| main page |
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 17:28:25 +0545
Author: NS Jodha <njodha@icimod.org.np>
Subject: [PPMT]S4: Comments on the lead paper
The lead paper is quite comprehensive in terms of listing the approaches to regional development to be tried in mountain regions with a focus on tourism. I have to make a few comments on applicability of the theoretical formulations indicated by the paper.
1. In the first place the changed historical context undermines the direct relevance of most of the transformation -experiences of Alps to Asian mountain areas. Examples: In the past Swiss could construct a railway track on the top of Alps with little concern for environment (debris still lying on the slopes), which earns rich revenues today; compare this with the present situation in Himalayas where even a removal of a rock from the terrace is objected by environmental laws and activists.; when secondary forest were re-greening the Alps, not only population density of the concerned countries was low but electricity was already accessible to the bulk of the people. The situation in Himalayas is quite the opposite today,; Alps-countries were and are rich enough to subsidise small mountain populations to engage in low intensity land uses, protect environment and thereby help rich tourism. In developing countries massive subsidisation is not only economically unfeasible, it is politically(?) difficult in the face of conditionalities imposed by donors such as IMF, World Bank etc. and structural reforms , WTO norms etc. Countries of the Alps had full freedom to shape their future in the absence of global treaties and what they imply for the poor mountain areas of the third world.
2. However, one important lesson offered by Alps situation for the Himalayas is better integration and equitable links with the down stream economies. In the Himalayas also the areas better linked with low lands are better off and doing well in every HKH country. However, the remote areas are left behind because the development and welfare interventions designed in non-mountain contexts do not match with the imperatives of mountain specificities such as fragility, inaccessibility, marginality, diversity etc.
3. My final comment relates to the contents of the Table of approaches. These items can be seen in most of perspective plans or master plans for mountain areas prepared by donors or national experts. However, most of them are still waiting for some one to operationalise them. More later.
N.S. Jodha
Policy Analyst,
ICIMOD, Kathmandu, Nepal
-------------
Moderator's Comment(s)
On top 1. I agree with the notion that experiences cannot that easily be "transferred" from the historical-cultural context to another one. In addition also the mere physical-geographical factors, which determine for example accessibility or the development of trade-routes are highly different. But even within Europe these experiences are quite diverse. The situation in the Swiss alps is quite a different one from - for example - the Pyrenees (in the border region between Spain and France). While in Switzerland and other areas in the Eastern alps or - to take another examples the mountainous coastal regions of Norway - indeed considerable amounts of money have been spent to sustain population there, in the Pyrenees or some regions in the Western alps areas have been depopulated to the point of outright abandonment. On the other hand intensive tourism activities (mostly linked to alpine skiing resorts) probably could not be developed to today's level under today's legislative situation in Europe either. In that respect a sort of two-fold mentality can be seen: Those areas which have already been "developed" (i.e. plastered with ski-slopes and hotels) are considered more or less "fair game" for further intensification and those, whereas more remote (and thus more "natural") areas are seen as main targets for the development of reserves and parks. It is also in these regions, where some of the more famous examples for "ecologically sound" tourisms exist. The irony is of course, that in many instances it is the proceeds from "mass tourism" which, via the general distribution of national income
through taxes and subsidies "pay" for the more idyllical "soft" examples.
On top 2. I can only agree, but would like to add that remote and "left behind" areas can be found in Europe too.
And I also agree with top 3, regarding the operationalisation of some of the approaches suggested in the table.
So, the conclusion from this discussion-contribution on the lead-paper is probably that for the Asian context the issue of remoteness has to be taken specifically in consideration, as has the fact that approaches based on subsidies and wealth-redistribution (i.e. external funding) may be less appropriate.
- Dr. Andreas Ottitsch
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 10:02:48 -0500
Author: "Bridges-PRTD" <bridges-prtd@lycos.com>
Subject: [PPMT]S4: Marketing the Remote Mountainous Destination
We at Bridges-PRTD believe that the best strategy for tourism development in remote mountainous destinations is promotion of independent backpacker tourism. Some people will identify this kind of travel as "ecotourism," while others, with a vested interest in protecting the marketing value of the term, will disagree. We have already argued this issue in detail elsewhere. (See http://yulong.namche.net/ibt.html) Basically, puristic ecotourism, like "quality tourism," involves heavy
investment, stringent management and/or social engineering, and substantial economic leakage. Independent backpacker tourism (or teahouse trekking) can trickle-drip revenue into the private enterprises where it can do the most good.
