From: "Shoaib" <shahnor@aitlbd.net>
Date sent: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 21:18:25 +1000
Subject: [PPMY]S1: Observations from the CHTsI noticed the following when I visited Nepal and faced the same thing in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHTs) of Bangladesh as well.
No doubt hills/mountains attract peoples for myriad reasons: some come for a change, some for recreation, some for crispy air and some to explore the inherent properties of their chosen area. But in all of these cases, I feel that littering the area with articles/materials you mentioned is common.
I was in the CHTs with a Dhaka University student. As Friday is a holiday in this country, it was a heavy-crowd day. Small market have developed, the locals sell local goods to the visitors and are happy to make money. I asked an old lady from one of the tribes if she liked the crowd. She replied: "They’re noisy and dirty".
I requested the local administration to have some control over the use of loudspeakers in the hills and to regulate littering. I found them to be non-receptive toward my suggestions. I also tried to find out if the fees collected from the visitors are used for the development of these hills and hill people. The answer was ‘no’ but they were quick to add that if the area is visited by the tourists, this alone suffices for the local community.
As I was in this area for a long time, my feeling is that the tourist/visitor mostly look upon the local community as photo opportunities.
In the context of CHTs, impact of tourism has two dimensions:
1) It exposes the local community to new merchandising ideas.
2) It leads to pollution of watersheds, increases noise pollution [which scares off wildlife], and detracts from the overall experience of the visitors.On culture and ecology
1. Interactions between the visitors and local peoples surely loosen up the social fabric of the tribal society. Exposure to visitors attracts the local tribes to a newer and more modern lifestyle that the former represent.
2. If there is no effective management of tourism and its impacts, there is certain to be imbalance in adjustment which may have negative impact on the society and the eco-system.I belive that strong and effective administration may be traditional, but it could act as a catalyst for proper management of tourism and its impacts in remote areas.
shoaib
-------MODERATOR'S COMMENTS
How does the group care to respond to the comments above?I'm not going to try and push discussions in any one way however it is interesting to ask why is littering common (or perceived to be) in remote mountain areas? I've had people tell me during my work: "it's because of a lack of education", "tourists/ locals are lazy", etc. - many of the same comments I think we may have all heard. There is the assumption however that through proper education and management the littering will stop. But when all is said and done why might you think that tourists can't look beyond the litter?
I'm also intrigued by response 1 under 'on culture and the ecology'. That is, the attraction to a newer and more modern lifestyle - are the lives of foreigners really that much more attractive to a culture in a remote mountain destination and does that change over time or through more interaction?
-Beau Beza
From: "Empar Alos" <ealos@bridges-prtd.com>
Date sent: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 21:59:30 +1000
Subject: [PPMY]S1: Garbage issueFor the past four years, Bridges-PRTD has been involved in efforts to make Rolwaling more accessible to independent backpackers, as opposed to the self-contained caravans that troupe through and contribute nothing to the local economy. Early on we tried to confront the trash problem. There are mounds in the ravines towards the east end of Beding, quite a bit of it from trekking groups. But trash is scattered pretty much everywhere -- broken shoes, old clothes, noodle wrappers, and so on. A lot ends up in the river, and probably gets flushed away during the monsoons. Quite a bit ends up tucked away in the jumble of rocks, where you don't notice it unless you look for it. We cleaned up all of the loose trash from the western part of the village, ended up with about 10 baskets – maybe 200 kg altogether.
Then the problem became what to do with it. The monks advised us against burning garbage, which would displease the gods. The only ground soft enough to dig a pit in was either being used as a potato field or being held in reserve by somebody who wanted that option later on. Finally the monks directed us to some "caves" -- just spaces in the huge landslide jumble to the west of the monastery, and we initiated a garbage dump there.
I must say that, aside from the lama's expression of concern about burnt trash, there was little local interest -- and no expressions of appreciation or support -- regarding this effort. The villagers of Rolwaling clearly did not consider garbage to be a serious problem.
