Nam Ha Comminity-Based Ecotourism - Currente Status and Challenges by Fabio Saba

Recommendation Report in Response to Monitoring System Investigation (September, 2014)

NAM HA

COMMUNITY-BASED ECOTOURISM CURRENT STATUS AND CHALLENGES

Luang Nathan Lao People's Democratic Republic Fabio Marques Cunha

fabiosaba.me

CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 COMMUNITY-BASED ECOTOURISM (CBE) 1.2 MONITORING COMMUNITY-BASED ECOTOURISM 1.3 PUBLIC MANAGERS AND PRIVATE SECTOR

01 01 02 03

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS 2.1 RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS

04 05

3. ECOTOURISM IN LUANG NAMTHA 3.1 BACKGROUND NAM HA ECOTOURISM PROJECT 3.2 MONITORING TO ENSURE QUALITY 3.3 PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERSHIP

06 07 09 11

4. CURRENT STATUS AND CHALLENGES 4.1 QUICKLY EXPANDING OF PRIVATE SECTOR 4.2 OUTCOME EXPAND OF PRIVATE SECTOR

12 13 14

5. ISSUES AND CONCERNS

6. PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 DEVELOP A COMPREHENSIVE TOURISM USER FEE PROGRAM 6.2 DEVELOP AN EDUCATION / AWARENESS CAMPAIGN FOR VISITORS 6.3 DEVELOP AN EXTENDED ECOTOURISM TRAINING PROGRAM 6.4 DEVELOP A SUSTAINABLE ECOTOURISM CERTIFICATION PROGRAM

18 19 21 22 23

7. OTHERS RECOMMENDATIONS 1. IMPROVING SECTOR DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS IS ANOTHER KEY PUBLIC INVESTMENT 2. BROKERED TECHNICAL KNOW-HOW ASSISTANCE 3. RECOGNIZE THE KEY ROLE OF PRIVATE SECTOR BUSINESSES 4. STRENGTHEN NETWORKING BETWEEN INBOUND TOUR OPERATORS AND PROJECTS 5. STRENGTHENING ON QUALITY OF SERVICES AND INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR VISITORS 6. RECOGNIZE PARTICULAR CRITERIA FOR VILLAGE’S HOSTING 7. EXPLORE INSTRUMENTS THAT HELP INBOUND TOUR OPERATORS BETTER COPE WITH RISK 8. CONSIDER THE CRITICAL IMPORTANCE TO IMPROVE THE VISITOR INFORMATION CENTERS 9. RECOGNIZE IMPORTANCE IMPLEMENT INTERPRETIVE PROGRAMMES 10. STRENGTHENING INTEGRATION BETWEEN DISTRICTS 11. RECOGNIZE THE VALUE OF A CERTIFICATION PROGRAM 12. CONSIDER THE IMPORTANCE OF HIGH VALUE ON VISITOR EXPERIENCE 13. RECOGNIZE NPA AS FOCAL POINT FOR ECOTOURISM PRODUCTS AND MARKETING

24 25 25 25 25 26 26 26 26 27 27 27 28 28

8. CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

ANNEX 1 - STRENGTHS IN TOURISM USER FEE PROGRAM ANNEX 2 - EXPECTED MODULE OUTPUT AND CONTENTS ANNEX 3 - RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES

34 35 36

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 COMMUNITY-BASED ECOTOURISM (CBE) Beyond support to environmental conservation and diffuse knowledge about it, ecotourism also is a business that should give proper importance of host peoples, society, cultures, habits, lifestyles, and social and economic systems regional. The purport ‘Community-Based Ecotourism’ (CBE) leads this social dimension a stage further. This is a form of ecotourism where the local community has substantial control over, and involvement in, its development and management, and a major proportion of the benefits remain within the community (WWF 2001). The Responsible Ecological Social Tour (REST) says “CommunityBased Ecotourism is tourism that takes environmental, social and cultural sustainability into account. It is managed and owned by the community, for the community, with the purpose of enabling visitors to increase their awareness and learn about community and local ways of life”. The Community-Based Ecotourism is a small business may provide villagers to additional revenue, shifting farming in the uplands and poverty may also be attenuated. However, several of the Community-Based Ecotourism projects worldwide are not reaching these purposes. It requires a long-term approach and aims to maximize benefits for the local community and limit the negative impacts of tourism on villagers and their environmental resources (GTZ 2002). The previous proper knowledge of ecotourism; low value of the visitor experience; and discontinuity of standard proceeding – as regards surveillance approach to monitoring and ongoing and systematic training of stakeholders – are key indicators to cases for improper and low quality management that may harms the local communities and environment facing other negative impacts.

1.2 MONITORING COMMUNITY-BASED ECOTOURISM Monitoring is the process of acquiring uniform criterions of relevant issues, using indicators, in order to afford a high understanding of the present situation, and a proper judgment of the operations in course. A recurring problem with many communitybased ecotourism projects that have been established as part of externally funded and assisted initiatives, has been a tendency not to continue satisfactorily after the life of the aid program (WWF 2001). The successful of ecotourism project requires more that innovative ideas and wellintentioned proposals. It demands a proactive approach that seeks to mitigate the negative and enhance the positive impacts of nature tourism. It is not a traditional tourism focusing on private investor profit. The monitoring should be obtained from visitors, tour operators and local people, evaluating economic performance, local community reaction and wellbeing, visitor satisfaction and environmental changes and apply certification and award schemes to play a role in maintaining as well as establishing good practice (TIES 2006).

This often occurs due to the non-attendance by regular monitoring and feedback to assess success and identify weaknesses that may need to be adjusted, by simple indicators made known to the community and others stakeholders. Monitoring helps identify areas where improvement is needed and areas where change is occurring. In this way, monitoring and management are presented as both interrelated and interdependent. Where poverty alleviation and environmental sustainability are key concerns, monitoring can help project managers to find out if the project is living up to expectations, and help them make adjustments to improve performance where necessary (SNV 2007). The suited monitoring of stance from a Community-Based Ecotourism project is a vital device for assess to management and arranging likely changes. It also supports to improve understanding of the results of activities on the community, and of the benefits tourism makes to the communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s sustainability goals.

1.3 PUBLIC MANAGERS AND PRIVATE SECTOR There is a noticeable trend toward larger private sector roles in the management of natural areas. More extensive partnership opportunities also exist and likely will expand in the future. Often, it involves private sector management of infrastructure and activities within parks. Such partnerships not only promote the setting of balanced objectives, but also promote achievement of these objectives through utilization of the varied skills and contributions each actor can make. The government clearly has an important role in ecotourism, but the private sector offer skills and flexibility that government agencies and local communities may lack (US Forest Service 1997). It’s accepted to concede the importance of forming private partnerships among ecotourism actors. The greater private sector role has been increasing funding for community-based ecotourism projects development and most diverse distribution of income for the communities involved. In other hand, this trend also may jeopardize the positive development to the villages and natural area conservation objectives. When private concessionaires develops the fundamental facilities and systems that serving to ecotourism trade, there may be a loss of economic benefit and management control through noncompliance of present rules. In many protected areas around the world, tourism services are provided through “concessions”, or agreements, that are made between the tour operator and the protected area agency. Concessions are one of a number of market-based mechanisms known collectively as Tourism User Fees (TUFs) that can be used to collect revenues from tourismbased activities which can be directed toward supporting PAs and other conservation efforts (Wyman, 2011).

This openness to public-private tourism partnerships in protected areas, on according concessions, has led to continuous clash between tour companies and public managers and also may jeopardize natural area conservation objectives. It’s just because official managers and tour operators often have different and competing objectives. The first are driven by law-making responsibility and their main goal is to protect environmental and socially-defined values. Private tour operators are driven by the market and their main goal is to make a profit. A major issue for the sector is the lack of business expertise on the part of new entrants (Cotterill 1996). Several observers stress that the most new entrants have little practical skills or business planning background, and many also are woefully undercapitalized. In spite of that, the importance of private sector cooperation should be recognized. Almost every ecotourism analyst notes the worth of arrange partnerships among private sector actors. However, this association instance must be at a governance and control levels, while ensure the private sector profits according to conservation objectives, and benefits for local community.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS This study was conducted during February, March, April and May 2014, with the main objective to provide useful recommendations followed and beefed up by helpful references and good practices, insomuch may contribute to effective and proper improvement of ecotourism in Luang Namtha Province. The universe of the study was led mainly by: (1) literature review of ecotourism and past project experience (2) current articles on the topic and database analyzes (3) attendance on a few tour programs in Luang Namtha district (4) survey visits around the Luang Namtha Province and Nam Ha Protected Area – Muang Sing, Long, Nale and Vieng Phoukha districts, (5) added to meaningful cognitive experience, unofficially gathered by acquaintanceship with tourists and some stakeholders in Luang Namtha district. The first, brought us standpoints, judgments and some complains regarding general matters, such as ‘tourist information’ and ‘tour programmes’, under of: their contribution to community and environment conservation efforts in Luang Namtha. From some stakeholders we found out sundry indicators. As of the tour guides we can recognize the know-how and expertise of them. During the short acquaintanceship with some tour operators and villager’s partners on informal conversations, they reported us subjects about conflicts and their understanding and expertness of ecotourism business and the Nam Ha Ecotourism Project. The members of tourism department were helpful for true project understanding – historiography of project, standards and rules, current difficulties and others.