Marketing of remote mountainous destinations to independent backpackers involves strategies at a variety of levels, and it is different from marketing packaged tours or mass tourism. Campaigns such as "Visit Nepal 98" say nothing to backpackers, especially when, as is usually the case, the slogans are plastered on buildings and vehicles in Nepal itself, where they can have no influence on prospective visitors. Generally, backpackers make their decisions based on long-term interests, which in turn are based on reading, viewing (movies or TV) and word-of-mouth. Guide books such as Lonely Planet, Let's Go, and Rough Guides, have a huge impact on backpacker decisions. This makes it very difficult to promote a destination quickly and cheaply. To be competitive, a backpacker destination must really be worth visiting.
Bridges has come up with a set of recommendations that we believe would greatly enhance backpacker tourism in Nepal. These can be grouped according to scale: local, gateway, and regional. Our local focus is Khumbu and neighboring Rolwaling; the main gateway is Kathmandu; and by "region" we are referring primarily to India, China, and Nepal.
Local Strategy
A successful trekking route has two important features that are sometimes overlooked. First, it should be a circuit. Second, it must go someplace. From the host's perspective, the circuit allows for optimal distribution of the economic benefits, and minimizes the likelihood of bottlenecks. From the trekker's perspective, a long trek in offers a greater challenge, better acclimatization, a more diverse experience. Of course, it is important that the trek as a whole be appealing, but the main thing is always the climactic view. In Khumbu, it is Everest Base Camp, Kala Pattar, or Gokyo Ri. These are like the Eiffel Tower and Notre Dame in Paris: the places that tourists "collect." However, having had their experiential passports stamped, they like to return by another route. The Everest trek has a remarkable "long trek in" from Jiri, unless you want to "cheat" and fly out.
1) Develop a locally-owned and operated shuttle service to take backpackers over Tashi Laptsa to Rolwaling. This would mean making available tents, ropes, crampons, cooking gear, guide and porters at Thame and at Na (in upper Rolwaling). In that way, trekkers could decide at the last minute whether they felt up to taking on one of the most formidable passes in Nepal, without signing up for a tented circus for the entire tour. They could, for instance, walk from Jiri to Kala Pattar, winding up at Thame after three weeks or so; then they join the next available shuttle to reach Na in five days, from which they can make it to the road-head at Dolakha (or Singate, if the road is finished) on their own.
2) Open Nangpa La (between Nepal and Tibet) to trekkers. The pass is already open to local travel: yak caravans are crossing regularly, bringing Chinese goods to sell in Namche. At this point, the trade route that used to be a mainstay of the Sherpa economy, has become something of an annoyance to Namche residents, as the Tibetan traders contribute little to the local economy, but compete for tourist dollars and for yak pasturage. On the other hand, if the pass were open, it would quickly become a major tourist attraction for trekkers coming from both Nepal and Lhasa. (Of course, this presumes that China would be willing to relax its predatory visa charges.) It would also strengthen the concept of the trans-border Himalayan park system, and draw attention to the significance of wildlife corridors.
3) Develop a Mountain Legacy Institute in Rolwaling. Tsho Rolpa is something of a tourism asset, due especially to its notoriety as a potential glacial lake outburst flood hazard, but it cannot compete on its own with such destinations as the Everest cirque and Annapurna Base Camp. A working research institute where professors and graduate students from around the world were doing cutting-edge research on glacier recession, moraine stability, ethnobotany, snow leopard
migration, and Sherpa music and dance AND that welcomed volunteer labor from trekkers: that would be a significant tourism magnet.
Gateway Strategy
Bridges has surveyed hundreds of backpackers, asking what they like and dislike about Nepal. The simplest way to attract more backpackers is to get rid of the things that really irritate tourists. Here is a short list:
1) Constant charges: entry visa, ACAP, visa renewal, Sagarmatha National Park, Bhaktapur, visa renewal, Hanuman Dhoka, museum (inside Hanuman Dhoka area), visa renewal, airport tax... concatenated with the beggars, incessant Tiger Balm hawkers, "guides," drug pushers, and on and on.