Of course, there are two answers to this point. First, whether or not the locals find the trash objectionable, it is an economic problem if it results in diminished tourism. Secondly, even if it is not perceived as a problem now, it will certainly become one.
What is the solution? Well, we think that it is rather likely that the monks, and other true believers, will give up on the customary injunction against burning trash. We don't like that prospect, not because we are against incineration, but because we have been trying to promote Rolwaling as a "sacred valley," one of 8 beyuls created by Guru Rimpoche to serve as sanctuaries for Buddhism in time of trouble. (Khumbu is another, but Rolwaling has always been more conservative and mindful of this tradition.) Among the beneficial concomitants of this sacred status are a total ban on hunting and slaughter in the valley. In recent years, however, we have seen more and more goats and sheep killed -- always for trekking groups, but generally with the participation of local people. Slaughter and trash burning may sound like separate issues, but our guess is that it's all one slippery slope.
We think that the situation could be stabilized in Rolwaling with a little consciousness-raising among the tour operators. After all, trash management is a general concern and tour operators can get a bad reputation rather quickly if clients are aware of un- acceptable practices. As for slaughter, it seems like a simple matter to explain to the clients that Rolwaling is a sacred valley, and fresh meet is simply not available there.
On the other hand, it is clear that many villagers will not be pleased by effective restraint of trade. They have been raising goats for years, and all the goats are sold for slaughter somewhere or other; they will find it unreasonable to ignore such a convenient market. And the fact is that Sherpa society is notably ill-equipped for law enforcement.
About the garbage, I would also like to observe for those who are unfamiliar with Nepal that the problem is much greater in Kathmandu, for instance, than in the mountains. There are apparently no effective waste treatment plants. The concept of "littering" does not exist in the minds of Nepalis. (In fact, it was only invented in the United States toward the end of the 1950s, and did not become a matter of public concern until Lady Bird Johnson's "Beautify America" campaign.) For one thing, there are no garbage cans. In the World Heritage Site temple district a few trash cans have been set up, but almost all are bottomless cylinders: you toss in your trash and it falls through to the street. In fact, the only way to get your garbage collected is to toss it on the street, where (if you live in the right part of town), sareed street sweepers will collect it in the early morning hours.
That means that there is no model of "cultured behavior" for the rural villagers to aspire to. Nor is there any place to get rid of the garbage if it is removed from the mountains.
Ed Douglas, in his excellent travelogue "Chomolungma Sings the Blues,"devotes several pages to to the problem of garbage (103 ff). Maybe I'll dig it out and summarize his points ...in a few days.
Meanwhile, I do believe that garbage has been overdramatized as an issue. For one thing, repeat visitors to Nepal love to go on about how everything has gotten worse since THEY first came, blah-blah-blah. Sure, some things are worse, but garbage in Sagarmatha National Park is NOT one of them. Neither is deforestation.
In my view, the big problem in Khumbu, as elsewhere in Nepal, is lousy morale. A few years ago, we were talking to the director of Sagarmatha Pollution Control Committee (SPCC), who complained that very few merchants in Namche actually contributed the pittance that was requested from them. We suggested giving them a sticker to post, so that tourists would know which establishments were helping. He laughed and told us that people would throw rocks at his head if he tried something like that. A couple of months ago we had a similar conversation with Narendra Bajracharya, president of the Hotel Association of Nepal, about our suggestion that a regular airport shuttle bus be set up so that new arrivals wouldn't have to face the appalling assaults of touts and drivers (all of whom refuse to use meters, despite the fact that the meters have been tampered with anyway); he said that there was a taxi syndicate. That's how it is everywhere: corrupt officials, conniving neighbors, cutthroat competition, always someone to blame. The good news is that somehow roadblocks fade away, and things get done, eventually. But then the next challenge arises, and the immediate response is ... "Ke garne?" [What to do?]
Anyway, in terms of "impact," we think that a much more useful focus in Khumbu would be on the problem of outmigration. People get a little money, and leave. Or they send their kids to boarding schools, and then Western universities, and they lose their Sherpa language, and can't really come home. Recently there has been talk of setting up a world-class boarding school in Namche Bazar. There is no question that the people can afford it. They just need to get their acts together and do it. Maybe we can get some momentum going in that direction with the conference, and the Golden Jubilee celebration, next month.
