| Main Page |
From: "Shoaib"
<shahnor@aitlbd.net>
Date sent: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 11:45:07 -0500
Subject: Security Issues in Remote Mountain
Areas
Thanks to Dr. Seth Sicroff for his elaborate
explanation on "SECURITY ISSUES
RELATED TO TOURISM IN REMOTE MOUNTAINOUS DESTINATIONS".
I like to join the discussion:
Firstly I think we can define 'Security
issues in remote mountains'. Because there are some tourists
who face the visit as too much adventurous. In that
case no one can track them to secure their journey.
May I propose the security
issues related to hazards due to
1. Biophysical conditions of the
area.
2. The tourist himself/herself
3. Social situations
1. Biophysical conditions of the
area.
If the area is physically
fragile, with erratic climatic condition,
earthquake and other physico-structural vulnerability
it will be wise to consider those hazards during
trekking. Tourists may be advised not to be too adventurous
and not to be obsessed with getting into the Guinness
Book of World Records.
2. The tourist himself should be
physically and mentally fit. They must go
thorugh some process to determine whether they
are fit for this situation or not.
3. Local invasions or
insurgencies are sometimes not suitable
for tourists. It is in most cases unpredictable like
earthquake or any other physical hazard.
Shoaib
------------
Moderator's comments
1) Shoaib seems to favor erring
on the side of prudence. One question to
consider is: who should impose the restraint?
Should there be no parks in seismically or volcanically
active regions? Should trekkers be evaluated on
their fitness before being granted permits to visit rough
terrain?
2) In recent years, a new trend
has been identified: "disaster
tourism." In Lijiang (Yunnan Province, China), international
tourism arrivals seem to have rebounded quite rapidly
after the 1996 earthquake despite continuing tremors,
as people flocked to see the destruction for
themselves. Any thoughts on this phenomenon?
-Seth Sicroff
From: "Empar
Alos Alabajos" <empar@lycos.com>
Date sent: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 12:38:28 -0500
Subject: [PPMT]S2: Security and the
A-factor
The first effort to reduce the
level of Tsho Rolpa waters and mitigate the GLOF hazard involved the use of
hi-tech pipes contributed by the Dutch company Wavin (with other support
from the Netherlands). While we have no official information from the
managers of this project, we have always suspected that a contributing
factor was theft of these very distinctive pipes -- which we have seen used
for a variety of purposes other than those intended.
Theft of pipes is actually
something of a tradition in these remote areas. The pipeline draped over the
Khunde ridge in the late seventies or early 80s was stolen by locals, and
Ang Tsering, the pradhan panch (local representative) tried for years to
recover it so that the project could be finished. There was no secret as to
who had the pipe, but there was no way to force their return.
For years, we at Bridges-PRTD
have agonized over what we call the "A-Factor": that much of what
developers attempt to do on behalf of local people is foiled due to the
greed and malice of local individuals. Here are a few little examples.
In 2000, we posted trail signs
on a confusing stretch of the path from Simigaon to Beding. These were
quickly removed by locals who considered any enhancement of trekker security
to be a threat to their livelihood as guides.
We have been informed by a
colleague who was doing research in Rolwaling during the 1970s that guides
who were leading groups over Tashi Laptsa often robbed their clients and
left them. She believes that this practice lead to the closing of Rolwaling
Valley to general tourism -- a decision for which we have never heard any
other plausible explanation.
Those who have read Sir Edmund
Hillary's accounts of his early efforts to help the Sherpas, as well as
accounts by others of travels in Tibet and elsewhere, will be familiar with
the A-Factor. Paradoxically, it seems to attenuate over the years. I will
not try to explain how this occurs.
In any case, all is not
sweetness and light in mountain villages. I think that we as developers are
hiding our heads in the sand if we pretend that the only hazards out there
are natural, and that reasonable solutions will always prevail.
Empar Alos
------------------
MODERATOR'S COMMENTS
Empar Alos and I have been
collaborating since 1999, and we have discussed this issue repeatedly... but
never publicly. Maybe this is as good a time as any to bring it out in the
open. No rotten tomatoes, please! -Seth Sicroff
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 23:13:12 -0700 (PDT)
Author: Janya Sang-Arun <janyasangarun@yahoo.com>
Subject: [PPMT]S2: Re: Security Issues in Remote Mountain Areas
May I discuss as a tourist?. I think the 3 basic conditions of Shoaib are
exactly right. When I decide to travel, I will consider the security
condition. I think tourism is a kind of business. The seller must take care
of the customer. If the caring provided by the seller is not good, we do not
need to buy it. If we buy, we have to accept the condition.