Solutions:
a) double the entry visa and use the money for all the parks and projects theoretically supported by the racist and discriminatory fees;
b) get rid of the entire visa renewal system;
c) crack down on street hasslers.
2) Pollution: air, noise, river, water. Solution: Beg, borrow, or steal the money for a waste management system. Crack down on polluting vehicles and on fuel adulterators. Make honking illegal in urban areas. Establish a pedestrian and rickshaw zone from the Kalimati bridge, through the Durbar Square temple district, right through to Thamel.
3) Wretched public transportation. Assault by taxis and hotel touts at the airport. Taxi drivers who refuse to use meters. Meter tampering.
Solutions: An airport shuttle bus that will take new arrivals in comfort and at a fixed price from the airport to Durbar Marg, Lazimpat, Thamel and Freak Street. Ask tourists to report taxis that refuse to use meters, or whose meters seem to be hyper-energetic.
In general, Nepalese tourism planners need to recognize that the appeal of Nepal should be that it is a relaxing place to hang out, take multiple treks, and spend money. The focus on "quality tourism" (get them here, empty their pockets, and ship them home) is self-defeating. Backpackers may spend less per day than the packaged tour arrivals, but they stay longer and, altogether, they spend more in Nepal.
Regional Strategy
About half of Nepal's tourists are from India, and many come during the monsoon (in the trough between Nepal's two high seasons), but once in Nepal they are nearly invisible economically. Like other emerging Asian economies, India now has a middle class with the discretionary income to travel and shop, but they have not yet developed a taste for mountain trekking. Neither has Nepal. The question is how to jump-start backpacking among sub-continentals. We would propose a Tenzing Norgay Himalayan Sports Association to set up outdoors clubs at all Indian and Nepali universities, promote exchange treks, rafting, climbing, and so on. We would also propose that this effort be combined with a campaign to secure posthumous Nepali citizenship for Tenzing Norgay, thereby correcting a sad and niggling injury to the memory of one of Nepal's greatest sons.
---------
Moderator's Comment(s)
This is a very good illustration of how "things could work".
The best of this is that it tries to see things "from the target-group's" point of view. It is also possible to link these approaches to the table in the lead-paper, thus illustrating that there IS a link between theoretical concepts and practical suggestions:
I suggest the following "categorisation":
-Local Strategy and Gateway Strategy
The suggestions here reflect the "Innovative millieux"- approach as well as - to some degree "supply-side-policies", "resources and the physical environment" as well as "technology and innovation". All of these are in principle strategies of relatively low direct state activity, with the political sphere mainly trying to create a "fertile" environment for private activity.
-Regional Strategy
This includes clear element of the "Institutionalism"-approach (creation of tourism clubs etc.), in addition the "Product Cycles" -concept can be traced here. Perhaps an observation might be added here that the desire (and willingness to spend) considerable amounts of money for tourism activities which are actually a bit less than 100% comfortable seems to coincide with the degree of urbanisation of lifestyles. Consequently mountain regions in Europe are - during the main Winter and Summer holiday seasons - mainly populated by people who otherwise work and live in low-land urban agglomeration regions.
-Dr. Andreas Ottitsch
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 10:29:13 -0500
Author: sumantbarooah@www.com
Subject: [PPMT]S4: Suggestion
While we go ahead and discuss the theories put forward on the subject, can some of us form groups and each group take up specific locations and delve a little further and formulate the most likely scenario that could/should develop.
Keeping in mind
1.The local rules and regulations
2.What's on offer for the region to be developed
3.What kind of tourism possibilities that could be developed
4.Who would benefit the most and who (society/platform) that could facilitate this
5. What are the criteria to measure sustainability
6. What are the corrective measures to ensure projected implementation?
7. Short term and long term implications.
At the end of it somebody could take it up and give it a try??!!
----------
Moderator's Comment(s):
I believe that the posting by BRIDGES-PRTD is a good approach
in this direction. Perhaps there are some other local or regional
examples? - Dr. Andreas Ottitsch
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 17:47:42 -0500
Author: "MF-Asia Mod" <apmn@mtnforum.org>
Subject: [PPMT]S4: Geo-referenced Info System for developing tourism
Relevant website:
http://siti.neomedia.it/georama/qb2c/
There is an example for a project currently started to identify the market potential for tourism-related geo-referenced information (i.e. info on tours, paths, accomodation etc.) for Europe, which to my notion might also be applicable to other regions. The idea is that such an information system could assist in linking URBAN consumers with the RURAL and REMOTE regions,which want to develop tourism activities.