Empar Alos
Director
Bridges-PRTD---------------
MODERATOR'S COMMENTS
A very detailed response to the opening statement. The example of managing garbage and how traditions may ultimately shift are interesting - what other examples or comments might you have?Additionally, the topics of outmigration and the possibility of establishing a boarding school to attract kids to stay in an area are discussed in the last paragraph - would anyone like to take any of these further?
-Beau Beza
Date sent: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 10:24:48 +1000
From: "Giuliano Tallone" <direttore.arp@parchilazio.it>
Subject: [PPMY]S1: On developing protected mountain areas for tourismI've been working on the theme of mountain protected areas since 1985, and, as everyone, I have developed some ideas and a general vision about the problems related to tourism inside mountain parks.
My mean experience is on alpine protected areas (I am the former director of Val Grande National Park in Italy), but I had the opportunity to join an expedition in Karakoram Range (Hunza Gojal) in Pakistan with Everest-K2-CNR Project, and somewere else in Northern Africa and Middle East. I had many useful discussions about this theme with some colleague from IUCN, Turkey, Nepal and NPS, too.
I would like present to you some additional general remarks to the message from Beau Beza, thanking him for starting the discussion.
1) In my vision we must accept, as a fact, that the general trend of tourism is everywhere, and especially on mountains, increasing.
2) We must face with tourism as a potential - or real - impact, but also as a tool to develop the quality of life for mountain people. From this point of view we need to develop the potential of tourism as economic "engine" for remote mountain areas - especially finding the way to increase the revenue to local population.
3) The project with involvement of international agencies or donors should take into account a grass root development of the projects, starting from local and small scale interventions.In many remote mountain protected areas "small scale projects" could be especially the establishment of basic infrastructure for "natural" tourism (local accommodations like bed and breakfast style rooms inside private houses, visitor centres, nature trails and walking signed paths, training of local guides, publication of leaflets and books on land of historical and natural values, ...).
4) The development of the local tourist infrastructure must be linked to management plans that make forecast on increased tourist presence; consequently, environmental management systems must be put in place before that the impact of tourism (water pollution, litter, local resource consumption as the famous example of firewood in Sagarmatha) is realised. This is, obviously, a theoretical situation; in places where the tourism is actually a developed reality we can only try to find solutions to problems that we can see today.
5) Speaking about "fees" for mountain tourism, it is important to encourage the development of a local policy that shifts the cost for the environment onto the foreign tourist. They ask for mountain products (landscape, clean air, water, wildlife) is high and increasing, so it is fundamental to incorporate the costs to maintain this ecosystem quality into the cost for the use of this "non-material" resource.
6) We should make an effort to develop public awareness, especially in the potential tourist public, about the reasons for this costs. In general, we can think that the external public can be convicted about the need to pay for a good environment in mountain areas, and to avoid the model of "take and escape" tourist in mountain environments.
7) Last, but not least, a main effort has to be made to develop a general respect between cultures, trying to use the local culture (and the ancient ecosystem related styles of life) as resource for interpretation, and as an added value for the tourism.
I think that a great responsibility is in the hands of local people, but quite a lot is under the ability of "external" people (at central national level, or at the international one) to build development proposals that have respect for the fragility of the mountain ecosystems and for the rights of the inhabitants of mountain ranges, allowing them to have both equity in social systems and real ability to maintain in long term the mountain environment.
