Bank),
and Juha Siikamäki (IUCN). Valuable feedback was also provided by: Susan Pleming,
Wendy Li, Olga Gavryliuk, and Elisson Wright (World Bank).
Finance for the four country case studies was generously provided by the following
trust funds: PROBLUE and Window-3 funded the Brazil and Fiji studies; the Nepal study
was funded by WAVES; the Zambia study was funded by PROFOR. The global study
was supported by the Global Wildlife Program funded by the Global Environment
Facility.
Country Teams BRAZIL Fernando P.M. Repinaldo Filho (Abrolhos Marine National Park); Betania
Fichino, Amanda Silva, Ricardo Castelli Vieira and Renata Carolina Gatti
(Brazilian Ministry of Environment); Adriana Moreira, Sergio Margulis, Paula
Montenegro, Wanessa Matos, Eduardo Romao Rosa, and Charlotte De
Fontaubert (World Bank); and Guilherme Dutra (Conservation International).
The dedicated and enthusiastic Brazil survey team includes: Lucas de A. N.
Costa, Maira L. Spanholi, Lucas Rolo Fares, Rodrigo Fernandes Gonçalves,
Daniel Sander Costa, Rodrigo Abreu Carvalho, Marcos P. Mendes, João
Augusto Muniz Videira, Gabriel Pabst da Silva, William John Hester, Aline
Guzenski Fioravanso, Patricia Camara de Brito, Miguel Ângelo Portela
Pinheiro, and Thais de Jesus Custodio.
FIJI raig Strong, Saras Sharma (Ministry of Fisheries); Marica Vakacola
C
(Mamanuca Environment Society); Helen Sykes (Marine Ecology Consulting);
Lasse Melgaard, Cary Ann Cadman, Jeremy Webster, Sophie Egden, Luke
Vueta, and George Henry Stirrett (World Bank). The dedicated and enthusi-
astic Fiji survey team includes: Apimeleki Yasawa Nasokitabua, Reshma Ram,
Tony Tarivonda, Glen Bule, Noleen Lata Narayan, Simione Naivalu, Solomone
Volau, Leba Tavo Miller, Arishma Archna Ram, Shane Rico Henry, Adi Losana
Marama Tabuavuka Bulamaibau, Ruth Naomi Narawa, Shilpa Shupriya Lal, and
Gabriel Jacob Selema Mara.
NEPAL aneer Lamichhane, Umesh Paudel, Tek Bahadur Gurung (National Trust for
S
Nature Conservation); Annu Rajbhandari and Sailja Shrestha, (World Bank).
The dedicated and enthusiastic Nepal survey team includes: Animesh
Shrestha, Saujan Khapung, Jeena Maharjan, Shikha Neupane, Pragya Joshi,
Aashruti Tripathy, Pema Sherpa, Muna K.C., Rijan Upadhyay, Sonu Gurung,
Pralita Rana Magar, Hrijata Dahal, Bidur Poudel and Rikesh Prasain from
Kathmandu University.
Co n t en t s
ZAMBIA Dr. Chuma Simukonda, Miyanda Gwaba (Department of National Parks and
Wildlife, Government of Zambia); Donald Banda (Chipata Town); Moses
Saul Kaoma (Lower Zambezi National Park); Nathalie Johnson, and Hellen
Mungaila (World Bank); Chiwala Matesamwa (Chiawa GMA); Alex Chidakel
and Brian Child (University of Florida); Petros Muyunda and Choizya Mbewe;
Ian Stevenson (Conservation Lower Zambezi); Keira Langford-Johnson
(PROFLIGHT Zambia); Adrian Coley (Flatdogs Camp); Paul Barnes (Pioneer
Camp); and Grant Cumings (Chiawa Camp). The dedicated and enthusiastic
Zambian survey team included: Alick Bruce Makondo, Kenneth Mulenga,
Sarai Sinyolo, Nozyenji Mwale, Janet Mulla, Chilufya Chisanga, Memory
Bwalya, Liseli Moira Banda, Mwila Lunda, Margret Mbewe, Chipo Shimoomba,
Christopher Chibwe, Keren Chakaba, and Vincent Katowa.
Executive
Summary
Globally, biodiversity is imperiled. The 2020 which speaks to both crises, addressing
Living Planet Index reported a 68 percent economic losses and promoting recovery
average decline in birds, amphibians, mammals, through actions which simultaneously support
fish, and reptiles since 1970; one third of the biodiversity conservation. Such a view brings
world’s terrestrial protected areas are under the world’s protected areas into much-needed
intense human pressure and about two-thirds of focus, as they are key to any global effort to
the world’s oceans suffer from human impact, as contain biodiversity loss. Their role in doing so
habitat loss and degradation, pollution, exploita- will be deliberated at the CBD COP-15 this year,
tion, climate change and invasive species drive where threats to biodiversity and their impacts
catastrophic biodiversity losses. on development will be stressed, and countries
will be encouraged to set aside more land and
Biodiversity matters because of its intrinsic
marine areas for conservation.
worth, and because ecosystem services, which
depend upon biodiversity, underpin human well- How can countries address both crises? Can
being and support economic activity in a range countries afford to bring even larger areas
of sectors. Our survival is, finally, impossible under protection when the need for economic
without intact natural landscapes and sea- recovery is so pressing, fiscal spaces are tight,
scapes. Land- and marine-based ecosystems and so many development challenges persist?
provide food, oxygen, water, carbon seques- This study set out to make the case that it is
tration, resilience in the face of climate change, possible. That by promoting sustainable and
and a buffer against pandemics. They also inclusive tourism in protected areas, countries
foster economic activities such as tourism, which can respond to these escalating crises, recov-
attract eight billion visitors to protected areas in er from the economic fallout of the pandemic,
a typical year. The need to protect these natural address longstanding development challenges,
areas has never been greater. and conserve biodiversity.