Information on the project can be obtained from<wolfgang.kusche@schabl.at>.
Dr. Andreas Ottitsch
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 10:20:16 -0700
Author: "Sanjay Nepal" <nepals@unbc.ca>
Subject: [PPMT]S4: RE: Marketing the Remote Mountainous Destinations
I have enjoyed the discussions so far, have not contributed any, primarily due to inappropriate timing (for me alone) of the e-conference, which coincided with final exams, gradings, etc here at the university.
I like the suggestions made by Bridges-PRTD, focus on backpacker is a good one, however, we should also not loose sight of the fact that we are striving for quality tourism, and not quantity. The tourism industry in Nepal is plagued by forces outside the tourism industry (pollution, lack of professional development and training in tourism and hospitality, etc) and volumes have been written on this topic, for example, the 1989 ToucheRoss Report on tourism rightly identifies the major problems of the tourism industry but nothing has been done to address these. The realities of the tourism industry in Nepal and the policies of central government or those at the Nepal Tourism Board (which is basically a group of few elite tour operators based in Kathmandu) are vastly different.
Nepal cannot and will never be an international mass tourism destiantion similar to Paris, Rome, Vienna, NY city, primarily due to its peripheral location, but it can be a regional hub in South Asia if it successfully carves out a niche for adventure tourism. The recommendations (i.e., local strategies) made by Bridges-PRTD must be seen from this perspective. Problem is, NTB will not buy into this argument, because it does nothing to increase tourism $ for the elite operators or the government of Nepal. The local strategy, I would argue, is beneficial only to the tour operators located strategically around the treking circuit. Mechanisms should be in place also to help those people who are away from the main trekking routes, and this is where an integrated regional approach to tourism planning becomes important. Our research in Annapurna (see Nepal et al 2002, Great Himalaya: Tourism and the dynamics of change in Nepal, Swiss Foundation for Alpine Research, Bern) has shown that the income differences between villages on the main trekking corridor and away from the corridor are so stark that questions of equity and moralisation of trekiing tourism have surfaced. These are issues that must be addressed if we are discussing a pro-poor tourism strategy.
Sanjay
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 17:23:22 +0500
Author: Tara Gurung <tgurung_trpap@ntb.org.np>
Subject: [PPMT]S4: RE: Marketing the Remote Mountainous Destinations
I have greatly enjoyed all the very informative discussions taking place in this forum. Thanx all and sorry for not being able to contribute substantially to it.
Am currently writing with reference to Sanjay's mail. Sanjay has rightly raised some crucial question on tourism benefit distribution, specifically focussing on poverty alleviation and the lack of a wholistic tourism planning aiming to address this issue. For the same reason Tourism for Rural Poverty Alleviation Programme (TRPAP), an initiative of HMG Ministry of Culture Tourism and Civil Aviation has started functioning for the last one and a half year. A short description on the project can be viewed at: http://www.welcomenepal.com/stn
One of the major focus of the programme is to establish backward and forward linkages for a sustainable management of tourism in Rural Nepal and ascertain that tourism benefit also reaches areas that do not receive tourism but are in need of its benefit the most. A Sustainable Rural Tourism Information System using GIS is also under the process of development. I'll try to keep in touch in the future to share our experiences and learn from yours.
Tara Gurung
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 18:17:39 +0200
Author: "Wolfgang Bayer" <WB_BAYER@WEB.DE>
Subject: [PPMT]S4: RE: Marketing the Remote Mountainous Destinations
With respect to pro poor tourism a study by Caroline Ashley et al 2000 may be of interest. A short version is published as natural resource perspectives paper No 51. It can be accessed under http://www.odi.org.uk/nrp/
Wolfgang
Author: "Elli Broxham" <ellib@bluewin.ch>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 22:36:37 +0200
Subject: [PPMT]S4: Criteria for sustainable exploitation
This is the definition and list of criteria for sustainable exploitation which I and fellow students have worked upon in an online tutorial. The point in the exercise was to reach a consensus which could then be used to assess claims of sustainable exploitation which we find on the internet.