Giuliano Tallone
Director, ARP (Regional Park Agency)
----------
MODERATORS COMMENTS
Many interesting points are raised here with the potential to take discussions in a number of new directions - would anyone like to comment or take the lead? For example, point 4 implies the possibility that a model could be developed and applied in these situations to minimize the impacts of tourism - maybe some of you know of one or have examples of a procedure and then would care to describe their merits (if any)?-Beau Beza
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 10:46:14 +1000
Author: "Lhakpa Sherpa" <lsherpa@mountain.org>
Subject: [PPMY]S1: Issues of Garbage and toilets in mountain areas
As a resident Namche VDC, and on behalf of the Sherpas of Everest area, let me thank the organizers for initiating the e-conference on parks, people and mountain tourism. I hope the conference will lead to some concrete actions. Now, let me comment on excellent lead papers by Mr. Beza, Sicroff and Bhadra. Binayak urged us not to forget many other smaller mountain areas of the world in our focus on Everest this year. I couldn’t agree more. However, for better or worse Everest region has been a
park with people and a popular tourist destination for a long time. The park and tourism had brought benefits as well as challenges to the local people. I truly hope
that the wider mountain regions of the world will benefit from the lesson we extract from achievements and mistakes made in the Everest region. The topic allows us to discuss a wide variety of subjects form any where for that matter.
Both Beu’s paper and Seth’s opening remarks hit home the problem of garbage along the Everest trail. In the past, I always argued that “garbage” is a cosmetic thing and there are much deeper and lasting problems that needs our attention (i.e. over-built and over-settlement mentioned in Beau’s paper) but this is my personal view. If we want tourism however, we need to address the concerns and feelings of the tourists. Beau found out that tourist perceive garbage as ugliest of the uglies. If that is the case solving this problem needs to be tackled with some urgency, and it should be responsibilities of all the stakeholders involved in tourism business including hotels, restaurant, tour operators, local people and parks alike. Comparatively speaking, garbage problem has not worsened over the year considering the huge increase in visitor numbers. We should be thankful to efforts made by many organizations, groups and individual for their contribution. There still are many disgustingly polluted pockets especially around concentrated campsites within Sagarmatha National Park. Lack of sanitation and garbage pollutes water and bad water makes visitors sick and starts up a vicious cycle, unless toilets facilities are made available.
I am looking for a collaborators and donors who can design a light and durable prefabricated toilet units that could be installed and dismantled as needed. The problem at high altitude mountaineering camps to the north side of the Everest is that a huge concrete toilet block is built at one spot, but the camps are spread out miles away from it. The mobile toilets could be fixed over discretely built concrete pads. Underneath, a barrel could be placed to collect waste, which could be transported down valley to farmer’s fields. By the way, the local hardy yaks would do the honor of transporting the waste and won’t need the
help from the South American Llamas.
Lhakpa Norbu Sherpa
Lhasa
-------
MODERATORS COMMENTS
What are some of your views on toilets in these mountain areas and in particular esp. with regard to the issue of using that waste in fields. With the quantities of tourists that now travel through these areas and the resulting increase of excrement that may be used in the fields, is there the potential for a major problem - will a traditional practice again have to change? -Beau
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 14:51:28 -0600
Author: Brian Mac Call <brian.maccall@fgc.ch>
Subject: [PPMY]S1: Re: Issues of Garbage and toilets in mountainIn this context, I have just been reading a recent publication of the UK Institute of Development Studies (Insights: Development Research No. 45) on the theme of 'Urban Poverty : Water and Sanitation Goals'. This useful summary can be read on the IDS site at <http://www.id21.org/insights/insights45/insights-iss45-art03.html>.
It includes lots of common sense that should appeal to Lhakpa Sherpa. Amaka Obika on "how the uptake of latrines could be increased if designs responded to people's needs rather than relying on the standard current technology" and other information on "exploring low water or no water sanitation systems adapted to peri-urban locations".
Brian Mac Call in Choulex
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 17:51:15 +0200
Author: "Elli Broxham" <ellib@bluewin.ch>
Subject: [PPMY]S1: Re:Issues of Garbage and toilets in mountain areas
Moderator wrote: "...What are some of your views on toilets in these mountain areas and in particular esp. with regard to the issue of using that waste in fields?"