I have questions, what is the
meaning of adventurous travel? If we do adventurous travel for ourselves,
why we request the indigenous people to care of us? Are we selfish or are
they selfish?
In another way, what is the effect
of traveller on pure natural resources? I think the uncomfortable travel is
a side for protecting pure nature of that land. Often, I found that well
develop mountain for welcoming of tourists is not attractive and rapidly
destroy the nature.
Janya SANG-ARUN
The University of Tokyo, Japan
--------------------------------
MODERATOR'S COMMENTS
I believe Janya's comments bear on
two different premises. The point of the first paragraph is that the tourism
provider (or host) should offer a quality product, and let the buyer beware.
To this, I would answer that locally-provided services cannot be judged in
advance -- unless you are talking about "quality tourism" arranged
by agencies with international reputations -- in which case you are
accepting a great amount of economic leakage.
The other two paragraphs bear on a
different point: that adventure tourists (in particular) do not want all
amenities and all safeguards to be arranged for them. They prefer
authenticity, and some measure of hardship and exposure.
So what is to be done? Can a given
destination accommodate both middle-age couch potatoes out for a quick tour
-- and a glimpse of Mt. Everest -- as well as young bucks determined to test
their own limits? Can security be optional? -Seth Sicrof
Date:
Tue, 08 Apr 2003 20:42:19 -0700
Author:
Lhakpa Sherpa <lsherpa@mountain.org>
Subject:
[PPMT]S2: Re: Security and the A-factor
I appreciated the honest sharing of
the experiences. Working
with local people is often easier said than done. However,
I have a strong feeling that the problems mentioned Empar
Alos may be results of failure to get local participation
and support. Participatory planning methods, although time
consuming, can protect projects against such people-induced
hazards.
Dr. Lhakpa N. Sherpa
Shigatse, Tibet
-----
Empar Alos wrote:
[CLIP]
...Theft of pipes is actually something of a tradition in
these remote areas. The pipeline draped over the Khunde ridge
in the late seventies or early 80s was stolen by locals, and
Ang Tsering, the pradhan panch (local representative) tried
for years to recover it so that the project could be finished.
There was no secret as to who had the pipe, but there was no
way to force their return.
For years, we at Bridges-PRTD
have agonized over what we
call the "A-Factor": that much of what developers attempt to
do on behalf of local people is foiled due to the greed and
malice of local individuals. Here are a few little examples.
In 2000, we posted trail signs on
a confusing stretch of
the path from Simigaon to Beding. These were quickly removed
by locals who considered any enhancement of trekker security
to be a threat to their livelihood as guides....
[CLIP]
Date:
Tue, 08 Apr 2003 09:14:11 -0400
Author:
Layton Montgomery <layton@mtnforum.org>
Subject:
[PPMT]S2: Re: Security and the A-factor
Dear Empar,
Your message seems to identify
mountain people and local
social conditions and social structures as a potential
problem for mountain tourism, and for development in general.
The underlying perspective here
seems to be that outsiders
who have more advanced knowledge and materials, and who want
to help such mountain communities should listen to their
benefactors and do as they say. This puts these people in
the position of being the objects of development instead of
the subjects of development. These are their communities,
not ours. Certainly there are unscrupulous trekking guides
in Nepal, just as there are unscrupulous business people
everywhere in the world. In general, tourists are much, much
safer with trekking guides in remote and unfamiliar areas
than they are trekking alone. The same as anywhere else,
one needs to exercise caution and do the work to find out
which is a reputable company if one does not want to risk
being taken advantage of. The problem for tourists in such
places as Nepal is that some think that everybody is
"sweetness and light", as you put it, and ignore their
normal reservations about whom they might do business with.
I know of a couple instances of Nepalis being taken
advantage of in dealing with businesses in Western
countries for just this same reason. They assumed that
all business people in the West were honest (something
they would NEVER do in Nepal), and so they did not bother
to check on the reputability of the individuals/companies
with which they were interacting. The result was that
they lost money and personal possessions, and were unable
to get them back. This is an area in which tourist
organizations must do more to educate tourists. The Nepal
government is making efforts to inform tourists of things
to be careful of.