At the same time, the COVID-19 pandemic has While governments see protected areas as key
led to a deep global recession in which much to addressing biodiversity loss, protected areas
economic activity has declined and govern- are often overlooked in economic develop-
ments face increasing fiscal constraints and ment plans and economic recovery strategies.
challenges in allocating scarce resources to One reason for this is that data gaps make it
support the health, security, and development difficult to demonstrate protected area tour-
of their populations. The tourism sector too, has ism’s far-reaching stimuli to national and local
suffered significant setbacks. In tourism-depen- economies, especially in developing countries.
dent economies in Africa and the Caribbean, Banking on Protected Areas study therefore
for example, GDP is projected to shrink by 12 set out to quantify the impacts of protected
percent. Additionally, many biodiversity-rich area tourism on local economies to show that
protected areas are located in far-flung, neglect- protected areas promote conservation and
ed rural regions, in which poverty is persistent. development.
Often, protected areas around these rural
The study explores economic impacts on local
communities help leverage tourism to provide
economies, as local economic development is
the few avenues available to support livelihoods
a goal in-and-of itself, and community support
and address development challenges.
is a critical concern for protected areas and is
These intersecting calamities – a pandemic in needed to secure their long-term integrity. It
a time of biodiversity loss – call for a response therefore estimates protected area tourism’s
10 BA NKI NG ON PROTE C TE D A RE A S
economic costs and benefits to local com- How was the study done?
munities, and explores how benefits may be
increased and costs reduced. Four country case studies were undertaken:
two in terrestrial protected areas in Zambia and
At the same time, a key challenge for protected Nepal, and two in marine protected areas in
areas is lack of finance. Research shows that Fiji and Brazil. While the number of countries
poorly financed protected areas lose biodiver- is small, the case studies - from Latin America,
sity through poaching, livestock incursions, land Africa, Small Island States, and Asia - cover a
grabs, and illegal mining and logging; likewise, mix of economies, environments, and cultures.
funding has been found to be the most robust Governments were consulted to select study
predictor of successful ecological outcomes sites, and local students were trained to conduct
in marine protected areas. Pre-pandemic surveys of tourists, lodges, businesses, and
figures show a global biodiversity funding gap households. Information on production, income,
of US$598–US$824 billion per year, a figure expenditure, and the locations of transactions
mirrored for protected areas, which have lost was gathered, and in each country, partnerships
further funding due to the pandemic. Thus, the with local universities grounded the case studies
study argues strongly for public investment in in the socio-economic context. Study findings
protected areas by providing estimated rates of were shared with stakeholders, both in-country
return on investments. and globally, to enhance buy-in and quality.
Tourism in protected areas triggers
figure es-1 Economic Impact Pathways for Protected Areas economic activities, and as these
activities expand, growing income
Revenue sharing,
community projects Environmental and expenditure increase the
Impact
b demand for goods and services.
Contributions to the economy are
direct in the form of visitor spend-
ing on park fees, hotels, transport,
PARK AUTHORITY, leisure and recreation, which create
Businesses pay GOVERNMENT
taxes and fees b employment and support local busi-
a Pay non-consumptive nesses; while indirect effects occur
a Pay a Park and consumptive fees
Entrance Fee and taxes when tourism businesses and em-
b Park hires guards or ployees further stimulate economic
employs households
for PA activities activity by using the services of
other local businesses. These direct
and indirect impacts converge on an
income multiplier, which is defined
a Protected Areas a as the change in local household
Purchase goods Terrestrial / Marine Spend money on
and services lodging, tourist TOURISM, incomes per unit of money entering
HOUSEHOLDS LODGES AND
OU activities the local economy through tourist
G
N BUSINESSES
RIST S VISITI
T
spending, and is a measure of eco-
nomic impact. A general equilibrium
Wages paid to
Purchase food, a workers employed model is needed to estimate these
b,c goods and in tourism activities impacts, and the study adopts a
services c
Ex ecu tiv e Summary
Local incomes
increase; b Source goods model known as LEWIE - Local
households spend and services Economy-Wide Impact Evaluation.
their income to
source goods The model attributes values to these
multipliers for a range of simulat-
ed, direct and spillover impacts,
LOCAL FARMS
AND BUSINESSES allowing users to: (1) describe the
Trade with outside/
a
non-local markets
manner in which tourism stimulates
local economies, (2) clarify returns
on public investment in protected
Direct Impact Legend of Pathways of Influence
areas, (3) understand impacts of
a. Direct impacts economic conflicts and shocks, and
Indirect impact through b. Production linkages
production linkages (4) estimate the effects of govern-
c. Income and consumption linkages
ment policies.
Source: Adapted from Taylor and Filipski 2014.P RO MOT I N G S USTAIN AB L E PROTE CTE D AR E A TOU R IS M TO B ENE F IT LO CAL E CONOM I ES 11
figure es-2 Income Multipliers, 2019 What did the study find?
3.00 Tourism in protected areas generates
significant income multipliers. Income
2.50 multipliers from tourism are greater than one
in all country cases, showing that local market
2.00
Income multiplier
linkages are strong, and amplify tourist spending
(Figure ES-2); the multipliers also suggest that
1.50 income leakage from local economies is not
considerable. Multipliers across the four country
1.00 1.83 cases are also consistent, suggesting that a
1.82 1.78 1.74
1.53
healthy protected area tourism sector provides
0.50
similar income gains to local households across
a variety of contexts, despite variations in per
0.00
Zambia Zambia Nepal Brazil Fiji tourist spending and numbers of visitors.