---------
I can't see too many problems with using human waste on fields. Is it the amount that could be the problem? In Switzerland, each farmer has to fill out a balance sheet, showing exactly how they are going to fertilise the soil each year, what kind of organic/chemical fertiliser will be used. Maybe the problem can be solved by a similar regulation? Otherwise, what would be done with the waste? I'm not a waste management expert, but I would guess that the best place for the waste is on the fields!
Elli
--------
MODERATOR'S COMMENTS
Would anyone care to respond to Elli's comments above, in particular as to why human waste (i.e. excrement) may be a problem when used in fields -feel free to be as scientific or general as you think best? Remember we're all trying to learn with these discussions. -Beau Beza
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 06:26:25 -0400
Author: "Bridges-PRTD" <bridges-prtd@lycos.com>
Subject: [PPMY]S1: Outhouses
There are two problems with outhouses in remote areas. First, they are visual jokes. They completely undermine the sense of remoteness and oneness-with-nature. Second, they are unlikely to be maintained. Unless the area is completely flat and exposed, there is little reason to prefer a stinking cabin overrun with maggots (like most public toilets in China) to a nice thoughtful squat behind a convenient moraine.
There are several less drastic steps that could be taken to mitigate the human waste issue. First, all teahouses in parks might be required to maintain decent outhouses and to make them available to the public, not just clients. Second, there should be a rule that toilets may not be built over streams or set up so that they empty directly into running water, as is the case in Pheriche, for instance, and even more so in other villages on the trek from Jiri, such as Kenja. Third, there should be a standard for "park paper": it should be undyed and it should degrade quickly. Right now, most toilet paper in Nepal is a garish hot pink with the half-life of a truck tire.
Seth Sicroff
Bridges-PRTD
---
MODERATOR'S COMMENTS
Seth brings up a few points of discussion that people may wish to elaborate on or take issue with. For example, would
anyone care to give an example of a remote mountain destination where private commercial establishments provide public toilets or how would you respond if you owned a teahouse and were asked to provide public toilets? -Beau Beza
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2003 08:27:01 -0800
Author: Lhakpa Sherpa <lsherpa@mountain.org>
Subject: [PPMY]S1: Garbage burning in sacred beyuls
Empar Aloso described an interesting situation where people of the Rolwaling valley objected to garbage burning (pollution can exist in gaseous form as well). The main reason behind the objection is that they believe their homeland is a sacred beyul (hidden valley). There is a growing interest among environmental experts around the world on the role of sacred natural sites in biological diversity conservation.Very recently, an International Conference was held in Kunming (China) on this subject where I presented a paper on "Sacred beyul and Biodiversity Conservation in the Himalaya". The conclusion is that the beyul concept should be respected and reinforced because they have the potential to become strong cultural basis for environmental conservation.
Khumbu is also considered as a beyul. Three generations ago, local people did not slaughter livestock and protected forest and wildlife out of respect to beyul concept. Much of the respect has been weakened over time because of tourism pressure, and failure of the Hindu State to lend recognition to traditional knowledge systems of the Buddhist ethnic cultures. We now have garbage incinerators right under the nose of Jomo Langma and animal slaughter is common. I congratulate the Rolwaling people for continuing to adhere to the age-old tradition.
Lhakpa N. Sherpa
----------------
MODERATOR'S COMMENTS
Lhakpa has provided a good example of where local tradition has changed as a result of tourism. But another interesting example provided is the failure of the state to lend recognition to traditional knowledge systems. Where might you find some other examples of where government may not recognise local tradition or knowledge systems and impacts have resulted? Are there any common threads that we may string together? Conversely, where has a government recognised these and something positive may have resulted? -Beau Beza
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 09:12:38 +1000
Author: Doreen Park <doepark@shaw.ca>
Subject: [PPMY]S1: Re: G Tallone's point 4
G. Tallone point 4 reads: "...The development of the local tourist infrastructure must be linked to management plans that make forecast on increased tourist presence; consequently, environmental management systems must be put in place before that the impact of tourism (water pollution, litter, local resource consumption as the famous example of firewood in Sagharmata) is realised. This is, obviously, a theoretical situation; in places where the tourism is actually a developed reality we can only try to find solutions to problems that we can see today...."