A second difference in trekking
areas in Nepal, as opposed
to, say the United States, is that people live in the areas
where trekkers go. Nobody is allowed to live in National
Parks in the US, so trekkers do not need to factor such
interactions into their plans. Such is not the case in
Nepal, though, and this needs to be taken into account by
trekkers. They are vacationing by foot in populated areas,
and the same caution needs to be exercised as when one
visits any other populated area in the world while on
vacation. Again, I would ultimately put the onus on the
trekker, but suggest that travel, tour and trekking companies,
as well as the governments in question do their best to
inform trekkers as to the risks that exist.
If Rolwaling really wants tourism,
the local government and
business community need to work with trekking agencies and
tour operators to set up a reliable system for tourists.
If they are not so interested, it is
not their job to cater
to foreigners who want to visit there. It is their decision
to make. If foreigners decide to go there anyway, they must
be aware that they do so at their own risk. To the credit
of the government of Nepal, they took the proactive step of
closing off the area to trekkers when it seemed that it was
an unsafe area for this activity. This is a positive step,
not a negative one. The Nepal government is only allowing
trekkers to go to areas where there are facilities that can
support the trekkers during their visit.
As to the stolen pipes, the Dutch
company should have done
their research to find out what would be sustainable in the
local socio-economic context. A parallel: It could be very
useful to put televisions in remote areas of national parks
in the US that would alert trekkers to weather patterns.
We would not do so, though, without
making sure that they
were somehow tamper-proof. Otherwise it would be the park
staff that would look like fools when they were stolen, not
the local community. Pipes may not be as valuable as TV's
but the level of value is a relative variable, not an
absolute one, and development organizations need to take
this into consideration when putting in place hardware or
equipment as part of a development project.
Layton Montgomery
Executive Secretary
Mountain Forum
http://www.mtnforum.org
-------------------
MODERATOR'S COMMENTS
Mr. Montgomery places the onus for
security problems on the
benefactor or the victim. This reaction is one of the main
reasons that Empar and I have never discussed the A-factor
publicly.
When we first started working in
Rolwaling, we were surprised
to find that Eco Himal, which has a "Rolwaling Ecotourism
Project," basically had nothing going on in Rolwaling Valley;
instead they were focussing on the gateway region,
particularly the Tamba Valley. When we asked Max Petrik, the manager of the Rolwaling Ecotourism Project (whose office is in Singate, three days' walk from Rolwaling proper) why
there was so little being done in Rolwaling, he said, "They
fight all the time." We witnessed some.
Would anybody care to corroborate --
or contradict -- or impression that there is a tendency for this A-factor to diminish over time?
-Seth Sicroff
Date:
Tue, 8 Apr 2003 22:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
Author:
Janya Sang-Arun <janyasangarun@yahoo.com>
Subject:
[PPMT]S2: Re: Security and the A-factor
I also agree with Lhakpa Sherpa that
working with
local people is often easier said than done. However,
we have to pay attention and induce their
understanding on the beneficial of the development
project and their quality of life. In addition, local
leaders are also disrupt our activities both by
against or neglect. Therefore, in this case, I
consider that if we make good agreement on cooperative
ownership of the project, this problem might be
decreased. They stole any equipment from the developer
because they do not thing it is their responsibility
to this project. Social force is very important for any
sustainability development. Furthermore, we have to
accept that to work with local people is really
spending lot of time. But we have to do if we think of
them as a part or a target for development. Psychology
and human behavior is also important for development
projects.
Janya SANG-ARUN
The University of Tokyo, Japan
---------------------------------
Lhakpa Sherpa <lsherpa@mountain.org>
wrote:
[CLIP]
..Working with local people is
often easier said than done. However, I have a strong feeling that the
problems mentioned
Empar Alos may be results of failure to get local participation and support.
Participatory planning methods,
although time consuming, can protect projects against such
people-induced hazards...
[CLIP]
-----
Moderator's Comments
Janya Sang-Arun expands the security
issue, implicating
not just isolated individuals but also community leadership.