2.1 RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS For the reason to be a voluntary scientific research, developed by own resources of researchers, addition to the hardship to achieve official data – sometimes the access denied by staff members and authorities project – this study can make subjective analysis. In other hand, supported by widely assessment the background project, literature of highly regarded programs and projects, plus to the cognitive experience with the active actors and a close relationship with several visitors, this search tries to give some impressions, mattering much, identifies some of the sources of vulnerability in the project which can be harmful for real meaning of expected goals in a proposed ecotourism, offering reasonable and tangible recommendations.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY Resting on the Introduction logic, the study in hand is draft project with the following objectives: to find the proper alternatives to settle monitoring gaps among the stakeholders; to give recommendations to improve up the basis of study finding; to find ecotourism opportunities in study area. 5

3. ECOTOURISM IN LUANG NAMTHA Luang Namtha Province, with rich abundance of traditional culture of the multi ethnic population per unit area as compared with the other neighboring provinces of Lao PDR’s and countries, such as Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam – making it a remarkable repository of ethnic diversity and indigenous knowledge – is located in a high biological diversity of Northern Indochina Subtropical Forests. Most of these cultural and natural treasures lay in the Nam Ha Protected Area (NPA). The area is home to an estimated 288 species of bird and a high degree of botanical biodiversity, that hosted at least 37 species of mammals – such tigers and other wild cat species, wild cattle, black-cheeked gibbon, monkeys, Asian elephants and bears – 65 species of fish, 297 species of birds – such hornbills, pheasants, partridges, woodpeckers, kingfishers, warblers, and parrotbills. The majority of the NPA is covered by mixed secondary deciduous forest, while the northern mountain range is home to patches of primary evergreen forest mixed with secondary forest and large patches of Imperata grassland (Nam Ha Ecotourism Project, 2012). Luang Namtha’s main tourist attractions are the Nam Ha National Protected Area, the historic town of Muang Sing, caves and archaeological sites in Vieng Phoukha, more than 20 officially recognized ethnic groups and the Nam ha River and its tributaries (Steven Schipani, 2008). The Province is unique as a destination on the ecotourism with great landscapes, forests, streams,rivers, mountains in diverse flavours of indigenous social habits, exotic cultures and rich traditions.

3.1 BACKGROUND NAM HA ECOTOURISM PROJECT With the opening of the Lao PDR borders of the late 1980’s and due to value historical and cultural – expressed by minority ethnic diversity – and to environmental resource abundant – almost at all kept in NPA – by the middle of the 1990s, the number of international arrivals was growing exponentially in Luang Namtha Province. The grains of Nam Ha Ecotourism Project were grafted this time when an increasing number of independent travelers began to venture into the heart of Luang Namtha Province. Concerned about the quickly growing of tourism, could bring as many social problems as economic benefits, the Lao National Tourism Administration, approached UNESCO in 1996 and expressed the need to develop and test a community-based tourism development model that could stimulate much needed local economic growth, minimize negative impacts on the environment and contribute to natural and cultural heritage protection (Steven Schipani, 2008). The financial resource was ensured by UNESCO to formulate the project with the Government of New Zealand on the initial project design. Because of it is high degree of ethnic diversity, growing number of visitors, strategic geographic location and the presence of the Nam Ha National Protected Area, Luang Namtha Province was selected as the site to implement Lao PDR’s first community-based ecotourism project, the Nam Ha Ecotourism Project (Steven Schipani, 2008). The project’s first phase ran out in 1999 to 2002. It was implemented by the Lao National Tourism Administration through the Luang Namtha Provincial Tourism Department, with technical support from the UNESCO Office of the Regional Advisor for Culture in Asia and the Pacific based in the UNESCO Bangkok Office.

In that time was provided training and human capacity building skills to tourism providers and local communities, assisting communities to establish cultural and nature tourism activities in and around the Nam Ha National Protected Area. The main concern was ensure that tourism contributes to the conservation of natural and cultural heritage, involving local communities in the development and management of tourism activities and constituting public and private sector investment in culturally and environmentally sustainable tourism. At that time was established a national supervisory committee and provincial level steering committee to implement the project’s activities. Then, tourism awareness seminars were held at the provincial, district and village levels. The project’s local staff was trained to assess potential sites using a CBT selection matrix, SWOT analysis and visitor survey. The project was driven to twenty-five villages located inside the NPA, mostly allocated to the Akha, Hmong, Khmu and Lantern ethnic groups. The Nam Ha Ecotourism Project design was carried out by a multi-disciplinary team – anthropologists, ecotourism planners and environmental specialists – and the Lao authorities. The Nam Ha Ecotourism Project begins to be recognized as one of the leading sustainable tourism destinations in Lao PDR by its gains in the fight against poverty and in the sustainable use of biodiversity, winning international awards in 2002: the United Nations Development Award and British Airways Tourism for Tomorrow Award. The number of tourists participating in tours in 2004 is shown in Figure 1 below.

At that time was established a national supervisory committee and provincial level steering committee to implement the project’s activities. Then, tourism awareness seminars were held at the provincial, district and village levels. The project’s local staff was trained to assess potential sites using a CBT selection matrix, SWOT analysis and visitor survey. The project was driven to twenty-five villages located inside the NPA, mostly allocated to the Akha, Hmong, Khmu and Lantern ethnic groups. The Nam Ha Ecotourism Project design was carried out by a multi-disciplinary team – anthropologists, ecotourism planners and environmental specialists – and the Lao authorities. The Nam Ha Ecotourism Project begins to be recognized as one of the leading sustainable tourism destinations in Lao PDR by its gains in the fight against poverty and in the sustainable use of biodiversity, winning international awards in 2002: the United Nations Development Award and British Airways Tourism for Tomorrow Award.

Much of the material used to develop these messages were contributed by host communities. Guide training also involves a component on how to facilitate culturally appropriate interaction between tourists and host communities. Lao PDR becomes known as an ecotourism destination due to positive renown of Nam Ha Ecotourism Project, which in that time was receiving about 5,000 involving in tour programs in 2006, marking 30% increase compared to the previous two years. A survey of the number of tourists participating in tour programs (2001-2013) is shown in Figure 2 below.

At long of project second phase (2003-2008) the institutional ability of the Provincial Tourism Department to control and manage the community-based tourism and the private sector’s role, in partnering with communities to develop pilot tour programmers established in the previous phase, were beefed up.

According to data from the tourism department, Nam Ha Ecotourism Project experienced the peak in number of participants involved in tourism programs in 2008 when received almost 6,700 visitors.

During both phases of the project, there was a sustained effort to use community-based ecotourism as a tool to stimulate heritage conservation, rural development and poverty alleviation (Steven Schipani, 2008). Reaping the benefits for the success of the first phase, in 2006 the project was a finalist for the United Nations Equator Prize.

The Nam Ha Community-Based Ecotourism model became a success standard, due what seems most relevant is timing, cooperation and collaboration with public and private stakeholders. It was deployed with heed on resources to develop a work able model and then reining and expanding the pattern, based always on accurate monitoring data.

The tourists were targeted by massy information and education campaigns to encourage cultural and environmental sensitivity. The use of posters, a handbook, a website, and written behavioural guidelines displayed in tourist information centers, sends a clear message regarding appropriate behavior, in a number of languages.

Since the introduction of the first communitybased ecotourism programs by the Nam Ha Ecotourism Project in 1999, until 2006, there were some 50 communities involved on 30 tour circuits, marketed by 3 in bound tour services (the Nam Ha, Muang Sing and Vieng Phoukha guide services) and 2 private tour operators (Green Discovery and Exotissimo Laos).

3.2 MONITORING TO ENSURE QUALITY The monitoring plan executed even in the first phase (1999 to 2002), produced a basic scheme to help the managers to monitor the success and impacts of community-based ecotourism in the Nam Ha NPA. A general outline of the expected objectives is shown in Figure 3 below: Cultural Preservation To ensure that ecotourism minimizes impacts on culture and promotes where possible the preservation of the cultural heritage of participating communities.

Income Generation To generate ecotourism income in the village that will account for at least 20% of the total village income and to ensure, as far as possible, that it is equally and fairly distributed within the village. To contribute to positive village development and an improved standard of living through income generation, in a way that does not harm the environment, culture or cause social problems. To contribute to the economic development of Luang Namtha province.

Conservation of Nam Ha NBCA To ensure ecotourism minimizes impacts on the environment and contributes where possible to the conservation of the Nam Ha NPA. Community Participation To ensure local village people are trained to effectively manage community-based ecotourism.

The monitoring plan resorted to direct and indirect indicators to measure or assesses the progress towards the objectives of management of undesirable impacts. An overview of the monitoring actions and responsible agencies is shown in Figure 4 below.