In terms of a management plan, it would be interesting to investigate the feasibility of a 'tourism development index' that can be developed and used to assess the development/sustainability of tourism in existing and emerging tourist destinations. The selected indicators of the index would indeed be holistic to encompass environmental, cultural, economic and other key indicators. The 'tourism development index' could be beneficial to tourism operators (as a marketing tactic), to the host destination (to market their attractions, culture, & attract desirable tourists), and to consumers (as a means of evaluating an operator or a destination). Does any sort of a similar model exist?
Doreen Park
Canada
------
MODERATOR'S COMMENTS
Could anyone provide Doreen and our group with some opinions/ comments to this reply. Additionally, is anyone working on or know of a model, as described above, that they would care to present to the group - it would be great to hear your thoughts? -Beau Beza
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2003 01:46:24 -0400
Author: "Bridges-PRTD" <bridges-prtd@lycos.com>
Subject: [PPMY]S1: Re: Sustainability Index?Regarding the possibility of developing an index, I think the answer is "no."
The first reason that it is impossible is that "sustainability" is a subjective issue. Just which elements of a situation need to be sustained? Life style, trail quality, land use, built environment, population? It's all a matter of taste. That's why "carrying capacity" is irrelevant to human situations: in the biological context, the issue is how many individuals can be kept alive; in the human context, mere survival is not good enough. But there is no way to quantify anything beyond biological survival.
The second reason is that you would necessarily be comparing apples and oranges. How do you compare a park that is initially a desert with one that is being deforested? The only solution would be to try to compare the current situation with some putative baseline in the past. But we don't really have good information about pre-human impact conditions, and even if we did, those conditions changed enough that our baseline would inevitably involve some arbitrary (or subjective!) selection. Also, many ecosystems that we actually seem to appreciate (such as Swiss alpine meadows) depend entirely on human (and bovine) impact. So, again, the question of sustainability would depend entirely on our choice of what we want to sustain.
The third problem is that the index would have commercial application. That means there would be falsification, fudging, and unseemly squabbles. We would need a whole new bureaucracy to assess (and monitor) each area, and a certification system to evaluate the evaluators. And there would have to be some kind of enforcement. In short, it would run into exactly the same kind of mess that is arising with "eco-labeling" - attempts to certify compliance with eco-tourism standards (whatever that might mean).
These three reasons why the sustainability index should not be implemented do not mean that it won't. The world is full of control freaks who would like to impose order on nature...or on our interaction with it.
Seth Sicroff
Director,
Bridges-PRTD
------------
MODERATOR'S COMMENTS
How do you feel about the comments made in this reply? I believe a strong stance against an index is provided here and I'm sure many of you may have a different opinion - would anyone like to counter or raise issue with any one of the three problems raised? -Beau Beza
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 08:40:32 +1000
Author: Brot Coburn <brot@mos.com.np>
Subject: [PPMY]S1: Concerning the issue of litter
Concerning the issue of litter, two important questions have been raised. Concerning the first:
"...Or is the issue of garbage our attempt to impose our own aesthetic preferences or environmental concerns on a host community?...."
I believe the answer is yes. Indeed, although I dislike garbage as much as the next person, in some parts of Nepal litter (referring here to product packaging) in small doses is actually a status symbol to be garnished around one's compound -- identifying the resident as having the means to purchase consumer items. This is an extreme example, and different circumstances apply in SNP, but it should be clarified that litter is generally not an environmental problem. It results in little if any air or water pollution and arguably doesn't affect wildlife habitat or biodiversity.Concerning the follow-on questiion, "...If so, what are more important issues we should be discussing and focusing on in remote mountain destinations that are impacted by tourism?...."
Briefly, we should address environmental issues that are directly or indirectly caused or exacerbated by tourism: indiscriminate firewood cutting; overgrazing; sanitation; improper lodge, tourism infrastructure and commercial development, and management issues.