Embezzlement is clearly a problem. Obviously, it will help
to convince everybody of the benefits of any development
program. But it is equally important to identify sources
of ill-will that may override any concern for the common
welfare. In 1999, we witnessed an assault by the chair of
the Beding (Rolwaling) Village Development Committee on
another villager in which one of the causes of hostility was
the villager's assertion that the VDC chair had pocketed
10,000 rupees contributed by Eco Himal to pay for trail improvement (a key security issue for both locals and
tourists). The VDC chair was also angry at the other villager
for attempting to pass himself off as a special friend (or even local representative) of Eco Himal. In this case,
there was a long history of a hard-drinking mountain
community. Any participatory development plan that fails to
unearth and take into account the kind of long-festering feuds that develop in isolated communities will probably
run into trouble. A key point mentioned by Sang-Arun is that "we have to accept that to work with local people is really spending lot of time." You cannot just give money
and disappear.
Although there is a risk of
"muddying the water" by reporting
on inappropriate conduct, I believe that we will not make
much progress until we admit the scope of this problem, and
squarely face a factor that is in large measure responsible for the remarkable inefficiencies and unexpected failures in development. Focusing on ignorant benefactors and
imprudent victims may go part of the way toward providing answers, but the whole truth is a lot messier.
Further thoughts, anybody?
-Seth Sicroff
Date:
Tue, 08 Apr 2003 02:22:05 -0700
Author:
"Marcia O'Neill" <moneill1975@hotmail.com>
Subject:
[PPMT]S2: Mountain tourism & security
My name is Marsha, and I am
currently visiting Nepal for
the second time. I came last fall, but didn't plan on
trekking due to reports of terrorist activity. After
coming to Nepal, I found that it was not at all as
dangerous as I understood from US State Dept travel
advisories and news reports -- at least, not for tourists.
One thing I would like to say is
that I think it is terrible
for everybody to stay away from a country just because of
a few incidents; that means that we tourists do all the
work for the terrorists, by destroying the economy ... while they can pretend they never intended to harm the
tourism industry.
As everybody knows, there are now
supposed to be peace
talks in Nepal, so perhaps the situation will improve. But
right now, there are not enough tourists to go around.
That's fine for us... all of the
hotels have un-fixed
their prices -- but on the other hand the shop-keepers and
street hawkers are so desperate, so insistent, that it is
uncomfortable to walk around in some areas. Although still
not as bad as India!
Last week I did the ABC trek to
Annapurna Base Camp, without
any security trouble at all. I have thought about what Empar Alos Albalajos said about the A-factor, and I don't see how it affected my security, although I heard some pretty sad stories about lack of cooperation among villagers, and many
disturbing things about the competition between lodges, so it doesn't surprise me. If porters or guides were stealing
from tourists, or worse, it wouldn't have to be very common to still become a MAJOR problem. It seems like every little
incident -- things we wouldn't even pay attention to in
Chicago (where I come from) -- every little thing becomes
much more serious when you are thousands of miles from home
and worried about being able to catch your next flight for
wherever.
About Shaoib's letter, I just want
to say that I went to a Catholic high school where there was a policy of "in
loco parentis" - which means that the teachers and everybody
think they should be taking the place of parents - and I do NOT want to continue living with parental authority
everywhere. What next? Will they advise me to take an umbrella
in the monsoon? However, it is a good idea to share information
about dangers, and I think there are two security risks that
people should pay more attention to in Nepal. One is the risk
of falling off trails. I saw a guy almost fall in a place
where he would have gotten killed... because he was backing
up to compose a photo of Fish Tail mountain (Machchapuchare).
And I have heard of people getting
in big trouble by trying
to take a short cut and leaving a trail. The other thing is the danger of dehydration. It seems like people never carry
enough water... they don't understand how the combination of altitude and dry air can result in dehydration very quickly. Sometimes I wonder how many of those helicopters I kept hearing were on their way to rescue people who thought one liter of water should get them through the day.
Well, enough for now. I really wish
I could join you all
at the Namche Conference, but I don't want to have to pay
for another visa extension. (What a crazy system!!)
Marsha O'Neill
--------------
MODERATOR'S COMMENTS
Marsha O'Neill raises several
pertinent points. First, security is an economic issue for the host community and
host nation; the economic costs or perceived danger may in fact be grossly disproportional to the actual danger.
Another issue is the importance of
information. It seems that there is such a focus on altitude sickness in some areas that people forget the more pedestrian perils. Is there a solution?