Lower Zambezi South Luangwa Chitwan Abrolhos Mamanuca
National Park Marine Park Islands Benefits are broad and help the poor. The
Source: World Bank study reveals that tourism benefits households
directly involved in the tourism sector and those
indirectly linked with the sector. Households
figure es-3 Income Multipliers by Household Type, 2019 benefit directly and indirectly through pro-
duction and income linkages - when tourism
Poor Non-poor Island operators hire local people and buy local
goods, and when households spend wages or
2
businesses spend profits earned through the
1.8
1.6 tourism sector. Study findings reveal that despite
Income multiplier
1.4 the larger multiplier shares of non-poor house-
1.2 holds in most instances (Figure ES-3), tourism
1 appears to benefit the poor more, as normal-
0.8 izing multiplier shares by populations of poor
0.6
and non-poor residents (Figure ES-4) shows that
0.4
0.2
the multiplier shares per resident are higher for
0 poor residents than for non-poor in all country
Lower South Chitwan Abrolhos Mamanuca case studies but one.
Zambezi Luangwa National Park Marine Park Islands
Tourism in protected areas also creates signifi-
Zambia Nepal Brazil Fiji
cant job opportunities. Jobs are created directly
Source: World Bank through tourism activities, and indirectly by
stimulating local economies. Beyond the number
of jobs, the share of employment supported
Figure es-4 Normalized Income Multipliers by Household Type, 2019
by the tourism sector is substantial. In Zambia,
tourism in protected areas generated jobs for
Poor Non-poor Island
14 and 30 percent of working age populations
around the Lower Zambezi and South Luangwa
100% Parks, respectively. In Nepal, tourism-related
E xe cu t iv e Summary
jobs around Chitwan National Park are held by
80%
Percentage of Multiplier
3 percent of the working age population, while
60%
in Brazil’s coastal region this figure is 12 per-
cent. Tourism in Fiji’s Mamanuca Islands created
40% 8,304 jobs (through direct and indirect channels),
employing 13 percent of the local population in
20% the Mamanucas and adjoining coastal areas. The
study accounts for jobs such as hotel employees,
0% tour operators, and restaurant workers, and those
Lower South Chitwan Abrolhos Mamanuca
Zambezi Luangwa National Park Marine Park Islands employed as a result of the increased demand
Zambia Nepal Brazil Fiji for goods and services catalyzed by tourism
in sectors such as retail, services, and in some
Source: World Bank
instances agriculture, livestock, and fishing.12 BA NKI NG ON PROTE C TE D A RE A S
Protected areas can impose costs on commu- million in Lower Zambezi, South Luangwa and
nities which must be managed. Human-wildlife Chitwan National Parks, respectively. Similarly,
conflict around terrestrial protected areas, and marine protected areas may cause short-term
fishing restrictions in marine protected areas, income loss by restricting fishing, a major means
can cause critical short-term income loss to of livelihood. Often, those suffering the negative
households which should be mitigated through effects of proximity to protected areas may not
avoidance measures and timely compensa- be major beneficiaries of tourism, and these im-
tion. In 2019, wildlife caused crop losses of 14 balances should be redressed in order to build
percent around the Lower Zambezi National much-needed community support.
Park and 11 percent at South Luangwa National
Public investment in protected areas pays off,
Park in Zambia, and 9 percent around Chitwan
and generates high economic returns. Rates
National Park in Nepal. Over this period, these
of return on government spending are signifi-
losses were estimated at US$1.8, 1.2 and 2.9
cantly greater than one, making protected areas
valuable economic assets. As noted, tourism
figure es-5 Annual Estimated Rate of Return on Government triggers direct and indirect economic impacts in
Spending, 2018–2019 local economies, which in turn generate rates
of return on government spending of between
35 $6.2–$-28.2 for every public dollar invested.
30 This accrual of economic benefits relative to
government investment in protected areas
25
Rate of Return
reveals the potential of these areas to promote
20 green economic recovery and support sustain-
15 28.2 able development.
10 Together, these findings make the case for gov-
16.7
5 ernments to promote sustainable and inclusive
6.2 7.6
tourism in protected areas to stimulate econom-
0
ic growth and create jobs. Caution is warranted
Zambia Zambia Brazil Nepal when drawing lessons from the four country
Lower Zambezi South Luangwa Abrolhos Chitwan
Marine Park National Park case studies, however. For example, because
the study uses a static model, it cannot account
Source: World Bank
for fluctuations in natural resources which
affect incomes, or the negative environmental
impacts of tourism, both of which may reduce
figure es-6 Framework for Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas the economic benefits of tourism in protected
areas. Also, the model does not account for the
value of other ecosystem services supplied by
protected areas, the focus on local economies
neglects the wider economic advantages of
tourism, and lack of data prevents the mod-
el from capturing all economic linkages and
effects. These constraints, when addressed, will
increase economic impacts. Finally, the results
Ex ecu tiv e Summary
cannot be easily generalized, as individual sites
do not represent the entire protected area
system in a given country, which may contain
both tourist hotspots and areas in which tourism
is not viable.