Each of these raises complicated and politically difficult questions, and the necessary measures are often unpalatable. At best, the solutions require long term dedication and sacrifice of access to some resources. Litter and garbage control has been co-opted as a surrogate environmental issue. The reason it is so "popular," I'm convinced, is that it's a mom-and-apple-pie, win-win issue: there's no political/social down side to collecting garbage. We can all agree that it's a nice thing to do, and no on
It's not a matter so much of outsiders "imposing" our aesthetic values on the host country citizens, it's a case of all of us sometimes using garbage as a feel-good substitute for the real work of protecting the environment.
Broughton Coburn
---
MODERATOR'S COMMENTS
Garbage here is proposed to be an aesthetic issue and there are much more important problems we should be working on. What other 'long term'issues need attention, a number of examples have been provided above, please discuss some of your experiences. -Beau Beza
From: jshores@juno.com
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 16:30:08 -0700
Subject: [PPMY]S1: Re: Sustainability Index?Following on the comments and suggestion from Doreen Park to create a "tourism development index" to use in assessing existing and emerging tourism development: Our moderator is correct to believe that there might be differing points of view on this issue. Regarding the development of an index of sustainability for tourism, I believe the answer, and the experience, is "yes." I strongly disagree with the first part of Seth Sicroff's message arguing that a tourism development index would not work. In fact, these types of assessment and monitoring indices are a useful and practical way to explore the issues, develop common ground , and overcome much of the nay saying. The question "What is sustainability?" might have been a challenging question in the 1970's and perhaps the 1980's, but certainly in the past two decades, that question has been put to rest. There are rich resources on the web, explaining and expanding this topic from variety of perspectives. Start with http://www.naturalstep.org . I respectfully submit that this question has calmly and plainly been put to rest. We now have sustainability guidelines and best practices for an amazing number of industries, enterprises, and human activities. "Carrying Capacity" was developed as a useful concept for animal populations where the behavior of individual animals does not change much over time. One antelope is going to behave approximately like any other antelope of the same species. For human behavior, which is extremely malleable, we generally use a more appropriate concept, often "Limits of Acceptable Change." I would be happy to provide further information on LAC and carrying capacity to any readers who contact me off this list. Suffice it so say that LAC is a challenging but robust way to define and monitor the changes that appear, and the thresholds we set, that goes well beyond mere survival. "Limits of Acceptable Change" is powerful because it allows you to describe the "apples and oranges" that Mr. Sicroff posits. As long as you can recognize and define the orange that you want, or the apple that you seek, the system works. It is based on detectable changes. You get to set the limits. If Swiss Alpine meadows or Scotland's sheep and meadow landscape is the one you want to manage toward, so be it. Nothing says you have to recreate the forested environment. But you can manage to make either one sustainable. I believe that Mr. Sicroff and I do agree that IF index or certification creates a competitive advantage, there will probably be individuals and enterprises that will try to abuse it. They will try to claim that they are complying with the terms of the index or certification, and then fail to meet the criteria. Or to continue to use the index score or certification label after they have fallen out of compliance. Or to inflate their scores. But these are the same sorts of problems we can encounter in any commercial relationships. Most countries today have implemented inspections for common elements of commerce such as weights and measures, or grades and qualities. The travel industry should not be exempt from these kinds of scrutiny.
My question to the forum is: Why would we *limit* our demand for sustainability to just the travel industry? To insist that community-based tourism be sustainable and ignore the lack of sustainability in all of the rest -- agriculture, urbanization, transport, commerce, and industry -- is, to my way of thinking, crazy and very counter-productive. We should demand sustainability in all aspects of human affairs. Why would we pick on tourism *first*?
