Community Based Ecotourism: Whither a sustainable livelihood alternative

1
Community Based Ecotourism Whither a sustainable
livelihood alternative

• presented by
• Paulette Bynoe (PhD)
• School of Earth and Environmental Sciences,
  University of Guyana
• at
• SEDUS 10TH Anniversary Conference
• UWI, St. Augustine
• October 16, 2005

2
Outline of Presentation

• Introduction
• Theoretical Framework
• Background Information
• Methodology
• Discussion of Main Findings
• Conclusions

3
Introduction

• Since the Rio Summit in 1992, many attempts have
  been made to translate the sustainable
  development concept into real life experiences at
  various levels in society. One such attempt is
  evident in the tourism sector in which policy
  interventions are aimed at integrating
  conservation and development goals.
• Ecotourism is heralded, more often than not, as a
  strategy that balances conservation and
  development. Thus, many rural communities are
  led to believe that ecotourism provides an
  opportunity for community development, while they
  participate in the preservation of fragile and
  threatened areas or endangered species (Enriquez
  1998, p.129).
• Studies have shown that there have been instances
  where these two goals of ecotourism seem
  paradoxical, particularly in places where local
  economies previously based on the exploitation of
  natural resources have experienced rapid and
  unexpected changes (for example Brandon 1996
  Place 1991).

4
Introduction

• Such changes show the uneasy alliance between
  the two goals (Gray 2003, p.114), and may be
  unfavourable to rural livelihoods, and pose a
  threat to the ecotourism base if economic
  alternatives to resource extraction are not
  permitted.
• The critical question is whether ecotourism can
  provide these rural populations with a means to
  alleviate their relative poverty and high
  dependence on the natural resources (Altman
  1989).
• Ecotourisms effectiveness in promoting
  sustainable development can best be evaluated by
  applying concepts used within the sustainable
  livelihoods framework.
• This paper will critically examine the
  performance of a community based ecotourism
  venture as a sustainable livelihood alternative,
  using the Surama (an Amerindian Community)
  Ecotourism Venture, in the North Rupununi,
  Guyana, as the case study.

5
Theoretical Framework

• Ecotourism lacks consensus in its definition and
  origins, in view of the very diverse forms in
  which ecotourism activities are offered by
  different stakeholders (Weaver 1998 Campbell
  1999 Fennell 1999 Ross and Wall 1999 Stronza
  2001 WTO-UNEP 2002).
• Weaver and Pierce (1996, p. 848), provide one of
  the most comprehensive definitions of ecotourism
  as travel to relatively undisturbed natural
  areas for study, enjoyment or volunteer
  assistance which concerns itself with flora,
  fauna, geology, and ecosystems of an area, as
  well as the people who live nearby, their needs,
  their culture, and their relationship to the
  land....It is envisioned as a tool for both
  conservation and sustainable development,
  especially in areas where local people are asked
  to forego the consumptive use of resources for
  others.

6
Theoretical Framework

• Community- based ecotourism (CBE) implies that
  the local community owns, controls and manages
  the enterprise, through the establishment of
  local management oversight committee, and
  involves conservation, business enterprises, and
  the community (Cater 1996 Sproule 1996 Wesche
  and Drumm 1999).
• It is a traditional means of ensuring livelihood
  security (Berkes and Farvar 1992) and is regarded
  as the purest model of CBE. The implication
  here is that the community cares for its own
  natural resources in order to promote
  socio-economic development provides local people
  with income through tourism uses ecotourism
  income to better the lives of its people and fits
  the needs and aspirations of host communities in
  a manner that is acceptable to them (Fitton 1996
  Wood 2002)).

7
Theoretical Framework

• The livelihoods concept or approach is based on a
  diverse and complex set of social, economic and
  physical strategies that are realised through a
  combination of capabilities, assets (resources
  and claims and access referred to as
  entitlements) and activities by which people
  derive a living (Chambers and Conway 1992
  Scoones 1998 Singh and Gilman 1999).
• A livelihood may be described as sustainable when
  it adequately satisfies basic needs and in the
  long term, is resilient to shocks and stresses
  (for example, natural disasters, civil
  disobedience, wars, policy failures) and can
  maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets
  both now and in the future, while not undermining
  the natural resource base (Chambers and Conway
  1992, Carney 1998 Scoones 1998)

8
Theoretical Framework

• Arguments for the CBE are that it provides a more
  sustainable form of livelihoods for local
  communities and generate more goodwill towards,
  and local benefits from, conservation measures
  such as protected areas (WWF n.d.).
• Though CBE is most likely to be on a small scale
  (Ashley 2000) a sizable level of the community
  should have some level of involvement and some
  level of benefit, since community members are
  often employed on a rotation system.
• Ultimately, decisions with regards to involvement
  in benefits by community members are affected by
  the existing power relations within that
  particular organisational policy framework (Reed
  1997).