Source: World BankP RO MOT I N G S USTAIN AB L E PROTE CTE D AR E A TOU R IS M TO B ENE F IT LO CAL E CONOM I ES 13
What lessons can countries draw Monitor Visitors and Impacts. To make the
from the study? case for public spending, and to aid planning,
governments and conservation agencies should
While the findings of this study cannot be ap- regularly assess the impacts of protected area
plied to all protected areas, they offer lessons tourism, and use surveys to capture visitor num-
from diverse settings from which policies can bers, tourist spending, and seasonal changes in
be tailored. Central to all efforts, however, is tourism behavior. Such information can shape
the need to fund and manage protected areas policies, improve tourist services, assist local
well, promote tourism and diversify its offerings, communities, refine tourism business models,
and share benefits with local communities fairly. and demonstrate the economic returns of in-
Taken together, these three factors can enhance vesting in protected areas.
development outcomes, secure biodiversity
assets and support economic recovery from the
pandemic. recommendation 2
Grow and Diversify the Business
recommendation 1 Diversify Tourism Offerings. In many countries,
Protect the Asset protected area tourism is focused on a few key
locations, which concentrate both positive and
Formalize Protected Areas. To protect these negative tourism impacts. In the countries fea-
natural assets, it is necessary to formalize their tured in this study, this concentration of visitors
status. Even if this action restricts resource use, at well-known sites makes it important to ex-
such losses may be offset, as exploited wild pand the number of protected area sites, and to
stocks recover and disperse under formal pro- select priority sites on the basis of road access,
tection. Formalization also confers authority on security, biodiversity, landscape attractions, and
governments to raise environmental standards local stakeholder interest in tourism. To dilute
and reduce the negative impacts of tourism, negative impacts, the study also advocates the
and this demonstrated commitment to conser- selection of an expanded network of protected
vation can stimulate private sector investment in areas for phased tourism development, based
tourism services. on various desirability and feasibility criteria
Increase Public Investment in Protected Area through which sites can be ranked to identify
Management. The study advocates strongly for optimal opportunities for private sector partici-
investment in protected area management; and pation and community benefits.
to accomplish this, it supports the use of finan- Develop Concessions Policies. Another
cial instruments such as public budgets, as well means to promote tourism in protected areas
as innovative mechanisms to tap private sector is through concessioning, which can enhance
resources such as conservation trust funds, park operations through managing and financing
carbon finance, conservation bonds and collab- infrastructure, and providing services such as
orative public-private management partnerships. accommodation, food, merchandise, recreational
Build Capacity of Protected Area Managers. activities, rental equipment, and transport. Similar
To deliver the benefits described in this study, approaches to outsource tourism development
protected areas must be well managed, and may include leases, management contracts, and
the underlying factors associated with poor licensing, and such mechanisms should stipulate
key terms and conditions for business operation,
E xe cu t iv e Summary
performance must be addressed. Successful
protected areas have qualified managers who such as duration, type of operation, environmen-
understand protected area laws and policies, tal conditions, and fees for access. Concessions
and the business needs of tourism operators programs should include strong protected
and commercial entities. For example, managing area laws and regulations, public support for
commercial visitor services requires abilities that proposed commercial activities, demonstrat-
go beyond the skills of wildlife management, ed economic benefits, stakeholder input into
and this capacity must be built. concession operations, and legal frameworks to
support implementing agencies.14 BA NKI NG ON PROTE C TE D A RE A S
recommendation 3 and help to secure support for conservation
Share the Benefits from local communities who are critical ben-
eficiaries and conservation allies. The study
Formalize Benefit Sharing. As noted, protected stresses the need for well-managed compensa-
area neighbors are essential stakeholders, and tion payouts that are timely and transparent. The
sharing benefits in these communities across determination of losses to park neighbors, such
poor and non-poor households is key to main- as crop losses, is very difficult, and the study
taining protected area integrity. Perhaps most also advocates further research, standardized
importantly, these benefits should be distributed methods for estimating crop losses, and local
fairly by including the poor and disadvantaged, level management actions, such as seasonal
and the study recommends that policies be fences and the corralling of livestock, to mitigate
put in place to enable this. Advocated benefit losses and build park-neighbor relations.
sharing approaches include direct and indirect
employment, revenue sharing by protected In conclusion, the pandemic has affected econ-
area authorities, revenue sharing schemes from omies globally, leading to large losses in tourism
tourism businesses and partnerships, sustain- revenue, and a weakened, under-financed
able utilization of plants and animals, and shared conservation sector at a time of unprecedented
decision making and capacity building. threats to the biosphere. In such a context, the
message of this study is crucial – countries must
Strengthen Income Multipliers. Because champion sustainable and inclusive tourism in
tourism is the strongest lever for delivering protected areas in order to recover from the
protected area benefits to communities, govern- pandemic, conserve biodiversity, and promote
ments should assist households to participate in sustainable development. This study reveals
the tourism economy through entrepreneurship that conserving biodiversity and promoting tour-
training, skills development, credit services and ism can together be compatible with a green,
logistics; governments should also support busi- post-pandemic revival that is driven by govern-
ness diversification, and local procurement to ments and the private sector, and yield high
strengthen linkages in local economies, prevent returns from protected area investments. And in
leakage and increase multipliers. responding to a pandemic that has heightened
Mitigate and Compensate for Human-Wildlife awareness of inequality, protected area tourism
Conflict. Mitigation and compensation are should distribute its benefits fairly in response
fundamental to managing human-wildlife conflict to development needs, and losses incurred by
protected area stakeholders.