Frequency

Responsible agency

(1) Village household questionnaire

Biannual

Provincial Tourism Department

(2) Community workshop

Annual

Provincial Tourism Department

(3) Visitor feedback

Every trip

Provincial Tourism Department

(4) Village conservation team data

Monthly

Provincial Tourism Department

collection (wildlife and outsider threats)

(5) Nam Ha NPA wildlife and resource use

Every trip

monitoring

(6) Trail maintenance survey

Monthly

Monitoring Action

Management Unit

The eco-tourism activities objectives were with the methods and forms for collecting information which helped to measure the success in achieving the main purposes and for highlighting any negative impacts that ecotourism â&#x20AC;&#x201C; on the natural environment and way of life of the communities thatwe work in. This monitoring protocol gauges (1) community satisfaction with tourism, measures the distribution of economic benefits, identifies threats to the environment and cultural heritage and assesses tourist satisfaction. It also calls for (2) community workshops where data gathered during household surveys is reported back to the community to identify any problems that may be arising due to tourism in the village (Steven Schipani, 2008). The methods to collect data were: household questionnaire; survey; data summary form; and data recording form. The tourists were asked to fill in (3) visitor feedback forms afterwards returning from each tour. This form provided useful information to monitor guide performance and touristsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; perception of the authenticity and quality of their experience. A well-planned (4) programme to monitor the environment was developed in collaboration with the wildlife conservation Society and Nam Ha NPA managers. It provides the NPA Management Unit and the Tourism Department with comparative data over time indicating the impact of ecotourism on the presence of (5) wildlife and scale of resource use inside the protected area. The NPA Management Unit incurs regular patrolling information on the presence of threats along (6) trekking trails and rivers inside the protected area. The tour operators were directly involved in impact monitoring, survey reporting on the flow-visitor involved in tour programs.

3.3 PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERSHIP In Nam Ha Ecotourism Project, the Provincial Tourism Department grants permission to tour operator Tour Programs through cooperative agreements with villages. The Provincial Tourism Department accorded concessions – or permission – for private investors to develop ecotourism activities, lacking neglect, ignoring or denying local involvement in planning, management and monitoring. The process behind the development of the agreements revolves around (1) a series of meetings between villages, authorities and tour operators to co-draft and negotiate the content of each customized document; (2) meetings are conducted at the village level to encourage a high degree of local participation; (3) a working draft of an agreement passes a final review by its signatories,and is then co-signed by the village leadership, tourism or heritage management authority and concerned tour operator; (4) the content of the agreements clearly defines each party’s responsibility in terms of operating and protecting the tour programmers tangible and intangible attractions. The mains concerns were: (1) sale of antiquities and wildlife; (2) provision of food and lodging in the village; (3) trail maintenance; (4) waste management; (5) collection and management of permit and site entrance fees; (6) use of local guides; (7) village fund allocations; (8) training opportunities; (9) monitoring; (10) tourist education and orientation; (11) conflict resolution. Private sector tour operators should rehearse and replay the regulations to operational rules. That was referring to (1) visitor behavior – including prohibitions on wildlife consumption and the purchase of antiques, (2) limits on tour group sizes – maximum eight tourists per group, (3) requirements to use local guides, (4) pay NPA permit fees, (5) remove all waste, (6) consume only village-produced food on all tours, and (7) respect local cultural beliefs and customs.

The distributing financial benefits to the stakeholders were settled by the following apportionment: (1) selling food and water communities (2) accommodation at the villages (3) village development fund (4) village service fees (5) handicrafts communities (6) transportation (7) sales agents profits (8) tour guide fees (9) Nam Ha NPA trekking permit (10) provincial tax on net income (11) PTD tourism promotion and marketing fund. The current apportionment of financial benefits from the trade of ecotourism programs in Luang Namtha are described in Figure 05 below:

Selling Food & Water US$ 3-4 per-meal Accommodation in Villages US$ 3-4 per-person Transportation US$ 20-40 per trip Selling Food & Water US$ 3-4 per-meal Accommodation in Villages US$ 3-4 per-person Transportation US$ 20-40 per trip

The arrangements of tours in Nam Ha Ecotourism Project were deep-seated to distribute financial benefits broadly to all stakeholders involved in their operation (guides, tour companies, drivers and communities) and management (Provincial Tourism Office and Nam Ha National Protected Area Unit).

4. CURRENT STATUS Based on past experience ecotourism development in Luang Nantha can be viewed from a major perspective, viz. deploying a successful ecotourism project model in small-scale concerning to a trusty distribution of benefits, to contribute to positive village development and an improved standard of living through income generation, in a way that does not harm the environment, culture or cause social problems. Over the past decade, ecotourism activities have expanded rapidly with growth of private sector and the incessant number of ecotourism programs in large-scale. Further growth is expected in the years that may come ringed by loss of economic and social benefits, through noncomplianceof rules, if it leads without proper control. Therefore, the following discussion on ecotourism in Luang Namtha shows off the current overview followed by urgent and essential recommendations.

At the begin (1999-2001), there was not any privatee nterprise really attracted to act the first tour programs developed by Nam Ha Ecotourism Project. As a result the project helped establish the Nam Ha Ecoguide Services in Luang Namtha, Muang Sing and Vieng Phoukha districts, which is essentially

4.1 QUICKLY EXPANDING OF PRIVATE SECTOR IN LUANG NAMTHA At the begin (1999-2001), there was not any private enterprise really attracted to act the first tour programs developed by Nam Ha Ecotourism Project. As a result the project helped establish the Nam Ha Ecoguide Services in Luang Namtha, Muang Sing and Vieng Phoukha districts, which is essentially Provincial Tourism Department supervised inbound operators to sell tours to walk-in clients and handle groups sent by tour operators based outside the province.

As the tourism pie was growing – between 2006 and 2008 – to absorb the increasing demand of tourists the competition between different parties for access and control of the resources feeding the industry was intensifying. Nowadays, the 18 private companies operating in Luang Namtha province, 10 are in Luang Namtha district, 3 in Muang Sing, 3 in Vieng Phoukha, 1 in Long and 1 in Nale, as is shown in Figure 7 below:

Under the supervision of the Provincial Tourism Department the tour programs were worked out by newly-trained provincial guides. In 2001, two Lao-managed tour operators (Green Discovery and Exotissimo Laos) established an offshoot in Luang Namtha and Muang Sing district to working with the project to develop communitybased ecotourism programs. Until that time, the project was managing only 30 tour programs – involving 50 villages – marketed by 2 private enterprises and 3 inbound public operators.

There are no public operators in Luang Namtha and Muang Sing anymore. In these districts all of tour operators are private enterprises.

Currently, the Nam Ha Ecotourism Project has more than 140 tour programs distributed by 189 villages around the Nam Ha Protected Area, negotiable by 18 tour operators.

This evinced the mature of project, understanding than the right way of ecotourism management as a business is the public sector acts as a regulator part and the private sector as tour operator.

Once the public sector understood and was empowered to manage this new economic sector using an official regulatory framework and new skill set, private sector investment became possible (Steven Schipani, 2008) especially from 2007, expanding quickly in the following years.

According to appraisal of printed matter and particular narrative of project members, the increasing demand of visitors accompanied by a greater understanding of the project team regarding the opening for the entry of private sector partners was needed.

4.2 OUTCOME EXPAND OF PRIVATE SECTOR 4.2.1 Monitoring shortcoming One of the main tools that were developed in Luang Namtha – to enhance local people’s involvement in heritage protection and formalize tourism management systems in their communities – were the co-management agreements between heritage management authorities, tour operators and communities. The monitoring always was considered simple and effective. According analysis upon technical references of the Nam Ha Ecotourism Project experience, a proper and watchful monitoring of the fulfilled works, favored the project team and local partners in decision-making to improve existing tour programs and to set up new initiatives. However, according to monitoring arrangement detected on latter-years, one of the major issues currently recognized by Luang Namtha Provincial Tourism office is concerning in non-accuracy of data reporting from tour companies. This inattention can be directly related by the bond between the accurate data reporting be related to CBT fees pay (trekking permit, village service fees, provincial tax, promotion & marketing fund and others), afforded by an absence of a proper surveillance. Furthermore being truly harmful to monitor the impacts of ecotourism activities in Nam Ha Protected Area – to identifies threats to the environment and cultural heritage – this lack may characterize a severe miss of tax escape that should be condensed to maintain the steadfast and unremitting acting of Nam Ha NPA Management Unit, such as establish environmental conservationrelated rules in the NPA, and the Provincial Tourism Department, concerning in provide tourism-related training to the public and private sector market and promote destinations.

This database, on the flow-tourists involved in tourism programs dealt by sector, are the primary basis for following investigation to all monitoring actions. This inaccurate data survey reporting – regarding of visitors – can beget hurdles to the upright monitoring of Nam Ha Community-Based Ecotourism impacts and the proper financial maintenance of the project. 4.2.2 Low-value of the visitor experience Previously, the visitors in Luang Namtha were spitefully targeted by information – such as brochures, poster and booklet – in tourist information centers. It transmitted easy and light messages regarding appropriate behavior in French and English languages and covered extensive information about sustainable tourism means and education campaigns, targeted at policy makers, the private sector and local communities. As a result of these campaigns, local leaders have the knowledge and information they need to formulate enabling policies and create regulations that protect the cultural and natural resources that underpin the province’s growing and profitable ecotourism sector (Steven Schipani, 2008). Afterwards returning from each tour, tourists were request to supply assessment. This feedback form provided helpful information to evaluate experience of visitors and guide conduct. Every data were summarized and discussed at monthly guide meetings. Nowadays, these significant tools to promote high appreciation and acknowledgement of project and closely monitor the visitor experience are missing.