9
Background Information

• Amerindians are the fourth largest ethnic group
  in Guyana in Guyana, accounting for 9.2 per cent
  of the 751,223 persons in Guyana (Guyana Census
  Report, 2002). Between 1980 and 2002, the
  Amerindian population grew from 40,343 to 68,819.
  This represents a significant increase of 70.6
  per cent. Approximately 70 percent of the
  Amerindian population is found in Regions 1, 2, 8
  and 9.
• Traditionally, Amerindians livelihood systems are
  tied to the forests and savannah ecosystems and
  are largely dependent on natural resources (land,
  forests, and wildlife). Amerindians have lived
  from subsistence economies such as slash and
  burn agriculture, hunting, fishing, gathering,
  and seasonal herding (CIDA 1997).
• Over the years, their survival strategies have
  shifted gradually into forest farming, peasant
  cultivation, employment in cash crop plantations,
  forestry, and the use of non-timber forest
  products, bee-keeping, ecotourism, craft
  producers, livestock and poultry rearing and
  traders in the informal sector, brick-making,
  among others.
• The 1999 Guyana Survey of Living Conditions
  (GSLC) Survey records 78.4 per cent absolute
  poverty in the rural interior. The
  extraordinarily high level of poverty found among
  Amerindian communities is the result of a
  combination of historical, political,
  socio-economic and spatial factors.

10
Background

• Surama, a predominantly Makushi community
  comprising 38 households and a total population
  of 224 (in 2003) was established in 1973.
• The village is located on five square miles of
  leased land on flat savannah, and bordered by the
  forested Pakaraima Mountain, and is often
  described as the transition between the savannahs
  and the mountains in the North Rupununi.
• The Iwokrama Forest, prior to its legally
  protected status in 1996, has been accessed by
  Amerindian households a a source of subsistence,
  as well as livelihood.
• Amerindians were encouraged by Iwokrama
  International Centre for Rainforest Conservation
  and Development to get involved in/expand
  ecotourism activities as a sustainable livelihood
  form.

11
Background

• Suramas ecotourism potential in based on its
  wealth- the culture of the community and the
  beauty of the space they occupy. The village is
  often marketed as an isolated and idyllic
  location that offers an escape from the concrete
  jungle to a serene and peaceful existence with
  nature.
• Tourists take tours of the village during the
  day, grasping the opportunity to visit the local
  primary and nursery schools, the medical centre,
  church, and the cassava project. They also
  interact with community members who often
  organise cultural performances depicting their
  traditional mode of dress, dance, songs and
  poems.
• Other activities include hiking across the
  savannah or up the Surama Mountain Trail, or
  canoeing along the Burro Burro River.

12
Methodology

• A case-study approach was adopted for the
  research.
• This paper forms part of a larger study conducted
  in 2003 as part of my PhD programme.
• Depth interviews, a questionnaire survey of
  90.1 percent of the tourists and 97.4 percent of
  the 38 households within the Surama community,
  and direct observations (overt and covert
  participant observation) were employed as the key
  methods.

13
Discussion of Main Findings

• According to the tourist survey data, between
  January and August 2003, Surama received 141
  tourists. The peaks were in April, and August.
  The total number of tourists received in 2003
  represented 54.9 per cent increase from 2002 and
  38.2 per cent from 2001.
• The meagre profit made by the community based
  ecotourism venture conforms to the observation of
  the members of the community that the business is
  in its infancy and needed to be developed.

14
Discussion of Findings

• Surama ecotourism venture provided direct
  employment opportunities for 10individuals,
  representative of 28 per cent of households
  within the community. These jobs were identified
  as tour guide (4), cook (2) caretaker (1) maid,
  (1) guest house manager (1) and porter (1).
• With the exception of the care taker and the
  guest house manager, these jobs are best
  described as casual, since employees are rotated
  monthly, providing that the business is
  profitable.
• On the other hand, 15 self-employment
  opportunities were created for 40.5 per cent of
  the households. These indirect job
  opportunities were linked mainly to craft making,
  sewing, embroidery, and selling agricultural
  produce or products to the guesthouse, and to a
  lesser extent, causal labour.

15
Discussion of Main Findings

• Average monthly incomes obtained from direct
  ecotourism activities range widely between
  categories of employees. These incomes were
  agreed to by the Tourism Committee and were
  supported by the community.
• On the other hand, average monthly indirect
  incomes ranged from US12.42 to US206.96
  obtained sale of craft to tourists.

16
Discussion of Findings

• Meager profit made by the community based
  ecotourism venture conforms to the observation of
  the members of the community that the business is
  in its infancy and needed to be developed.
• Much revenue was spent on transportation.
• Surama ecotourism business generated revenues
  that were necessary for payment of wages, among
  other things, and was not necessarily a profit
  making venture.
• In Surama, 68 per cent of households cited
  ecotourism as a source of income. Within this
  group, the majority of households ranked
  ecotourism as their second most important income
  earner therefore households in Surama are not
  solely dependent on ecotourism, as each of these
  household identified as least one other source of
  income.