Ex ecu tiv e SummaryP RO MOT I N G S USTAIN AB L E PROTE CTE D AR E A TOU R IS M TO B ENE F IT LO CAL E CONOM I ES 15
E xe cu t iv e Summary16 BA NKI NG ON PROTE C TE D A RE A S
1
Introduction
In tro duc tio nP RO MOT I N G S USTAIN AB L E PROTE CTE D AR E A TOU R IS M TO B ENE F IT LO CAL E CONOM I ES 17
1.1 the state of biodiversity
Biodiversity has been declining globally at an billion people depend on marine and coastal
alarming rate. Scientists warn that the world may biodiversity for their livelihoods (UNDP n.d.)
be in the midst of its sixth mass extinction event, and around 1 billion people depend to some
this time caused by human activity (Barnosky extent on wild meat, plants, mushrooms and
et al. 2011; Ceballos, Ehrlich, and Raven 2020; fish (FAO and UNEP 2020). Biodiversity and
Wake and Vredenburg 2008). A recent report of ecosystem services also underpin a significant
the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform number of jobs. Around 60 million people are
on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) employed worldwide in fishing and fish-farming
- Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and (FAO 2020), and an estimated 45 million jobs
Ecosystem Services (IPBES 2019) - estimates are provided by the formal forest sector (FAO
that over one million species are threatened with and UNEP 2020). Biodiversity and healthy
extinction. The 2020 Living Planet Index reported ecosystems mitigate climate change, while the
an average decline of 68 percent in monitored conversion of these systems increasingly risks
vertebrate species populations between 1970 spillovers i.e. the emergence of zoonotic diseas-
and 2016 (WWF 2020), while only three percent es in humans (Gibb et al. 2020).
of the ocean was free from human pressure in
The greatest pressures on biodiversity stem
2014 (IPBES 2019).
from habitat loss, fragmentation, and degrada-
Biodiversity matters because of its intrinsic tion (IPBES 2019). Land use change has caused
value, and because biodiversity and ecosys- 70 percent of global biodiversity loss (WWF
tem services underpin human well-being, 2020). Demand for agricultural land to meet
livelihoods, and many of the Sustainable growing food needs has degraded land sur-
Development Goals. As biodiversity declines, rounding protected areas, leading to reductions
so does the health of ecosystems on which key in species richness and abundance (Newbold et
sectors such as agriculture, fisheries, and water al. 2014). Studies also show the impact of roads
utilities rely. Moreover, conserving biodiversity and infrastructure development on species
is important for the world’s poor because their decline (Benítez-López, Alkemade, and Verweij
livelihoods are linked to and dependent on 2010). Other threats to biodiversity include
natural ecosystems, and renewable natural over-exploitation of natural resources (including
capital makes up 23 percent of the wealth in hunting, fishing, and logging), pollution, invasive
low-income countries (World Bank forthcoming). species, and climate change (IPBES 2019) (see
Forests and trees provide vital resources to 1.3 Figure 1) (WWF 2020). Similarly, threats to marine
billion people (World Bank 2016b), over three ecosystems include pollution, overfishing, and
figure 1 Drivers of Species Decline for Animal Groups
In t ro duc tio n
Birds
Habitat degradation/loss
Mammals Exploitation
Invasive species & disease
Fishes Pollution
Climate change
Reptiles and
amphibians
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Source: WWF 201818 BA NKI NG ON PROTE C TE D A RE A S
marine litter. Climate change is expected to drive The year 2020 was positioned to be a “su-
biodiversity loss, intensify other drivers, and lead per year” for biodiversity. A number of global
to higher extinction rates (Newbold 2018). conferences, including the Fifteenth Meeting
of the Conference of the Parties (COP-15) of
These threats are significant. One third of the
the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD),
world’s terrestrial protected areas—2.3 million
were planned to stress threats to biodiversity
square miles—are threatened by road expan-
and their impacts on development. COP-15
sion, grazing, and urbanization (Jones et al.
aimed to bring countries together to examine
2018), while about two-thirds of the world’s
progress toward the Aichi Biodiversity Targets
oceans showed signs of increased human
and to negotiate a post-2020 global biodiver-
impact between 2008 and 2013 (Halpern et
sity framework (CBD 2019) to address growing
al. 2015), with climate change driving most of
threats. The delayed CBD COP-15 will now be
these impacts (IPCC 2019). Over 30 percent of
held in 2021 and will deliberate the key roles of
fisheries are overfished (FAO 2020). An average
protected areas in conserving biodiversity and
of 13,000 pieces of plastic litter can be found
addressing global biodiversity decline.
on every square kilometer of ocean (UNDP n.d.)
and it is estimated that 4.8–12.7 million metric
tons of plastic waste enters the oceans every
year (Jambeck et al. 2015).
1.2 benefits of protected areas
Protected areas, defined by IUCN as “area[s] of the carbon sequestered by all land ecosys-
of land and/or sea especially dedicated to tems (Melillo et al. 2016). Fully protected marine
the protection and maintenance of biological areas also build resilience against the effects of
diversity, and of natural and associated cultural climate change (Roberts et al. 2017).
resources, and managed through legal or other
Protected areas also support development and
effective means,” are critical to maintaining the
are informally dubbed as “engines of develop-
earth’s biodiversity. Protected areas conserve
ment,” because of their economic contribution
biodiversity, maintain habitats and species pop-
to communities living around them (den Braber,
ulations, and confer resilience to climate change
Evans, and Oldekop 2018; Ferraro, Hanauer,
(Duraiappah et al. 2005; Edgar et al. 2014;
and Sims 2011). Naidoo et al. (2019) analyzed
Geldmann et al. 2013; Leverington et al. 2010;
socioeconomic and health data for 87,033 chil-
Melillo et al. 2016; Roberts et al. 2017; Watson
dren and 60,041 households in 34 developing
et al. 2014). These areas provide ecosystem
countries and concluded that people living near
services such as food and water, sediment
protected areas are better off; households near
retention, and carbon storage. Well-managed
protected areas were on average 20 percent
marine protected areas have been shown to
wealthier, had a 26 percent lower probability of
have five times more large fish biomass and
being poor than those farther away, and were
fourteen times more shark biomass than fished
healthier. Protection of poor areas has also been
areas (Edgar et al. 2014). In addition, protected
found to reduce both poverty and deforestation,
areas provide landscape immunity1 in the form
on average (Ferraro, Hanauer, and Sims 2011).