A few different dissatisfactions in Luang Namtha district were expressed from visitors by informal feedback are reported below: - tourist information is extremely poor - large number of travel agencies selling similar programs with different price - large number of agents selling bus ticket and given unequal advices - reduced communication and poor quality of map town - lack of sign around the town - absence of conservation projects information Many complaints from visitors are about poor tourism information. Most of them do not go the visitor center. Those who go, complains about the lack of proper information and well-trained people. Some visitors complain that there is not enough to do around if they not join a group to any privet tour. The map of town offered by visitor center is insufficient to enjoy around the district by themselves. They said that is very hard to get true informationabout which tour program is going inside the NPA. The tour companies provide a variant communication that does not put them really confidence about. They complain about the absence of information about the park, wildlife and conservation projects. It’s true to assert that none visitor even knows that the ecotourism activities in Luang Namtha are related to community-base ecotourism proposal. Even after choosing a tour program, we often hear that they are not confident about where all of their money goes. Though most visitors have manifested satisfaction after joined to a tour program, some visitors had complained that it was not so valuable experience for money paid. The main complaints were: - divergence between previous information’s with programs itinerary - insufficient knowledge of tour guides - careless on garbage at the camp - concern on safety and security Several visitors reported a high disagreement between “what was said before the trip” and

“what actually was experienced during the journey”. It was concerning the large difference between the catalogue descriptions formerly advertised with the program actually in loco. Follow below a few frustrated expectations repeatedly remarked by visitors: - the shorter walk - different level of grade trekking - lower number of guides in the group - higher number of tourists in the group - landscape not identical at the pictures - different hosting A few visitors showed very disappointed with the tour guide. Some claim that the guide does not provide enough knowledge regarding the historical and natural aspects of the visited area. Other reported low English skills and negligent on waste treatment at the camp. According to them the rubbish and rest of foods was left at the camp without any proper care. Some visitors showed yourself not feel safe on the trip. Most visitors were assisted by an insufficient number of guides or the number of visitors per group exceeded the minimum permitted. Furthermore, was reported a single case which a group of six tourists were using only two double kayaks on Nam Tha river. All information reported above was obtained through informal conversations to visitors. It is important reschedule that these reports do not make reference to one enterprise in particular.

4.2.3 Non fulfillment of professional criteria by private sector As exposed before, Nam Ha Ecotourism Project experienced quickly expanding of private sector on last years. Steven Schipani (2008) warned the importance to be careful regulation of the private sector to ensure that the tourism products they develop are delivering environmental, social and economic benefits to stakeholders.

In Luang Namtha the ecotourism industry is comprised of small operators with no permanent staff. Most of them are managed by former tour guides with extensive experience in leading groups. However, they have little practical business or business planning background, and many also are woefully under-capitalized. Faced by growing competition in “slot to gain coins” of local tourism industry, some independent tour operators have sought to get about the ecotourism market. But must of operators do not understand how the travel trade works. Certainly, most of them do not have a proper idea of the ethics and underlying codes of conduct and behaviors – environmental, social, cultural and other – that are key components of eco-tourism activities. A major issue for the sector is the lack of business expertise on the part of new entrants. The lack of business expertise affects all aspects of the ecotourism operation including such fundamental issues as product development. Some assumptions to reach that conclusion were reported in the previous chapter (Low-value of the visitor experience). Moreover, some tour operator seems have not developed their pricing structure to accommodate

the shared benefits between stakeholders. Since a frequent informal rule in ecotourism industry in Luang Namtha are “the bargains”, where sells more who offer the lowest price. The danger of abusing the ecotourism label comes the confusion occurs when operators working in natural areas use the term while not complying with ecotourism principles. Such operators may be able to under price those complying with the principles and may provide inferior experiences that, through negative word of mouth, can jeopardize demand to the place and thus the viability of other businesses (Cotterill’s 1996). This market practice is observed by scientists of ecotourism as a way to exploit the poverty or need of sellers, who in most cases accept due to large local competition.They remember that in a community-based ecotourism – where the benefits are fairly distributed – when a visitor buy through bargain, it may only be possible because of low income to others. This “smartness” of market may be resulting in some complaints from visitors. With high expectations who receive a lowvalue experience will likely report low satisfaction.

5. ISSUES AND CONCERNS Despite some success, in Luang Nantha there are still a number of constraints that inhibit the stakeholders involved to further develop and promote better ecotourism. These constraints include: Conflicting and divergent roles of government and private sector sometimes cause confusion among local communities. Little effort is given to encourage greater private sector participation in the monitoring protected areas in partnership with local communities. The quality of visitor experience and environmental performance can be inconsistent. Excellent ecotourism products are to be found in every region, but the sector can be let down by products with an insufficient quality of service or environmental management. The abilities of operator enterprise are over-estimated. Local ownership and participation are desirable and necessary, but they often exhibit a limited degree of the necessary skills and business acumen.

Based on the current quandaries exposed above – which is not investigated with high attention may represent a greater problem in the near future – this study deems that a main key to straightaway solve these gaps is developing a comprehensive Tourism User Fee Program interconnected

6. PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS

to a pure and simple Awareness Campaign for Visitors. In addition, to develop further possibilities or capabilities and bring to a more advanced and effective state of the sector, this search indicates necessity to begin an extended ‘Ecotourism Training Program’ and a Sustainable Ecotourism Certification Program for inbound operator and their products. 18

6.1 DEVELOP COMPREHENSIVE TOURISM USER FEE PROGRAM Whenever tourists are go into to protected areas – as an essential or integral attribute of a tour prepared, done, or acting with sole or chief emphasis on profit – it is habitual for tour operators acquire entry tickets or any other permission that give right to access to the interior – or a portion/section – of areas of tourist interest. In principle, one can use fees as a visitor administration tool, and in exceptional “to distribute visitors away from heavily used places or times, thereby reducing negative ecological impacts, congestion, or user conflict” (The Nature Conservancy, 2001). The Confederation Finance Alliance (CFA) that promotes sustainable financing for biodiversity conservation worldwide, shares a simple methodology geared a quota of fairly easy, marketbased mechanisms – known as tourism user fees (TUFs). They are answerable revenues from tourism activities, directed toward supporting the development of ecotourism-based community efforts. The TUFs can be structured around few action, such as categories below: (A) Entrance Fees– visitors can be charged to enter attractive; (B) Concession Fees – companies providing services within protected areas can be charged fees to operate such business concessions; (C) Licenses and Permits – private firms operating within or outside protected areas (e.g. tour operators, guides) and individuals participating in specific recreational activities (e.g. diving, fishing, camping) can be charged for licenses or permits; (D) Tourism-based taxes – taxes can be levied at hotels, airports and other collection points, and channeled into conservation.

In Luang Namtha, a TUF – licenses and permits (category C) – issuing Trekking Permits already charged to access the NPA areas, received by tour companies in each tour program negotiated. Currently, based on the list of visitors reported by tour operator, the fees are collected by Nam Ha NPA Management Unit office every month. However, this trust collection system made of incipient form without issuing administrative ticket proved to be overly incipient, which may contributed to illegal access by large numbers of visitor in NPA. Specific recommendations to set up a factual collected of TUFs in Luang Namtha include the following: 1. Accomplish a full and strict review on all current tour programs. 2. Promote planning workshops for stakeholders to discuss the elements can contribute in the collect fees process. 3. Create an official trekking permit ticket display to be offered by tour companies. At first, the project team should make a rigorous inventory of current tour programs, with the goal bring forth an itemized and comprehensive list of villages visited and trails used, as well as make clear the agreements between tour companies and villages. Besides it helps as a basis for set up a suitable display ticket, it will serve for follow inspection and tabulation of data that will be used in monitoring. The template of ticket displays may be similar to those already used to access areas – entrance fees (category A) – such as Nam Dee Waterfall, and Kao Lao Cave, in Luang Namtha and Vieng Phoukha districts respectively. It is a simple duplicate entry ticket acquired for independent visitors at the entrance of sightseeing’s.

However, some adjustments on display ticket should be regarded for a particular purpose. In addition to assure the loyal collect of financial resource, the key proposal of issuing the single trekking permit is ensuring effective data collection to assist the monitoring of ecotourism activities correlated to the project – to contribute to positive village development, insure minimum impacts on the environment and contributes to the conservation of the Nam Ha NPA, such as trail maintenance. In this case, the trekking permit ticket must put forward needed components for argumentative analysis subsequent, concerning the project monitoring, control of use villages and collection of tax revenues of project operating fees – tourismbased taxes (category D). The display ticket may request information as: basic request – [FILL IN NAME OF VISITOR] [FILL IN COUNTRY OF VISITOR] [FILL IN AGE OF VISITOR] and; specific request – [FILL IN NAME OF TOUR] or [FILL IN NUMBER OF TOUR PROGRAM].