Lastly, there is a quality-of-life
issue here. Many people,
especially the type who will travel half-way around the world
to trek in the Himalayas, simply do not want the assistance
of parental surrogates. Is it possible to have both security and solitude?
-Seth Sicroff
Date:
Tue, 8 Apr 2003 20:34:33 -0500
Author:
"Alka Sabharwal" <sabharwalalka@hotmail.com>
Subject:
[PPMT]S2: Security issues and national regulatory institutions
I would like to discuss the role of
national/local regulatory
bodies and institutions in providing security to the porters
and visitors. We can briefly look at what they do , whether
it is effective and if such institutions are necessary, and
if yes ,what can be suggested to make them more useful in the
present context. For example the Indian Mountaineering Foundation
(IMF) is a national organization responsible to regulate
mountaineering activities in the country. It collects the
peak fees and helps the expeditions get customs and security
clearances from the government. It provides a base for
expeditions in New Delhi and coordinates rescue operations
with competent organizations during crisis situations. IMF also
is required to ensure adherence to environmental guidelines
and porter welfare by the expeditions. Indian Law requires
the expeditions to be accompanied by a Liason Officer who is
a trained mountaineer and is supposed to assist the team
with issues of transport, porters and rescue operations. Besides
the peak fee the IMF charges the expeditions a fee for
providing equipment for the LO and an environmental levy.
The peak booking procedure also talks about insurance of
the expedition staff and the porters. The IMF also has an
approved panel of travel agents/tour operators to handle
expeditions.
Conceptually all these systems are
in place- they function
in varying degrees of efficiency. Porter insurance is not
looked into seriously and neither is availability of proper
equipment to porters. It is left to the discretion of the
expedition to provide whatever protective gear and food for
porters that it sees fit. or is able to negotiate. Porter
rescues are also usually not high on the priority of
institutions or expeditions. The environmental guidelines
are also not strictly enforced.
If tourism or its benefits are required to reach local
communities and people then what kind of management and
systems should these national level institutions have. Are
these national bodies of any help and can they be so. Their
regulatory frameworks are narrow and do not have a real
connection with local mountain regions or contexts. It is
also not clear if the money generated by these institutions
actually reaches the porters for their security or their
environment .It would be interesting to see how influenced
their policies are by commercial interests of big tour
operators as against being friendly to benefits of
expeditions reaching local communities.
Alka Sabharwal
--------------
Moderator's Comments:
In some respects, Ms Sabharwal's
comments bear on the topic
for Session III (April 12-16: "Management systems: parks,
protected areas, community-based development"). Security is,
obviously, an essential element of tourism management.
Without getting too much into the
various management models,
perhaps we can consider what exactly do we (tourists and
hosts) expect for our admission fee (or trekking permit) ... and how do we know we're getting it? -Seth Sicroff
Date:
Tue, 08 Apr 2003 20:15:51 -0700
Author:
Lhakpa Sherpa <lsherpa@mountain.org>
Subject:
[PPMT]S2: Search and Rescue Team for Visitor Safety
Dr. Sicroff summarized the hazards
in the mountains. These
risks are real in mountains of Nepal. I would like to share
my thoughts about improving visitor safety in the Khumbu and
other mountain areas of Nepal. There is a great need for a
well trained and efficient mountain rescue squad. This can
be organized in Khumbu by training the local mountain guides
in SAR techniques, first aid, and communication. A roster of
a well-trained group of local climbers could be maintained
and can be called on duty turn by turn during the tourist
season. These guides are already familiar with mountain terrain,
accustomed to the high altitude and are tough. With an
effective organizational and management support, they can
provide a very useful service not only within Khumbu but
other mountain area as well. This is and idea that has been
already discussed among interested Khumbu climbers. Everest
heros such as Appa and Ang Rita Sherpa are willing to
take part. My main concern is the long-term viability of
such an organization. Funds will be needed to cover costs
of initial establishment of SAR base, on-site refresher
trainings, purchase of special equipment, management, and
costs of rescue operations. What are the ways to ensure
financial sustainability of such an organization? Your
thoughts and advice would be valuable.
Dr. Lhakpa N. Sherpa
Shigatse, Tibet Autonomous Region
-------
MODERATOR'S COMMENTS
Dr. Sherpa proposes a useful but
costly program. Even in
the Khumbu, the wealthiest region in the High Himalayas,
sustainability would bequestionable -- although the logical
source of funding would be all those mega-bucks collected
in climbing fees and park entrance fees. What about other
destinations?