of undisturbed habitats which separate people
In tro duc tio n
A study in Nepal showed that protected areas
and wildlife, and from which zoonoses are less
reduce poverty without increasing inequality, and
likely (Reaser, Tabor, et al. 2020). With increas-
that these benefits were greater when a larger
ing urbanization, the role of protected areas in
proportion of the area was protected (den Braber,
providing clean water is significant, as a third of
Evans, and Oldekop 2018). Marine protected
the world’s 100 largest cities rely on protected
areas, too, reduce poverty through improved fish
areas for drinking water (Dudley and Stolton
catches, benefits to health and women (Leisher,
2003). Terrestrial protected areas also seques-
Van Beukering, and Scherl 2007), and improved
ter 0.5 Pg C annually—approximately one-fifth
human well-being (Ban et al. 2019).
1 J. Reaser et al., (2020) define ‘landscape immunity’ as the ecological conditions that, in combination, maintain and strengthen
the immune function of wildlife within an ecosystem.P RO MOT I N G S USTAIN AB L E PROTE CTE D AR E A TOU R IS M TO B ENE F IT LO CAL E CONOM I ES 19
Many countries also reap the benefits of na- in the Volcanoes National Park is now the
ture-based tourism, and from the perspective country’s largest source of foreign exchange,
of this report, such tourism arguably constitutes generating US$200 million annually (Maekawa
the single strongest lever to achieve sustain- et al. 2013). Australia’s Great Barrier Reef has
able development goals through conservation. been valued at AU$56 billion, contributes
Protected areas receive 8 billion visits a year AU$6.4 billion per year to the economy and
(Balmford et al. 2015) and before the COVID-19 supports 64,000 jobs (Deloitte 2017). According
pandemic, tourism, including in protected areas, to the OECD, it is projected that ocean-based
was a rapidly growing economic sector, provid- industries such as marine and coastal tourism
ing 1 in 10 jobs globally (WTTC 2019b). Tourism will double their contribution to global val-
not only creates jobs through employment in ho- ue-added tourism by 2030 (OECD 2016). Global
tels and hospitality services, but also generates coral reef tourism is valued at US$36 billion per
park fees and other resources for conservation year—the equivalent of about 70 million tourist
and community development. In many develop- visits to reefs (Spalding et al. 2017). In Africa,
ing countries, income derived from protected a burgeoning wildlife economy contributes to
areas is important to the economy (Balmford et employment and revenues through diverse ac-
al. 2009). In the Galapagos, tourism contributed tivities (see Box 1) (Snyman et al. 2021), and such
to a 78 percent growth in income over six years, nature-based tourism offers countries a means
creating the fastest growing economy in the to use natural resources to pursue sustainable
world (Taylor, Hardner, and Stewart 2009) over development.
this period. In Rwanda, mountain gorilla trekking
box 1
Wildlife-Based A wildlife economy is defined as Wildlife economy sectors and related activities
Economy in Africa “wildlife, plants and animals (marine
and terrestrial), as an economic SECTOR WILDLIFE ECONOMY ACTIVITIES
asset to create value that aligns
with conservation objectives and Agriculture Game farming and ranching; live capture
delivers sustainable growth and and sale; cropping and culling; wild harvest-
economic development” (Snyman ing; crops and livestock
et al. 2021). This includes consump- Tourism Wildlife-based tourism; coastal tourism;
tive and non-consumptive uses, as recreation; sport fishing
described in Table 1.
Energy Hydro-electric; wave energy
In South Africa, for example, wildlife
Fisheries Multiple use of marine resources; freshwater
may be farmed on private land,
fisheries; aquaculture and fish ranching;
which has led to an increase in
subsistence fishing
game farming and growth in the
wildlife economy. It is estimated Forestry Timber; non-timber forest products
that the informal African Traditional Health Bioprospecting
Medicine industry is valued at
about US$1.4 billion per year; in Trade and Commercial film and photography; wildlife
2018, South African National Parks Industry products; bioprospecting; nature-based car-
(SANParks) revenue from the sale of bon credits; other payments for ecosystem
fauna and flora was US$1.3 million, services; real estate
and between 2005 and 2014, the Other Education; research, including research
value of South Africa’s exports of involving off-take; cultural activities; religious
CITES*-listed species was estimated activities
In t ro duc tio n
at US$1.1 billion.
Source: Snyman et al. 202120 BA NKI NG ON PROTE C TE D A RE A S
1.3 protected area coverage
In recognizing the need to protect biodiversity landscape and seascape.” While this target has
and nature, and the role of protected areas not been fully met, countries have made signif-
in meeting this goal, several countries have icant progress, setting aside approximately 15
increased terrestrial and marine areas under percent of the planet’s land and 7.6 percent of
protection over the past decade (see Figure 2). its oceans (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2020; see
In part, these increases reflect countries’ Figure 3). The post-2020 framework is expected
commitments to the CBD Aichi Biodiversity to be ambitious, and to call on countries to set
Target 11 to conserve by 2020: “at least 17% aside more land for protection and biodiversity
of terrestrial and inland water areas and 10% conservation. Additionally, since 2018, other
of coastal and marine areas, especially areas effective area-based conservation measures
of particular importance for biodiversity and (OECM)2 have been recognized as essential to
ecosystem services, through effectively and achieve conservation targets outside of protect-
equitably managed, ecologically representa- ed area networks. As of September 2020, there
tive and well-connected systems of protected are 146 OECMs covering almost 61,000 km² of
areas and other effective area-based conser- land and over 273,000 km² of ocean (Dudley et
vation measures and integrated into the wider al. 2018).