As all tour programs are recorded by a specific name and/or a register number with the Department of Tourism and Nam Ha NPA Management Unit – detailing the villages involved in each itinerary; the trails used; the overnight spot and category to fall asleep (camp or home stay); as well as the value offers that must be designed for each local partner (village) – afterwards would be easier to proper monitoring of activities related to the project to ensure that ecotourism minimizes impacts on environment and culture, as well as the thorough incoming taxes to contribute to the economic development to the villages and to project management. Each tour operator must have a specific number followed by the serial number of the ticket. A rubber stamp should be pointed down on the ticket to know how many days the trekking permit it is lawful to access the Nam Ha Protected Area. Ex: 1,2 or 3 days.

6.2 DEVELOP EDUCATION / AWARENESS CAMPAIGN FOR VISITORS The Nam Ha Protected Area is a restricted area, meaning a trekking permit should be issued by a registered tour company and visitors should be accompanied by a guide accredited. Other standards, not less meaningful, concerning the group size as well as the parcel of guides per group also part of the CBT rule. Each group of tourist should have maximum 8 people.Up to 4 tourists, the group must be accompanied by 3 accredited guides (1 Leader guide and 2 Village guides). For full tours (8 people) must has 4 accredited guides accompanying the group of tourists. However, the visitors arriving in Luang Namtha for any activity involving trekking, kayaking or visit ethnic groups are unaware of this law. As exposed before, although visitors are coming to Luang Namtha knowing that it’s a place that provides ecotourism activities (such as trekking, kayaking and visit ethnic groups), doesn’t know that these tour programs are related to communitybase ecotourism proposal. In order to ensure the minimal enforcement of tour programs rules, and, as a basis for cooperation reasoning, to push up the visitors claims require the issue of trekking permitby the private sector for all tour programs, this study recommends that the Provincial Tourism Department and Nam Ha NPA Management Unit launch a sympathetic Awareness Campaign for Visitors. It means create a broad-based large-scale campaign over theme that will be coherently developed to few materials, like posters, brochures or leaflet, available for handling and notice in places where the visitors often goes into, such as: bus stations; night and morning market; visitors centers; restaurants; guest houses and hotels; good shop; as well as tour operators and villages.

The objectives of campaign should be directed to give an understanding about: (+) The value of natural and cultural resources (+) The connection between conservation and ecotourism activities (+) The rules and regulations on local level for conservation, protection and management (+) The benefits and risks associated with ecotourism activities (+) The stimulate fair awareness behavioral (+) The appropriately managed of waste The participatory process involving stakeholders at the national and regional levels should be undertaken to selection of key tools and components of the campaign, such as the slogan, logo and images. A call on warning about Nam Ha Protected Area being a restricted area and that the entry without a proper permit, qualifies an illegal access liable to severe fines for the visitor, it should be considered. The customer awareness about ecotourism regulations must be understood as the main tool to ensure the success of the Tourism User Fee Program, explained before. The visitors interested in ecotourism programs – than are mostly willing to contribute to the fair share of benefits for local communities and for the conservation of protected areas – can be the main actors for indirect surveillance of private sector activities in a Community-Based Ecotourism project. However, mounting a “collect user fee program” – through outsourced ticketing – without an upright control and a systematic surveillance could induce the rise of new financial leakage reaching to improper loss of funds resources.

6.3 DEVELOP EXTENDED ECOTOURISM TRAINING PROGRAM FOR INBOUND OPERATOR According to submitted before, this study recognized that inbound tour operator have considerable lack of sustainable business expertise, may produce negative effects at the aspects of the regional ecotourism operation including such fundamental issues as strengthening of product and management of visitor experience. The lack of business expertise also includes marketing skills needed to develop a successful product. Without assistance, their ecotourism ventures may be developed too slowly and lose out to competition. Stated thus, we assure earnestly than they need training to manage their ecotourism projects underway. In this case, Ecotourism Training Program should cover a range of topics, including general overviews of the regional ecotourism industry, entertainment management, relevant language skills, marketing and interpretive material, cross cultural considerations (relating to different cultures comparison with them), and so on. The training program can be based on existing tourism programmes, such as those conducted by the Malaysian Tourism Promotion Board, but should be supplemented with material specifically for regional ecotourism. Opportunities as to learn about how regional natural characteristics can be leveraged for environmental education on crafting of sustainable tour programs, including recreation and nature watching, should beconsidered. Whatever the modules used, the ecotourism training program must seek to: - Continue to explore creative avenues to gain the participation of ecotourism industry stakeholders in the program. - Develop training courses that encourage tourism enterprises to understand and adopt sustainable tourism practices in their operations and improvements that enhance the visitor experience

This program would aim to realize the introduction and promotion of ecotourism, which goes a long way toward environmental conservation, wise use of natural resources and contribution to community, based international environmental laws, to understand the role of stakeholders in the social community for the sustainable regional development and understand the strategic business model for eco-tourism and its business management. The program can be divided into methodological modules (lecture, observation and practice), when the participants are able to understand and explain philosophy and measures related to ecotourism in the context of sustainable use, and set up itineraries able to be maintained at a certain rate or level the quality of not being harmful to the environment or depleting natural and cultural resources, and thereby supporting longterm balance. Based on a bilateral agreement between the governments or recipient country – such as Mongolia, Myanmar, Bhutan, Vanuatu, Cambodia, Vietnam, Nepal, Zimbabwe and India – The Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) has been implementing an ecotourism training program (Eco-tourism for Sustainable Use of Natural and Cultural Resources) for national/local government organizations, NGOs and private associations these countries involved in tourism promotion or efforts to conserve the natural environment and cultural resources. It can be readily adapted to particular skills or types of behavior through practice instruction to inbound tour operator managers in Luang Namtha province; least ways moving in an autonomous or independent process – employ someone or a qualified institution to a temporary work – to developing a training program following the national convergence points, to beget elements of modules necessary as a result expected.

6.4 DEVELOP SUSTAINABLE ECOTOURISM CERTIFICATION PROGRAM To some degree, the flaws and difficulties in proper management of private sector can be solved by appropriate assistance through government agencies and professional training programs. However, certification has become the main topic of discussion in ecotourism industry as a finale solution to make the difference between the companies who indeed contribute to the principles of Community-Based Ecotourism. The “ecotourism” has become a reference term and politically upright from contrary to mass tourism, opening a seat to virtually any kind of activity that claim to offer an ecotourism experience. Nowadays, the sustainable certification stamp is the excellent instrument that allows consumers to identify those operators – and their products – that comply with ecotourism principles. The certification is an advanced tool for improvement the ecotourism services. It’s a guaranty system that assures a particular outcome, whose the goal is to ensure that the circumstance and the practices are faithful to the values, the principles and the minimum standard. Certification provides an ethical choice, shows the best practices and permits better learning and raise awareness for visitors. To follow a current trend in the global ecotourism market, a special certification in order to involve the companies in community-based ecotourism in Luang Namtha province will be inevitable in the coming years. In this case, public managers will have to set up a certification for the companies to maintain the community-based Ecotourism in the right way. To get a certification is possible from different infrastructures: certification agency, NGOs, tourism department or sustainable tour operator. A certification has a usual process by audit of the company on different thematic (economic, social, environment and ethics) including specific criteria in relation with the base principles of the CBE. Although well-designed certification programs can differ considerably, they almost all have some similar components. Amos Bien (2006) offers common elements to most tourism certification programs.

In order to receive a certificate, an enterprise has to follow requirements involving assessment, development, management and marketing in sustainable tourism principles. In this context, the International Ecotourism Society (TIES) suggests some objectives of sustainable tourism and local communities can be necessary to assessment. Several criteria concerned on rights of indigenous peoples and local communities which when neglected represent barriers to developing of a certification program, also are present on appendix of this paper. Certification bodies differ in their methods. The Honey Guide Foundation (HGF), a non-profit organization form Tanzania, which enables local communities to conserve their natural resources, provides two methods for certification program, that can be obtained in different ways: self-Assessment – for a basic certification, where you will be asked to submit proof of your compliance through documentation – or by an audit – require someone to visit the applicant to carry outan audit, where it goes through the specifics criteria and check themselves, both by site visits and through documentation, which the applicant are compliant. Whatever manner chosen, during the process of obtaining a certificate, there are a several gains. This because it is a systematic process of actions directed to attest tour operators and their services. It is efficient to provide guidelines for businesses through an long and extensive educational method, that can helps to reduce operating costs – such as: water, electricity, waste – beyond provide better skill about economic impact, respecting the cultural, natural environment and social balance in destinations. Furthermore, the requirement to apply to the methods of certification, that usually takes a long time, companies owned necessarily have to work closer to the communities. Finally, a certified inbound tour operator will be also able to work for foreign tour operators specialized in ethical and sustainable travel.