Best regards,
John Shores
San Jose / California / USA
From: "Wolfgang Bayer" <WB_BAYER@WEB.DE>
Date sent: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 22:14:47 +0200
Subject: [PPMY]S1: Re: Issues of Garbage and toilets in mountain areasThere are problems of transport (the stuff is smelly, and liquid) and there is a problem of hygiene. If the waste is fresh, it may contain viable worm eggs and other disease agents, which can be transmitted to people again, if the waste is used on, say, on lettuce, which is consumed fresh. If I remember correctly the stuff Chinese recommend to stored the slurry for several months (it ferments in the process and methane is produced (which can be dangerous if someone tries to enter the pit) and in some mountainous areas there may be a problem of appropriate storage space. The effects of toilets also depend on the way they constructed and what the underground is. Apparently school toilets in parts of Germany were constructed on porous limestone and decades later long lived bacteria showed up in spring water on the foot of the mountains. If there is no leakage and if the stuff is stored long enough, there is no problem with using human waste on fields. Indeed it helps to intensify the nutrient cycle.
DATE: Sun, 06 Apr 2003 16:22:18
From: Doreen Park <doepark@shaw.ca>
Subject: [PPMY]S1: Re: Sustainability Index?Thank you for your comments Mr. Sicroff. While I understand where you are coming from I do not agree with you. Here are some examples of websites that may challenge your notion of the subjectivity of sustainability.
http://www.sustainability.com
http://www.iisd.org
http://www.undp.org/hdr2001/
http://nt1.ids.ac.uk/eldis/hot/indicator.htm
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/indisd/isdms2001/table_4.htmWhy can't the tourism industry (tourism development) emulate the work of other business/industry sectors that are involved in sustainable development? Appropriate & useful indicators put in the proper context, along with an analytical framework, may allow stakeholders to: access information, observe trends, develop policies, set targets/goals and measure progress (from a baseline), or simply provide a snapshot in time. Is it that undesirable?
D. Park
From: Christine Lambrechts <ekangala@ripplesoft.co.za>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 15:56:15 +1000
Subject: [PPMY]S1: Re: Sustainability Index?Agreeing with Seth Sicroff to a certain degree re developing an index and that sustainability is subjective, but disagreeing re his statement of control freaks. Guidelines are not necessarily about "imposing order on nature". In this case it would be more about guidance on how nature should be utilised in a mutually beneficial manner. BUT to tie in with the previous dicussion: It would be valuable to have some practical guidelines regarding planning for tourism development. Too often, especially in rural areas where tourism is seen as a socio-economic "saviour", un-planned nature tourism is the norm and it has serious effects not only on the environment on which it depends, but also in the long term on tourism itself. There is a well-founded saying, that if you do not plan for tourism, you get the tourism you deserve destructive short term benefits. Truly beneficial tourism is a long term issue, which demands/needs careful planning and informed strategies. I have followed the discussion about problems with garbage and toilets with some reserved interest. If there had been proper assessments and planning regarding infrastructure BEFORE tourism was developed and marketed in those problem areas, it would not have been a problem now. Let us learn from the mistakes of the past. One of the greatest problems in "unsustainable" tourism development, is that people disregard the hidden costs of establishing and maintaining the essential infrastructure which will support it.
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 16:08:18 +1000
Author: Beau Beza <beaubb@unimelb.edu.au>
Subject: [PPMY]S1: End of Session II
A few postings taking opposing views to the development of sustainability index have been submitted and can be accessed at the "People, Park and Mountain Tourism" web site at <http://www.mtnforum.org/apmn/thread3.htm> . Here you will find the following (late) postings:
*[PPMT]S1: Re: Sustainability Index, John Shores
*[PPMT]S1: Re: Issues of Garbage and toilets in mountain
areas, Wolfgang Bayer
*[PPMT]S1: Re: Sustainability Index? Doreen Park
*[PPMT]S1: Re: Sustainability Index, Christine
Lambrechts
Additionally, I just want to take the opportunity to thank all who participated and I hope many of you benefited from this session of the e-consultation. I'll be providing a summary of the discussions later in the week and hope to meet many of you at the Namche Conference.
With these words, I want to officially close Session 1 (April 2-6).
Please do not forget to read the lead paper for Session II (April7-11) "Security issues in remote mountainous areas", which is available online at <http://www.mtnforum.org/apmn/paper2.htm> and send your comments etc to either <apmn@mtnforum.org> or <mf-asia@lyris.bellanet.org>.
Beau Beza,
| Main Page |