1.4 protected area challenges
While Figure 3 suggests significant areas under and counterfeiting activities. Challenges to
protection, such areas face challenges which combatting wildlife crime include weak legis-
severely limit their efficacy. For example, in the lation and limited law enforcement capacity
Pacific Ocean’s Coral Triangle, an assessment of (UNODC 2020). Wildlife crime is a growing
coral reefs in marine protected areas found that threat to wildlife in protected areas. There are
only 1 percent of these areas were effectively reports of increased poaching and exploitation
managed (Burke et al. 2011). Poor management of natural resources in Asia and southern and
of protected areas can lead to deforestation, eastern Africa (Hockings, Dudley, and Elliott
which may lead to a loss of formal protection 2020). Poaching in marine protected areas as a
through downsizing or degazetting (Mascia and result of poor enforcement has also been doc-
Pailler 2011; Tesfaw et al. 2018). umented (Bergseth et al. 2018). A World Bank
study found that over the period 2010–2016
An analysis of the Global Database on Protected
more than US$2.35 billion was invested in
Area Management Effectiveness reported that
combatting the illegal wildlife trade in Africa and
less than a quarter of protected areas had ade-
Asia, US$948 million of which was dedicated
quate staff and budgets (Coad et al. 2019), and
to protected area management as a strategy to
that this hampered conservation, habitat man-
reduce poaching (World Bank 2016a). This is a
agement, patrolling, community engagement,
small amount compared to the estimated costs
and wildlife monitoring. Other challenges relat-
of illegal logging, fishing and trade in wildlife
ed to lack of management plans, equipment and
which are estimated to be over US$1 trillion
infrastructure, while the size and designation
In tro duc tio n
annually3 (World Bank 2019a). Illegal fishing is
of protected areas may also limit conservation
responsible for the loss of 11–26 million tons of
outcomes (Hockings 2006).
fish each year, equivalent to US$10–23 billion
The illegal wildlife trade is the fourth larg- (FAO 2019).
est global criminal enterprise, exceeded
Competition over natural resources intensifies
in value only by drug, human trafficking,
the challenges to protected area management.
2 An OECM is a geographically defined area other than a Protected Area, managed to achieve sustained, long-term, in-situ
conservation of biodiversity, ecosystem functions and services; and, where applicable, cultural, spiritual, and socio–economic
values (CBD, 2018).
3 More than 90 percent of these losses are from ecosystem services that forests, wildlife and coastal resources provide, and
that are not currently priced by the market, such as carbon storage, biodiversity, water filtration, and flood retention (World
Bank 2019a).P RO MOT I N G S USTAIN AB L E PROTE CTE D AR E A TOU R IS M TO B ENE F IT LO CAL E CONOM I ES 21
Figure 2 Growth in Protected Areas since 2010
In t ro duc tio n
Source: UNEP-WCMC and IUCN 202022 BA NKI NG ON PROTE C TE D A RE A S
Figure 3 Terrestrial and Marine Protected Area Percentages Per Country
In tro duc tio n
Source: Adapted from Maxwell et al. (2020), using data from UNEP-WCMC and IUCN 2020.
Note: The figure is showing the increase in area coverage (%) per year for marine and terrestrial protect-
ed-area estates for countries >25,000 km².P RO MOT I N G S USTAIN AB L E PROTE CTE D AR E A TOU R IS M TO B ENE F IT LO CAL E CONOM I ES 23
figure 4 Concentration of Biodiversity in the Tropics In Latin America, large scale habitat loss from
Species density distribution cross the world agricultural expansion, infrastructure develop-
ment, cattle ranching, and fires threaten fragile
AMPHIBIANS
ecosystems. Human encroachment is increasing
across the world’s protected areas as well. In
sub-Saharan Africa, cropland coverage inside
protected areas has increased at nearly double
the rate of coverage in non-protected areas.
In Latin America, outside the Amazon biome,
agricultural pressure increased by 10 percent in
protected areas (Geldmann et al. 2019).
Poor management can also increase human-wild-
life conflict, leading to loss of livelihoods for
communities living near protected areas, loss of
wildlife through retaliation, and diminishing sup-
port for conservation (Hill, Osborn, and Plumptre
2002). Over 75 percent of the world’s felid
species are at risk through human-wildlife conflict
BIRDS
(Inskip and Zimmermann 2009).
Lack of finance and community engagement to
support conservation are likely the most critical
challenges to the management of protected
areas and are discussed below.
1.4.1 Protected Area Funding
Research in marine protected areas has shown
that funding is the most robust predictor of suc-
cess for ecological outcomes (Gill et al. 2017),
and that poorly financed protected areas
lose biodiversity through poaching, livestock
incursions, land grabs, and illegal mining and
logging.
Broadly, the global biodiversity funding gap
MAMMALS
Source: Pirlea et al. 2020 hovers between US$598 billion and US$824
billion per year (Deutz et al. 2020), and these
gaps are mirrored for protected areas, which are
underfunded worldwide (Coad et al. 2019; Gill et
al. 2017; IUCN ESARO 2020; Waldron et al. 2017;
Watson et al. 2014). Nearly all protected areas
in Africa are inadequately funded, and a deficit
of US$1 billion annually must be addressed to
save iconic species and landscapes (Lindsey
et al. 2018). Protected areas in Latin America
In t ro duc tio n
are under-funded by approximately US$700
million annually, and this figure is likely to grow
(Bovarnick et al. 2010). The funding needed for
a global network of marine protected areas cov-
ering 20–30 percent of the seas is estimated to
be between US$5 and US$19 billion per year
(Balmford et al. 2004).24 BA NKI NG ON PROTE C TE D A RE A S
figure 5 Global Distribution of Extreme Poverty
Source: World Bank 2018
1.4.2 Community Benefits of tourism revenues in the local economy
(Rylance and Spenceley 2017).