7. OTHERS RECOMMENDATIONS This section draws out others elements of support, required in order, to perform above recommendations containing a set of adapted suggestions by international, private, public and academic institutions, NGOs and community organizations with wide respectability in planning sustainable tourism. In these recommendations the monitoring of ecotourism activities is inherent and the importance of indicators development is expressly emphasized at governmental levels of management and in the design of certification systems. There are some clear functions and inputs needed to catalyze change and improving destination management.

1. IMPROVING SECTOR DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS IS ANOTHER KEY PUBLIC INVESTMENT. Although this is not currently the major barrier to effective government management of the sector, in fence of obstacles that prevented access to clear data information (new improved data could be used in this study) in making sector policy and plans, such as conservation projects, protocol gauges over monitoring actions, there is a sufficient empirical basis to say and conclude the state of shortages in perform monitoring skills. Improving this situation is a necessary step towards better management. Lack of transparent information can also constrains commitment the private sector, on low levels of certainty about possible returns on their investments. Additional external funding may be required to assist with this task, although in the longer term these activities could be funded partly by revenue tax from the private sector. There are many experts specializing in the assessment and measurement of the level of performance, productivity, efficiency and effectiveness in the sector, and they always highlight the need for all the multi-sector entities to work together in order to obtain satisfactory results regarding quality. The application of new information technologies is an essential key to sharing expertise among all the stakeholders involved â&#x20AC;&#x201C; directly or indirectly â&#x20AC;&#x201C; in tourist activity. Improving the availability of information on natural resources and their management addressing the quality, completeness, frequency of data collection, and improving the transparency of mechanisms for monitoring and reporting, including public disclosure and dissemination.

2. BROKERED TECHNICAL KNOWHOW ASSISTANCE. The dearth of technical and technological capacity on monitoring hinders the space for local efforts to undertake effective action. In order to ensure that mobilization leads to genuine impacts, it will be necessary to bring in sufficient expertise and technical and technological knowledge, and this will in turn contribute to regional momentum.

It is also important because of the poor state of partnership between stakeholders, as independent and external voices are often the most credible way to help in the allocation of resources or monitoring adherence to collective agreements. Tourism policies must stress a quality visitor experience and site integrity, not just marketing and high visitor numbers.

3. RECOGNIZE THE KEY ROLE OF PRIVATE SECTOR BUSINESSES Fostering and working with successful private sector operations, encouraging and helping them to meet a combination of commercial, social and environmental objectives, has proved to be a sound strategy. It is important to strengthen links between private operators and local communities. Inbound tour operators have an important role to play, not only in promoting ecotourism but also in advising on product development and the overall quality of a destination, relating this to customer requirements. Moreover, involvement local enterprise in planning and management presupposes proper training.

4. STRENGTHEN NETWORKING BETWEEN INBOUND TOUR OPERATORS AND PROJECTS. There must be a frequent call for small ecotourism enterprises to work together, to strengthen their marketing outreach and encourage common standards. There are several examples from associations of village community ecotourism products in a number of Asian and African countries, to branded small farm based accommodation enterprises in Europe with central booking services. It puts forward the concept of local clusters of ecotourism initiatives, there by establishing a critical mass of product in one areawhich would provide a composite a gain to visitor experience, be more able to attract business and justify investment in supporting infrastructure.

5. STRENGTHENING ON QUALITY OF SERVICES AND INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR VISITORS Compared to its high environmental and cultural value and the abundant recreational opportunity available, represented by the 141 tourist itineraries consolidated, unfortunately, the level of tourist information in Luang Namtha is extremely poor. If people are aware of information relating to sustainable tourism practice or a specific management model, they will be more likelyto try to gain access to it. Providing a sense of good value for money; ensuring a clean, safe and secure environment; hospitality; quality of sites, events, attractions and services related to them. This would constitute consumer-led approach to regulating service quality, and should work with existing established services wherever possible. A mapping would be required of current sources of such information, its reliability and coverage and how key actors including tourists and tour operators use different sources to make choices such as those conducted by the Nepal Association of Tour Operators. Efforts would then need to be made to improve the coverage of key sources, and to help ensure the information is marketed to tourists and tour operators.

6. RECOGNIZE PARTICULAR CRITERIA FOR VILLAGE’S HOSTING This is an important component that needs to be identified and given attention by the parties involved since the motivation of the tourist to visit a destination is based on the product or attractions. These are the appeal factors as to why tourists are interested to stay and experience the uniqueness. The potential for a regionally uniform accommodation classification system to provide a more consistent message to visitors, as well as the potential use of such a system to provide a comparable regional benchmark of operational standards has important implications.

Based on the facilities and quality of the accommodation provided, village’s hosting units can be classified into four categories (homestay, eco-lodges, jungle camp or forest hut) by bringing out clear guidelines on the requirements to develop a baseline framework that will help harmonize classification and terminology for kind of accommodation.

7. EXPLORE INSTRUMENTS THAT HELP INBOUND TOUR OPERATORS BETTER COPE WITH RISK Ecotourism activities are often organized in remote areas with specific conditions (e.g. rainforests, deserts, mountains) and involve physical activities (such as trekking, canoeing, etc.). According to a study on factors central to sustainable ecotourism (Bassotti, 2003), safety of the activity is placed second in importance to clients, after the protection of the environment. Indicators that respond to safety and security of ecotourism destinations and operations are therefore important. The insecurity of visitor is a key driver of the behaviour that leads to lower-value offerings on adventure tour market. Services and mechanisms that allow a typical tourism enterprise to spread risk without having to resort to such practices could have a useful role to play. Working to develop improved insurance services for inbound tour operators should be regarded upon with care.

8. CONSIDER THE CRITICAL IMPORTANCE TO IMPROVE THE VISITOR INFORMATION CENTERS The districts visitor centers should show up plenty of information in displays and exhibitions, about the wildlife in and the works done in the NPA. The visitor centers must be well-structured and provide services. It should include, among others, facilities, which enhance experiences; roads, trails, tracks etc. for getting around; signs stating regulations, directions and other information; visitor centers, exhibitions, displays where information about the NPA and its wildlife etc. It should contribute to the attractiveness for visitors, be sustainable and be easy to use.

If people are aware of information relating to sustainable tourism practice or a specific management model, they will be more likely to try to gain access to it, providing a sense of good value for money; ensuring a clean, safe and secure environment; hospitality; quality of sites, events, attractions and services related to them. Well trained staff members to assistance the visitors are extremely important. One possible gap to address could be information on the quality of travel services (accommodation, restaurants, tour companies, and others.

9. RECOGNIZE IMPORTANCE IMPLEMENT INTERPRETIVE PROGRAMMES The interpretation has been largely neglected at many sites in Luang Namtha province. One of the basic elements of ecotourism is knowledge of nature and/or culture that the visitor obtains through the interpretive experience. Interpretation seeks to help people understand and appreciate the environment through various communication processes. The effective implementation of interpretive programmes can greatly enhance the visitor experience, thereby making the site more competitive. In addition, interpretation can be used to manage visitors in a non-intrusive manner, thereby reducing negative impacts and increasing positive impacts. Moreover, it can be used to raise the general awareness and level of support for resource management policies and agencies. Professional interpretation services (e.g. guides, interpretation centers and trails) are essential parts of a quality ecotourism experience and contribute to nature conservation through awareness-raising. Poor information can lead to negative impacts on destinations, and poor interpretation can cause client dissatisfaction. There is a urgent need to more actively manage visitors and to enhance the quality of the visitor experience. Measurement of quality of information is therefore an important step.

10. STRENGTHENING INTEGRATION BETWEEN DISTRICTS Whether in Nale or Long’s districts, which seem to have their own atmosphere, different from others – the latter with a soon prospective of growth with the opening of the international border with Myanmar – or Vieng Phoukha, on the way from Thailand with caves and several villages, or the historical Muang Sing, each district of Luang Namtha province has specific special ties that should be regarded and furthered. There is a need to improve a public transport access to nearby districts: transport infrastructure and mobility services, information services, guide services to visitors. Transport system, and natural and cultural attractions that could increase the tourism value in the districts and represent a new business opportunity for villages of the route itself. Considering that visitors reported that is not enough to do themselves, the promotion of a bike-sharing service by self-guided tour between districts seems to be an interesting area of intervention for the districts under investigation. Observation of scenic landscapes with no motorized transport integrated in the natural environment.

11. RECOGNIZE THE VALUE OF A CERTIFICATION PROGRAM Nowadays, Luang Namtha has several companies who maybe work at different commitment level with the community. In the current scenario of global ecotourism market, and considering the visitors reported concerned about company behavior, a business who respects the principles of community-based ecotourism needs to present and communicate to visitors about the ethical engagement behind its services. Due different obstacles of small enterprises, such as: financial, knowledge-based, political and technical, can be hard to obtain an international ecotourism certification. On the other hand, the New Zealand Aid Program could help in the implementation of a special and simplified certification program.