17
Discussion of Main Findings

• The fact that only four households identified
  ecotourism as the most important income source,
  and underscores the observation of the
  International Forum on Indigenous Tourism
  (20024)that when tourism does not become a
  monocrop upon which the whole community
  depends, but a basis of a diverse and sustainable
  economy, the community is protected from the
  fickle and inconsistent marketplace of
  international tourism and no single ecological or
  social niche gets overexploited.
• The relatively low incomes households received
  from their involvement in ecotourism are by no
  means inconsequential or could be casually
  ignored. Households spent ecotourism related
  incomes on consumables not produced locally,
  building materials for housing, schoolbooks and
  uniforms for the children, clothing for the
  entire family and labour.
• Other important livelihood activities were
  related to farming and selling produce and
  products within and across households, chain saw
  logging, the cassava project, sewing and
  embroidery and the civil service. Two other
  projects worth mentioning are the Junior Wildlife
  Club and the Womens Activity Centre. According
  to the Director of the Centre, ecotourism is to
  support other activities.

18
Discussion of Main Findings

• Ecotourism incomes in Surama seemed to have
  contributed to reduced vulnerability and risks
  (food security) associated with their traditional
  subsistence activities. For example, households
  explained that during the rainy seasons when
  fishing poses a problem, they could purchase
  chicken from neighbouring Brazil, or sardines and
  beef from retails shops within the North
  Rupununi.
• Income security is important to Surama
  households, as the bartering system has been
  becoming gradually inappropriate.
• Surama community also derived benefits from
  collective incomes from ecotourism through the
  payment of what the community referred to as
  head tax. The tax system required that each
  visitor paid a head tax of US2.59 also every
  ecoturism employee contributed the same amount on
  a monthly basis to the community fund.

19
Discussion of Main Findings

• Community revenue obtained form ecotourism
  incomes were used for emergencies related to
  health and transportation community development
  as related to purchase of gas, machine parts and
  building construction materials, also maintenance
  of the windmill to ensure regular supply of
  water education in terms of loans to assist with
  tuition fees for university students and the
  establishment of a Community Credit Scheme.
• This scheme has provided small loans for shops
  and peanut farming in the community.
• On a smaller scale, loans were provided to
  persons to purchase gas cookers and galvanized
  sheets for housing. This initiative helped to
  address poverty reduction in an indirect way and
  is central to the communitys general philosophy
  of self-sufficiency.

20
Discussion of Main Findings

• 13.5 percent of households expressed their
  concern that ecotourism limits their time for
  involvement in other livelihood activities and
  community projects, while 5.4 per cent households
  noted that ecotourism had prevented access to
  local natural resources.
• For example, the community imposed a ban along
  the upper Burro Burro River. This was described
  by one household as not good for men.
  However, these individuals preferred to observe
  the rules of the community, rather than create
  internal conflicts.
• In 1994, a ban was placed on wildlife trapping
  and has since been upheld.
• Other concern expressed by households relate to
  the seasonality of tourism, tourists wanting to
  see indigenous culture, especially traditional
  houses, whereas members of community wanted some
  degree of improvement. The latter concern
  indicated potential conflicts, which need to
  address by the community as a whole.

21
Discussion of Major Findings

• Households have made a conscious effort to reduce
  their exploitation of the forests for fuel wood
  and the building materials such as palm leaves.
  The collection of building materials from the
  forest was a concern for the community, as more
  trees had to be felled in response to need of the
  growing local population, and this was perceived
  as an unsustainable practice.
• The incomes received from livelihood activities,
  including ecotourism were used to provide
  alternatives such as the use of galvanized sheets
  and gas cookers.
• Direct efforts to foster conservation awareness
  and natural resource management practices at the
  household level were made through public
  environmental awareness outreach programmes.

22
Conclusion

• The Surama ecotourism business has provided wage
  employment and additional income for purchasing
  basic items not provided by subsistence
  activities.
• Cash was used mainly to purchase consumables and
  contribute towards shelter and education.
• As the aspirations of Amerindian youth change, so
  will the demand for material gains and increasing
  incomes. There is therefore that potential to
  destabilise the culture of compliance observed
  among Surama households.
• Non-compliance implies short term decisions
  regarding the commercial exploitation of local
  natural resources, for example through
  unsustainable logging, or wild life hunting and
  trapping since there is a ready market in
  neighbouring Brazil

23
Conclusion

• The ecological sustainability of resources in
  Surama is dependent on a stable socio-economic
  environment- a far cry from the reality of
  Amerindian communities.
• The findings of this research do not suggest that
  ecotourism is capable of meeting such demands and
  still protect the environment in the long term in
  the absence of data on the resilience of the
  ecological systems.
• Households economic vulnerability is exacerbated
  if there is total dependence on ecotourism to
  meet their needs.
• Ecotourism is a complementary livelihood
  activity.
• The guarded success of the Surama community
  ecotourism model may be described as contextual
  and is due to its specific community
  institutional and social dynamics.
• To enhance the performance of ecotourism, there
  is definitely need for the establishment of
  partnerships at different levels, with varying
  degrees of formality depending on the community
  dynamics, and in particular, their capabilities,
  social cohesion, willingness to enter partnership
  arrangements, land tenure issues, among others.

24

• THANKS FOR LISTENING

25
Location of Surama
26
Household Ranking
27
Sustainable Livelihood Framework by DFID