To complete the exercise we will each take one example, I am using the example of rainforest rubber tapping as opposed to rubber plantation, and then we will create a website which evaluates the claims (in my case, the claims of Greenpeace) about sustainability. It has been an interesting exercise,sometimes a heated debate between the 'technology is the answer' people and the 'local and traditional is the answer' people. I hope that you find the criteria interesting in the context
of of the current discussion and I/we would welcome any comments.
Elli
------
Definition of sustainable exploitation
'Present resource use which does not compromise future availability'
This encompasses the following:
1. a resource must be only used if it is for the benefit of humans taking into account that the preservation of ecosystems is for the benefit of humans
2. a renewable natural resource must be used prudently to generate income and the whole ecosystem must be considered (resource, soil, water, air) must be taken care of, for the renewal to have any effect.
3. a resource is used by humans so long as the net effect is not a negative, i.e. a reduction in the size of resource which in time will become extinct
4. the use of the resource must not significantly affect the biodiversity of the locale
5. the use of the resource must not significantly damage local ecosystems
6. the resource must be allowed to replenish and increase its stock by:
a. humans practising restraint,
b. adhering to traditional practices,
c. using appropriate technology
d. mankind living in harmony with their ecosystems or at least thinking before acting!
------------
Comment by the moderator
This definition is more or less congruent with the ones used in most international documents. It CAN also be used as a paradigm to regional (including rural) development. I will use this one and any eventual additional comments for a wrap-up of the the discussion so far by today evening.
-Andreas Ottitsch
From: Krishnahari Gautam <khgautam@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 23:32:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [PPMT]S4: Re: Criteria for sustainable exploitation
More important is maintaining ecological processes. To be sustainable, the actions should not affect adversely the ecological processes. Understanding these processes are the current challenges. Ecosystems cannot be preserved without understanding ecological processes.
-krishna h gautam
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 21:56:37 +0200
Author: "Wolfgang Bayer" <WB_BAYER@WEB.DE>
Subject: [PPMT]S4: Re: Criteria for sustainable exploitation
I find the criteria introduced by Ellis very valid, but they may not be complete. The economic and the socio-political dimension should be addressed more strongly. High pastures in many part of the Alpes in Europe are no longer used - it does not pay any more. In Switzerland the exploitation of high pastures apparently depends strongly on German students, who want to spend a summer in the Alpes. I know also parts of India, where at least in the more remote mountain areas,
human population is declining and people leave in large numbers, not because the area is devastated ecologically, but because price ratios have changed and economic opportunities are better elsewhere. (Tourism to the rescue?)
Many high pastures can be sued only seasonally. A change in landuse e.g. in the valleys where the users of the high pastures used to have their winter feeding places will also have profound effects on the the use of the high pastures and may it even make impossible - with a loss in biodiversity (see below).
Biodiversity should also be looked at more closely. Many species (plant and animals) in many areas depend on a certain use pressure. Both increasing and decreasing the use pressure can reduce or eliminate certain species. Local people and scientists and administrators have to understand these processes
and have to manage biodiversity according to agreed objectives, which are rarely formulated in a well thought through way. Examples: many orchids - i.e. charismatic species - depend on a certain use pressure. Both increasing and decreasing this pressure may cause the orchids to disappear. Simply not touching things and let nature take its course is not enough.
In recent years we have also seen weed invasions in many parts of the world. Lantana camara is just such a weed. Often introduced as ornamental plant it now covers large areas, can suppress native plant species, particularly in araeas which are not intensively managed by farmers. Again, it needs intensive management to control these weeds - which is only feasible if this management pays its way.
So much as quick comments
Dr. Wolfgang Bayer
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 08:35:04 -0700
Author: jshores@juno.com
Subject: [PPMT]S4: Comment: are the sessions too short ?
First let me extend my congratulations to the organizers and moderators for the excellent session papers. And to all of the participants who have posted comments and responses. The messages have been fascinating, educational, and very useful.
Yet I am left feeling somewhat unsatisfied, as if a beautiful and tantalizing meal had just been spread before me, but then I was hurriedly moved on to another room.
My comment is that the time period allocated to each session is much too short. We have members distributed across many countries, several continents, and nearly all of the time zones. Anyone out of the office on field visits could miss a session entirely. And the practice of "closing" a session before all the responses are in tends to limit dialogue.