12. CONSIDER THE IMPORTANCE OF HIGH VALUE ON VISITOR EXPERIENCE

13. RECOGNIZE NPA AS FOCAL POINT FOR ECOTOURISM PRODUCTS AND MARKETING

Satisfied tourists have more power than any other media. When they come back from holidays, potential visitors listen about their experiences. Tourist satisfaction is based on many different factors, including the range of attractions of a destination, its market positioning, the quality of services, the expectations of tourists, and the experiences of each tourist during his/her stay. Many of the elements which affect tourist satisfaction (e.g., cleanliness of accommodation, water and food safety, friendliness of hospitality) are at least in part within the management purview of the industry and destination managers. Others (e.g., weather, crime, acts of hostility) are less so. Tourist satisfaction is central to whether tourists return, recommend the destination to others or conversely advise others to stay away. It is therefore a leading indicator of the longerterm sustainability of a destination. Analysis should begin with understanding actual tourist flows on tour programs and their value, disaggregated by every tour company and each tour guide, and knowledge gaps on feedback visitor should be filled urgently.

Often parks and other protected areas provide the main draw for visitors, creating an opportunity for local communities to gain economic benefit through the provision of facilities and services. The relationship between protected area authorities and local communities and tourism enterprises can be a critical one. There are various examples of stakeholder groups or wider liaison forums attached to national or nature parks, enabling the park to influence standards, marketing messages and new projects, while also supporting and coordinating enterprises and reflecting their needs. The quality of a park’s own facilities and services, and the relationship between visitor management and conservation policies, is obviously of major importance in its own right.

8. CONCLUSION The growth of community-based ecotourism in northern Laos during the past years had brought important implications for local economies, creating new business opportunities for many stakeholders, particularly to private sector services and community members. Ecotourism has spread into the NPA and agro-pastoralist villages around, including several with insufficient livelihood options. Given the restrictions of this study, it is not possible to generalize if such “implications” should or should not be seen as a favorable conjuncture for regional sustainable development. An exact statement can only be achieved by deeper studies. But while community-based ecotourism is moving in the most prominent position, debates of how to address both: private sector interests, development of communities and natural heritage, the landscape conservation-level and wildlife in northern Laos, are a challenges for ecotourism managers. However, we can cast some recommendations and warnings on the project members that see community-based ecotourism as one of the key elements for regional development. We are convinced that the only way to ensure upright collection of financial funds established in the project scope, assuring the collection of pivotal data to assist in monitoring the impacts of ecotourism activities, is development an effective ‘Tourism User Fee Program’ combining to a ‘Awareness Campaign for Visitors’.

Until this time, the tour programs in Luang Namtha are still being setting up largely by private sector that requires greater skills to develop sustainable itineraries, among others specific. In addition to the internal obstacles on the way of reaching higher image of tourism in Luang Namtha, there are unfortunately also external negative factors. A strong trend of ‘bargain’ between companies and visitors was identified, which leads us to believe that almost all have not yet developed their pricing structure to accommodate the shared benefits between stakeholders. Indeed, to recognize the imperative requirement to develop an out-and-out training program and a ‘Sustainable Tourism Certification Program” to set the stage when the private sector begins to understanding and respect the basic principles, will make the difference for the responsible tourists, committed community, public managers and companies. We recognize that the ecotourism can be a catalyst for socio-cultural change providing equitable distribution of any benefits and the imperative of environmental and cultural sustainability. Without any proper mechanisms to control management of natural and cultural resources and quality of the visitor experience, such as certification, Luang Namtha province can lose a precious potential and will be far from realizing its prominence in the region.

9. REFERENCES 4.2 Almeida, António Manuel M., 2010. From island mass tourism to rural tourism In Madeira: Is there a place for a re-definition of islands’ image?, Universidade da Madeira, Portugual. Akama, John S. and Kieti, D., 2007. Tourism and Socio-economic Development in Developing Countries: A Case Study of Mombasa Resort in Kenya Department of Tourism Management, Moi University, Kenya. Australia Commonwealth Department of Tourism, 1994. National Ecotourism Strategy, Australian Government Publishing Service, Australia. Australia Office of National Tourism, 1996. Projecting Success – Visitor Management Projects for Sustainable Tourism Growth, Commonwealth Government of Australia, Canberra, Australia. Bien, A. and Russillo, A., 2006. Strategies for engaging small entrepreneurial, indigenous-run, and community-based tourist enterprises in best practices and certification of sustainability, The International Ecotourism Society (TIES), USA. Bien, A., 2008. A Simple User’s Guide to Certification for Sustainable Tourism and Ecotourism Center for Ecotourism and Sustainable Development, The International Ecotourism Society (TIES), USA. Bini, S., Assy, E., Ryan, G., Frazee, S., Edwards, S. and Hillel, O., 2000. Ecotourism Education and Awareness Program, Manual for CI Community Extensionists, Conservation International (CI), Washington D.C., USA. Brondo, Keri V. and Woods, L., 2007. Garifuna Land Rights and Ecotourism as Economic Development in Honduras’ Cayos Cochinos Marine Protected Area, Ecological and Environmental Anthropology (University of Georgia),USA. Brown, Cory R., 2001. Visitor Use Fees in Protected Area, Synthesis of the North American, Costa Rican and Belizean Experience, The Nature Conservancy, USA. Budeanu, A., 2007. Sustainable Tourist Behaviour – A Discussion of Opportunities for Change, The International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics, Lund University, Sweden. Byczek, C., 2011. Blessings for All? Community-Based Ecotourism in Bali Between Global, National, and Local Interests – A Case Study, Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies (ASEAS), Indonesia. Castilho, C. and Herrscher, R., 1995. Ecotourism: Paradise gained, or paradise lost?, Department of Responsible Tourism, Costa Rica. Center for Responsible Travel (CREST), 2013. The Case for Responsible Travel: Trends and Statistics, Washington, USA. Clermont, T., Neil, N., Henigman, M. and Jamieson, G., 2003. Parksville-Qualicum Beach Wildlife Management Area Management Plan 2003, Lanarc Consultants Ltd., Canada. Craig, I. and Southammakoth, S., 2001. Manual Community-Based Eco-Tourism in Protected Areas, LaoSwedish Forestry Programme, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Lao PDR.

Dahl, K., 2004. A Field Area Paper for Completion of a Masters in Urban and Regional Planning, Portland State University, USA. Denman, R., 2001. Guidelines for community-based ecotourism development. WWF International, UK. Dixey, L., 2005. Lessons and Recommendations, Production, Finance and Technology (PROFIT), Zambia. Drumm, A., 2004. Evaluation of the Pilot Fee System at Eduardo Avaroa Reserve and Recommendations for the Bolivian Protected Area System, The Nature Conservancy, USA. Drumm, A. and Moore, A., 2002. An Introduction to Ecotourism Planning, The Nature Conservancy, USA. Eagles, Paul F.J., Bowman, Margaret E., and Tao, Teresa., 2001. Guidelines for Tourism in Parks and Protected Areas of East Asia, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. García-Herrera, José J., 2010. Handbook of ecotourism in Protected Areas of Vietnam, Fundeso, Spain. Government of Uttarakhand, 2014. Draft Notification for Uttarakhand Homestay, Uttarakhand Tourism Development Board (UTDB), India. Hamzah, A. and Ismail, Hairul N., 2003. An Assessment of the Socio-Economic Impact of the Homestay Program at Kampung Banghuris, Sepang, Selangor, Universiti Teknologi, Malaysia. Haya, C., 2004. Indicators of Sustainable Development for Tourism Destinations: A Guidebook, World Tourism Organization, Spain. Israr, M., S.N. Shaukat, M.M. Shafi, N. Ahmad, S. Baig and M. Nasir. 2009. Role of Host Community in Promotion of Eco-tourism in the Northern Areas of Pakistan, Institute of Development of Studies, NWFP Agricultural University of Peshawar, Pakistan. Jones, H., 2013. Entry points for developing tourism in Nepal. What can be done to address constraints to inclusive growth?, Overseas Development Institute, UK. Khanal, Bhoj R., and Babar, Jan T., 2007. Community-Based Ecotourism for Sustainable Tourism Development in the Mekong Region. Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, Thailand. Kirkpatrick, J.B., 2001. Ecotourism, local and indigenous people, and the conservation of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, Journal of The Royal Society of NewZealand, NewZealand. Leones, J and Dunn, D., 1999. Strategies for Monitoring Tourism in Your Community’s Economy, Arizona Cooperative Extension, University of Arizona, USA. Lindberg, K., 2001. Protected Area Visitor Fees: Overview, Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism Griffith University, Australia. Lindberg, K., Furze, B., Staff, M. and Black, R., 2010. Ecotourism and Others Services Derived From Forest in the Asia-Pacific Region: Outlook to 2010, Forestry Policy and Planning Division, Rome Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand. Lucchetti, Veronica G., 2013. Community-Based Tourism: Critical Success Factors, The International Center for Responsible Tourism, USA.