-Seth Sicroff
Date:
Wed, 9 Apr 2003 11:57:37 +0500
Author:
Ghazi Alam <GAlam@HaglerBailly.com.pk>
Subject:
[PPMT]S2: RE: Security and the A-factor
Having trekked in the Himalayan and
Hindukush regions of
Pakistan as well as being involved in a number of development
projects in these areas, I have come across many instances
of the "A-Factor", which Empar mentions.
However, I agree with Layton
Montgomery, that the onus lies
on the trekkers and developers in these regions; to educate,
inform and enlighten the locals with reference to the whatever
activity is being carried out in their region and involve
them in such a way that it gives them a stake in the success/
failure of that activity. Governments too can play a major
role in this. In my travels I have noticed that though the
local communities might be largely uneducated, they are
certainly not dumb. Most are very aware of their rights (in
most cases, more so than communities in the plains), perhaps
because of their exposure to previous development efforts
and know how to extract the most, for personal/community gain,
out of any activity being carried out. I have however noticed
a lot of divisions amongst communities themselves and this
hampers any development (and increases risks) in these regions.
For example, the Astor community in
the Deosai National Park
is not on very good terms with the Bobind community also
in the same park and anyone (tourists for example) associating
with one is automatically looked on with suspicion and mistrust
by the other.
Incidents like theft/mugging by
locals are very rare and
certainly are not as prevalent as in more developed regions.
I think the human threat to tourists in these regions is
minimal. Natural disasters (earthquakes) and in some cases
wildlife (such as the brown bears of deosai) would pose a
much bigger danger. and mitigating these dangers has to
invlove the local communities as participants on an equal
footing.
More importantly, mitigating such
risks in these regions
needs to be done for the locals first. This would translate
in to safety for tourists as well. If we start with the
tourist as the subject needing protection, we risk isolating
and marginalizing the locals and will have doomed right
from the start any serious, sustainable efforts to provide
security to tourists as well.
Ghazi Alam
----------
MODERATOR'S COMMENTS
Ghazi Alam acknowledges the
occurrence of "A-Factor"
impact, but concurs with Layton Montgomery in placing
the onus lies on trekkers and developers. He also raises
the issue of natural hazards, such as earthquake and attack
by wild animals, and suggests that the mitigation of
these problems should be a higher priority than protection
of tourists from mugging and other security risks
affecting only tourists.
My question is: what exactly can be
done to mitigate the
danger of earthquake and bear attack?
-Seth Sicroff
Date:
Wed, 09 Apr 2003 10:42:53 +0545
Author:
NS Jodha <njodha@icimod.org.np>
Subject:
[PPMT]S2: Mountain Tourism: Security and other Issues
While talking of mountain tourism an
important reality often
ignored is that it is a derived function of increased
prosperity of areas/ countries/ communities out side mountain
regions. If the rest of the world is poorer due to economic
recession or wars etc. or feels insecure for a variety of
reasons, they will have low priority to excursion. The
recognition of this supply side factor is clear from the bulk
of tourism related publicity focused to rich countries.
How much share of "excursion
budget" of well off outsiders
the mountain areas can get depends on the demand side factors
ie. the facilities, security etc. about which several
participants have posted the messages.
In view of the above, can one
hypothesize that "the progress
of mountain tourism is a direct function of global (and
mountain areas' internal) prosperity".
N.S. Jodha,
Policy Analyst
ICIMOD, Kathmandu
---------------
Moderator's Comments
N.S. Jodha reminds us that security
is a many-layered
onion. As the remote mountainous tourism destination is at
the end of the line, in terms of exposure, any risk at all
between the country of origin of the prospective tourist and
the end-destination communities will have a significant
economic impact.
Perhaps it is time to begin treating
the remote destination
as part of an interconnected economy, and to think about
methods of risk distribution. What can individual entrepreneurs
and community-based tourism associations do to mitigate
economic exposure during times of shrinking market? How
about some kind of globalised insurance system for tourism
enterprises that would provide a safety net (and prevent
default on loans and mortgages), but also require members to
work out local systems to avoid over-investment, price
undercutting, and other behavior that exacerbates the economic
risk? Any other ideas?
-Seth Sicroff
| Main Page |