Yes, the moderators are placing "late" messages in the archives, but not everyone has web access or at least an efficient (too slow or too expensive) way to get to the web site. So really we are creating two classes of participants. That seems unfortunate.
Five days or one week was a totally arbitrary decision for the length of each session. If one were able to participate full-time in the forum and not attending to any of ones other duties, this might be sufficient. But for an electronic discussion, where we are hoping that members will have sufficient time to receive, reflect, and reply -- well, I think we have cut off the most productive part of the discussions. We basically receive the position paper, and any off-the-cuff replies. Then the session is closed. We don't gain the benefit of the reflective members.
I advocate for a minimum of two weeks for any electronic exchange, and prefer something closer to 4 weeks per topic. It does no harm to continue to post messages after the first "burst" week of comments. You already identify each posting with the session indicator (S2 or S3, etc.) so sorting the messages later is no great task.
So why, I ask, are the sessions limited to one week? Who created this deadline? If the idea was to have time to summarize the forums before the face-to-face conference, then why didn't we start the forums two or three months ago to have adequate time?
Adult learning occurs in several different modes. Some people need more time to read and reflect before they reply. We have essentially limited our forums to the less-reflective members with no other job responsibilities, fast connections to the Internet, and no travel plans at this time. Is this what we wanted?
I want to savor the complete meal my colleagues could produce from their rich experience. Instead, I fear we are getting just the fast-food portion.
How much of the buffet do you want to taste?
John Shores
----------------------
MF-Asia [Technical] Moderator's reply to the above:
Dear John Shores,
Yes, the sessions were shorter than in the past e-conferences. The Bridges-PRTD, Namche Conference and Asia Pacific Mountain Network - the organisers - planned the PPMT e-consultation series that way - alloting 5 days to each session. However, we've been quite flexible - although some may wrongly mistake
this for our lack of professionalism, since we didn't stick to our schedule. For instance, we extended Session III e-discussions from April 12-17 to April 12-21, and Session IV from April 17-21 to April 17-26. However, time has now come to end the e-consultation series because the MF-Asia e-discussion list has to be 'freed up' for some other uses - such as posting of announcements, queries, newsletters, etc...(which are on hold right now).
By any standards, this e-consultation series has been successful judging from both the quality and quantity of responses received. Session II and Session III in particular touched some nerve. Session IV didn't take off as expected, which probably indicates that fatigue had set in by then. Or that the leadpaper was a little too technical. These are our guesses: to be honest, we don't know. If Holly-wood knew with dead certainty what makes a movie successful, they wouldn't be churning out flops. Same goes with e-consultations. However, we do our best.
Also we can not be all things to all people - given our resource constraints. The e-consultations are primarily email-based. They are also archived. I do not understand how this creates two classes of participants; we archive the postings as an additional value-added. While those who have email connectivity may not necessarily have access to the Internet, those with access to the Internet invariably have email connectivity (hotmail, yahoo, for instance)- which means we are casting a much broader net by targetting those at the lower rung of the digital ladder. We do not deliberately set out to create classes of participants: they are the function of income level, education, etc. These are a given, whether we like it or not.
E-consultation by default excludes those with no email.If by 'classes', you are alluding to the 'digital divide' - well, that is a whole other issue. To bridge that will take time. Today, email and access to the Internet are still the preserve of the well-to-do in developing and under-developing countries. IT-related technologies presuppose the following three things (in my view) which are in short supply in the third world:
1)can afford PCs with email connectivity or/and access to the Internet,
2) can understand/speak/write English or other major lingua francas, and
3) have sophisticated literacy.
These are the limitations of ITs...although these limitations are being chipped away daily.
I believe the digital divide cannot be bridged digitally alone - the use of alternative media in the vernacular (with a nod to 'cultural equity') provides part of an answer: street theatres, puppet shows, non-formal education programmes, adult education, village papers, folk ballads, radio programmes, etc.
With this in mind, ICIMOD has instituted an Alternative Media Project (AMP) in four countries: Nepal, India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. For more info on the AMP, pls contact Sanjay Madnani <smadnani@icimod.org.np>.
Best,
MF-Asia Moderator
From: NS Jodha <njodha@icimod.org.np>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 08:15:18 +0545
Subject: [PPMT]S4: Re: Comment: are the sessions too short ?
Friends, John Shores has important point for consideration and use in the future E-discussion. - N.S. Jodha
| main page |