Leonard, G. S.; Wright, K.C.; Smith, W.D.; Johnston, D. M., Kidd, A. 2008. An evaluation and decision making support tool for public notification systems in New Zealand, GNS Science Report, New Zealand. Mott, David N. 2004. Water Resources Management Plan. Buffalo National River, Arkansas, United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, USA. Marris, G., Hedemark, M., Johnson, A. and Vongkhamheng, C., 2002. Environmental Baseline Study of the Route 3 Upgrade Through the Nam Ha National Protected Area, Asian Development Bank. Merino, Fabián Eduardo S., 2008. The impact of Community-Based Ecotourism Projects in Amboró National Park. Institute for Advanced Development Studies, Bolivia. Nelson, F., 2003. Community-based Tourism in Northern Tanzania: Increasing Opportunities, Escalating Conflicts and an Uncertain Future, Sand County Foundation Community Based Conservation Network, Arusha, Tanzania. Outdoor Victoria Recreation Centre, 2005. Serious Adventure. Report of the Taskforce to the Minister for Tourism: Review of Adventure Tourism Visitor Safety in Western Australia, Victoria, Australia. Regional District of British Columbia, 2008. Community Tourism Study Part 3: Opportunity Outline Visitor Education & Awareness Campaign, Southern Gulf Islands, Canada. Richardson, M., 2002. Some Simple Economics of Eco-Tourism, Department of the Economics University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. Schipani, S. and Pakasy, S., 200?. An Assessment of International Tourism in Luang Namtha. Schipani, S., 2001. Trekking in the Nam Ha National Protected Area: A Best Practice Community-Based Tourism Programme in the Lao PDR. Schipani, S., 2008. Impact: Effects of Tourism on Culture and the Environment in Asia and the Pacific. Alleviating Poverty and Protecting Cultural and Natural Heritage through Community-Based Ecotourism in Luang Namtha, Lao PDR, UNESCO, Bangkok, Thailand. Schipani, S. and Soulianonh, B., 2010. A Careful Approach to Nature Tourism in the Nam Ha National Biodiversity Conservation Area, Luang Namtha. Snow Leopard Conservancy Los Gatos, 2002. Visitor Satisfaction and Opportunity Survey in Manang, Nepal, California, USA. SNV, 2007. A Toolkit for Monitoring and Managing Community-Based Tourism, Universiy of Hawaii, USA. Stark, Judith C., 2002. Ethics and ecotourism: connections and conflicts, Department of Philosophy, Seton Hall University, South Orange, NJ. USA. Strong-Cvetich, Nikolas J., 2007. Ecotourism in Post-Conflict: A New Tool for Reconciliation?, Monterey Institute of International Studies, USA. Subash, T., 2014. Homestays – An Instrument for Community-Based Tourism Development in Kerala, Tactful Management Research Journal, India.

Tourism Concern Industry Briefing, 2011. Why the tourism industry needs to take a human rights approach: The business case, London, UK. Tuffin, B., 2005. Community-Based Tourism in the Lao PDR: An Overview. UNESCO, 2001. Monitoring the Success and Impacts of Community-Based Ecotourism: A Manual for Ecotourism Guides and Managers, UNESCO-Nam Ha Eco-tourism Project, Luang Namtha, Lao PDR. UNESCO, 2003. CBT Community Based Tourism Handbook: Principles and Meaning, Responsible Ecological Social Tours (REST), Thailand. UNESCO, 2004. Community-Based Ecotourism and the Public Private Partnership: Connecting communities with the global tourism industry, Lao PDR. UNESCO. 2009. A Training Manual for UNESCAP-LNTA-DoIC Guide Training Workshop at the Plain of Jars Archaeological Landscape, Lao PDR, Bangkok, Thailand. Warner, M., 2000. Conflict Management in Community-Based Natural Resource Projects: Experiences from Fiji and Papua New Guinea, Overseas Development Institute, UK. Wood, Megan E, 1993. Ecotourism guidelines for Nature Tours Operator: Main Document, The International Ecotourism Society (TIES), USA. Wood, Megan E., 2002. Ecotourism: Principles, Practices & Policies for Sustainability, The International Ecotourism Society, USA. World Tourism Organization, 1996. Tourist safety and Security: Practical Measures for Destinations. Madrid, Spain. WWF, 2001. Guidelines for Community-Based Ecotourism Development, The Tourism Company, Rufford Foundation and MAVA Foundation, UK. WWF, 2005. Tourism Certification and Community-based Ecotourism as Tools for Promoting Sustainability in the Greek Tourism Sector â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the example of Zagori, Lund University Place, Sweden. Wyman, M., Barborak, James R., Neel Inamdar, N. and Taylor Stein, T., 2011. Best Practices for Tourism Concessions in Protected Areas: A Review of the Field, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel, Switzerland. Yusupov, J., 2010. Community-Based Tourism in The Zerafshan Valley, Zerafshan Tourism Development Association (ZTDA), Uzbekistan.

ANNEX 1 Strengths in Tourism User Fee Program

Objectives

Subject-matter Equitable system for user-pays

Consumers of the recreation who highly value a site pay for its conservation and the cost of their activities.

Financial self sufficiency

The fee-based income earmarked for conservation activities and offset operational costs, making it truly self-sufficient.

Public appreciation

The public may have greater appreciation for services

Monitoring indicators

Clear indicators, a suitable data collect and

it pays for.

subsequent careful analysis becomes the TUFs a relevant tool for proper monitoring. Access control

Fees allow increased management and access control by visitors.

Service and innovation incentives

Give for managers incentives to provide improvement services to the visitors and villages and maintain the natural and cultural resources.

Economic value

Fees mechanisms may give economic value to recreation provided by tour operators.

Motivate expansion of project

Improve income may motivate the public managers to enlarge investment in training of stakeholders and promotion of destination.

ANNEX 2 Expected Module Output and Contents Topics

Methodology

Details

Lecture

Learn about optimal ecotourism based on the ideals/guidelines of the Ramsar Convention through an eco-tour in the Kushiro area as an example of wise usage in wetlands under the convention

Use of facilities in national parks

Observation

Learn about exhibition techniques and promotional activities including educational programs for environmental conservation from examples of nature information facilities in national parks

Wetland conservation and eco-tours

Practice

Management/ operation of national parks in Japan

Lecture

Learn about policies required for the conservation and use of the natural environment from examples highlighting the operation of national parks in Japan

Japan’s policies on ecotourism

Lecture/ Observation

Learn about eco-tours related to the conservation of cultural resources through examples from Kyoto

Overview of ecotourism

Lecture

Learn about the ideals and basics of ecotourism through examples from around the world

Regional efforts for ecotourism (in relation to the Ramsar Convention)

Learn about the significance and methods of monitoring in natural parks/reserves from examples of wetland monitoring in the Kushiro Wetland natural monument area

Natural park eco-tour programs (trekking and other outdoor activities)

Practice

Learn about eco-tour programs using regional nature in an eco-friendly manner from examples of trekking and some other activities in forest.

Natural park eco-tour programs (cooking)

Practice

Learn about how local products can be adopted for tourism through a program to use locally produced crops for outdoor cooking, etc.

Natural park eco-tour programs (educational programs)

Practice

Learn about how regional natural characteristics can be leveraged for environmental education tour programs that anyone can experience, including nature watching and crafting, etc.

Field-based eco-tour programs (in theKushiro Wetland)

Practice

Learn about finding regional resources, materials for tours and environmental education, and the specific use of such resources through an ecotour program that introduces prehistoric remains and springs in the Kushiro Wetland

Use of regional facilities

Practice

Learn about the development of programs that ordinary tourists can easily participate in and the expected benefits of environmental education through the example of making souvenir.

Regional efforts for ecotourism

Practice

Learn about regional voluntary efforts including tour business as a side job by fishermen in a national park/ Ramsar wetland and the conservation/management of the water environment (a field for regional industries) to enhance understanding of the relationship between regional industry-based eco-tours operated by residents and environmental conservation

ANNEX 3 Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities Methodology

Topics

Right to allow or disallow tourism within traditional territories. Fundamental Rights

Right to full and effective participation at all stages and levels of decisionmaking in sustainable development projects. Recognition of distinct and separate rights within traditional territories.

Ensure preservation, respect and protection of sacred, ceremonial, and Cultural Rights

culturally significant sites and ancestral remains. Protection of and right to use indigenous languages. Incorporate the concept of cultural damage into impact assessments.

Indigenous Knowledge and Intellectual Property Rights

Incorporation of traditional knowledge in school curriculum.

Planned and developed according to specific local conditions and cultures. Adherence to sustainable development models and strategies that incorporate principles of genuine partnerships, transparent and viable management, ecosystem approaches, and collaboration between traditional and scientific knowledge. Equal participation and access to resources in all aspects of planning for Right to Sustainable Development

sustainable development. Prioritize elimination of poverty, sustainable management of natural resources, respect for cultural differences, and strengthening of democratic societies. Develop sustainable tourism as part of overall economic development strategy, with diversification to ensure local economies do not become reliant solely on tourism revenue. Generate inexpensive and sensible monitoring and evaluation tools and standardized methodologies, adapted to local realities that include social, economic, and environmental impacts.

Maximize benefits that stay in local community. Use local materials and agricultural products. Economic Rights

Promote and support, including training, for local crafts. Training (if necessary) and use of local guides. Where appropriate, develop set of principles on whether hunting and fishing activities be considered ecotourism.

Labor Rights

Maximize employment of local work force.