The tropics are home to a large share of the
world’s biodiversity, as seen in Figure 4 (Barlow Many governments recognize the importance
et al. 2018; Raven et al. 2020). Areas in these of benefit-sharing mechanisms4 (see Box 3)
latitudes also have high levels of poverty to garner local support for protected areas
(Figure 5). The relationship between protected (Spenceley, Snyman, and Rylance 2019), but
areas and poverty is, however, complex. Many even established mechanisms may fail to deliver
poor, rural communities depend upon natural re- benefits (Spenceley, Snyman, and Rylance 2019)
sources for food, fuel, and livelihoods, and may for reasons including, but not limited to (i) exces-
be prevented from harvesting these resources sive bureaucratic processes, (ii) poorly designed
from protected areas; in the short term this may mechanisms in which benefits do not off-set
lead to a loss of support for conservation. costs of conservation, are low, or are captured
by elites, or (iii) lack of agreement on means of
Local communities may bear other costs of bio- disbursement and recipients. It is also important
diversity conservation, such as changes in land to note that benefits of living around protected
tenure or governance, displacement, and the areas accrue collectively, while costs are borne
costs of human-wildlife conflict (see Box 2). by individual households (Munanura et al. 2016).
In tro duc tio n
In the absence of benefits from protected-ar- Research indicates that equitable and transpar-
ea tourism, communities bearing the costs of ent benefit-sharing may advance development
human-wildlife conflict are unlikely to support and conservation goals (Snyman and Bricker
conservation, while the loss of tourism reve- 2019), and that conservation and socioeconom-
nues from local economies, known as revenue ic gains are more likely when protected areas
leakage, may further alienate local communities. pursue co-management, reduce economic in-
In Uganda’s Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, equalities, empower local people, offer cultural
tourism leakage was estimated at over 75 per- benefits and reduce negative livelihood impacts
cent (Sandbrook 2010), while in Botswana, value (Oldekop et al. 2016).
chain analysis showed only 37 percent retention
4 Benefit sharing mechanisms include tangible benefits such as jobs, direct income, and revenue sharing from park entrance
fees; and intangible benefits include capacity building, skills training, and cultural benefits (Spenceley, Snyman, and Rylance 2019).P RO MOT I N G S USTAIN AB L E PROTE CTE D AR E A TOU R IS M TO B ENE F IT LO CAL E CONOM I ES 25
box 2
Human-Wildlife
Conflict Costs to Local
Communities
Human-wildlife conflicts typically occur in the park over six months was US$74 (1.5 percent
agricultural and production landscapes which of median household capital asset wealth).
are near protected areas. The impacts of Approximately 73 percent of respondents expe-
human-wildlife conflict include, but are not rienced crop raids in which 45 percent of their
limited to, loss of livelihoods from crop raiding, maize was lost to animals from the protected
livestock depredation, damage to property and/ area (Mackenzie and Ahabyona 2012).
or loss of life. Global estimates of the costs of human-wildlife
In Bhutan, a survey of 274 households living conflict are not available, and only 10 percent
near the Jigme Singye Wangchuck National of studies on this topic have quantified its
Park reported a yearly average financial loss economic impacts (Inskip and Zimmermann
equal to 17 percent of the total per capita cash 2009). These studies reveal that (i) direct costs
income due to livestock predation (Wang and are unevenly distributed within communities
Macdonald 2006). Around Chebera-Churchura (Thirgood, Woodroffe, and Rabinowitz 2005);
National Park in Ethiopia, a study of 145 house- (ii) individual/household losses may be severe
holds estimated economic losses of US$75,234 (Woodroffe et al. 2005); and (iii) economic costs
caused by wildlife between 2007–2011, with 30 only partially describe social and cultural im-
percent of livestock lost over a three year period pacts because livestock and produce are forms
(Acha, Temesgen, and Bauer 2018). In Uganda, of wealth which enhance resilience (Dickman,
a survey around Kibale National Park estimated Macdonald, and Macdonald 2011).
that the average financial loss for farmers around
box 3
Efforts to Share Benefits
from Tourism in Protected
Areas in Africa
To work towards a pro-poor distribution of ben- revenue shares of 7.5–25 percent of fees from
efits, governments in several African countries tourism and hunting benefit local communi-
have instituted mechanisms to share a per- ties through development projects such as
centage of park and protected area entry fees schools, clinics, bridges, water infrastructure,
In t ro duc tio n
with neighboring communities. These funds are and training programs (Mtui 2007). In Rwanda’s
typically invested in local projects rather than National Parks, a 2005 scheme distributed 5
distributed as direct cash transfers (Mitchell and percent of park revenues through local districts
Ashley 2009). (Verdugo 2007), while in Namibia, members
of the Namibia Association of Community
In Kenya, local governments distribute ap-
Based Natural Resource Management Support
proximately 19 percent of tourism revenues
Organizations (NACSO) receive up to 40
under their jurisdictions to local communities
percent of revenues from community conser-
living next to protected areas including Maasai
vancies in the form of cash incomes, game
Mara National Reserve, Lake Bogoria National
meat, or development projects (IUCN ESARO
Reserve, and Samburu National Reserve.
2020). Spenceley, Snyman, and Rylance
In parks run by the Kenya Wildlife Service,
(2019) describe many more African exam-
a percentage of park fees is invested in
ples of revenue sharing between protected
community projects through their Community
area authorities/tourism businesses and local
Service department (Weru 2007). In Tanzania,
communities.You can also read
