Waste Reduction

Worldwide, tourism is the largest industry, with ecotourism being an important segment of the market. Every year,
millions of tourists around the world visit protected areas (PAs) or travel to destinations for nature-based recreation.
While PAs often supply the most important part of such recreational experiences, they typically capture very little of the total economic benefits derived from ecotourism.

A number of relatively simple, market-based mechanisms – known collectively as tourism user fees (TUFs) ––can
gather significant revenues from tourism-based activities (see table below), which can then be directed toward supporting PAs and other conservation efforts. The fees partially reflect the cost of supplying recreational services, the demand for natural resources, and the value that visitors place on their experience at the site. The direct link between maintaining natural areas and income from user fees is a strong economic incentive for conservation.

 

 

Click here for the Guide

Here below are three of numerous case studies that can be found in the guide from page 31:

 

Nepal – entrance fees: Sagarmatha National Park (which contains Mt. Everest and is a World Heritagesite) has set up a system whereby 30% of the money collected by the park from mountaineeringexpeditions into the Everest is re-invested into the protection of the park. Since the mountaineering feescan be substantial (it costs about US$50,000 per expedition, with a total of about 5 expeditions per year)this system has helped generate some US$400-500,000 per year for activities to conserve the park.Annapurna Conservation Area has obtained agreement from the Nepal government (by means of aspecial law to this effect) that the money collected from entry fees to the Conservation Area will bechanneled directly to the conservation of the area via a local NGO, the King Mahendra ConservationTrust. Every visitor to the Annapurna Conservation Area pays an entry fee of US$12 which, in 1996,generated some US$400,000 for the conservation of the Annapurna, more than enough to cover thecosts of maintaining the site. As a result of these experiences, the Nepal government is re-evaluatinghow it uses the entry fees collected at other parks (Mountain Institute, 1997)

 

Ecuador: Entry fees and donations in Galapágos National Park. The Galapágos Islands in Ecuadorare one of the most visited and recognized World Heritage sites in the world. Because of the islands’popularity as a tourist destination, the Galápagos National Park finds it relatively easy to finance a largepart of its operations by charging a high entry fee and obtaining donations from visitors to the islands. Theislands attract around 60,000 foreign tourists per year, each of whom pays a US$100 park entry fee,thereby generating about US$5 million per year. In addition, tourists spend around US$390 to fly to theGalapágos from mainland Ecuador, and a minimum of US$1000 for a typical 8-day boat trip to visit theislands. Most visitors stay on a cruise ship or charter live-aboard boats. In addition, each of the two maintour boat operators now guarantees a minimum of US$100,000 in tourist donations per year from theirpassengers to support Galápagos conservation projects. If the tourists do not make the donationsthemselves, tour companies pay the difference. In the Galápagos, the law which raised park entry feesalso required that all revenue from this fee be used to pay for costs associated with operating the park.The law is very specific on the use of the funds. It requires that “40% of the revenues collected from entryfees must be used to pay for salaries and other direct expenses of operating the park; 30% must go tolocal government authorities for, e.g. construction of sewage treatment facilities; 10% must go to aGalapagos development institute; 5% for operating an inspection and quarantine system; 5% to the navyfor patrolling the park; 5% for the Galápagos marine reserve; and 5% to the national parks agency forexpenses of managing the national park system as a whole.” (For more information: See Benitez, 2001 ).

 

Bonaire: Marine park scuba diving fee and WTP survey. Bonaire is a small island (288 km2) situated in the Southern Caribbean. It is surrounded by fringing reefsthat are easily accessible and have provided the island with a valuable resource for the tourism industry,the island’s economic mainstay. About 50,000 tourists visit the island each year, half of them scubadivers. To protect these important resources for the tourism industry, Bonaire Marine Park (BMP) wasestablished in 1979. The park covered the area from the high-water mark down to 60 meters, includingall 2700 hectares of coral reefs, mangroves and seagrass beds. It is a multiple use park with fishing anddiving restricted in certain zones. The park was started with initial four-year funding and administrationassistance from National Parks Foundation of the Netherlands Antilles (an NGO), which enabled amooring system to be installed. The park functioned until the NGO’s funds ran out, when, althoughsupported by dive operators, it became little more than a paper park. BMP was revitalized in 1991 withbilateral assistance from the Dutch Government under the conditions that the park had to be selffinancingwithin a new 3-year term of funding. Self-financing was achieved by the end of 1992 when aUS$10 diver fee was introduced following a willingness-to-pay survey (see below). This is the systemunder with the park currently operates. The fee is collected through the dive operators, who are requiredto participate in annual courses. All revenues from fees collected through the park are used only for themanagement of the park. The income generated through the sale of the diver badges (tags) covers thesalaries and operational costs of the park. The BMP staff includes a manager, four full time rangers andthree shared administrative staff with the Washington-Slagbaai terrestrial park. Operational costs includeboat and vehicle maintenance and running costs, the maintenance of the 70 public dive moorings,research and monitoring programs and educational activities for the local children and teachers. Forspecific projects, the Park has to look to grant funding agencies for support. Income from divers hasgradually increased as the number of divers has been increasing, while the US$10 fee has remained in place. Early and recent studies showed that it could be increased, and that tourists would still be willing topay. However, there has be a great deal of opposition on behalf of the dive industry to increase this fee.The park is now considering fees from other tourism services – for guided snorkeling, windsurfing andyacht visits, as well as a US$350 fee for private moorings.Source: Scura and van't Hof (1993) and Kalli DeMeyer (personal comment).

 

Assessing the user fees in Bonaire Marine Park through “Willingness to Pay” (WTP) surveys

In 1991, a WTP survey was conducted to assess users’ willingness to pay for Bonaire’s for nonconsumptiveuse of Bonaire Marine Park (BMP). The results of the survey were as follows:An overwhelming 92 percent of visitors surveyed agreed that a user fee system should be set up, andsaid that they would be willing to pay the proposed rate of US$10 per diver per year.Approximately 80 percent of visitors surveyed said that they would be willing to pay at least US$20 per diver per year, while 48 percent said they would be willing to pay at least US$30 per diver peryear and 16 percent said they would be willing to pay US$50 per diver per year.Using this information, an average WTP of US$27.50 was calculated (excluding those unwilling topay a fee).Source: Cesar, H., Westmacott, S., Emerton, L., and Wells, S (Draft, 2000) Economic Benefits of MarineProtected Areas in the Western Indian Ocean. Paper prepared for the Coastal Zone Management Centreof the Netherlands Ministry for Transport and Water Resources

A variety of factors will influence the likelihood of success, including:

 

• Tourist volume. Sufficient numbers of tourists to generate revenue levels that offset a significant portion of operating costs of a PA.
• Fair pricing of fees. Placing a fair value on uses and services of a site through fee pricing, while still generating acceptable net returns.
• Fee adjustment. Flexible approach by site administration to adjusting fees as needed. Political acceptability of charging fees. Acceptance by local stakeholders and domestic tourists of the advantages of and need for TUFs.
• Proprietary use of income for conservation. Income generated by TUFs is channeled to support conservation at the site of collection, rather than channeled into national or provincial general treasuries.
• Accounting and audit systems. Well-organized accounting systems to help in tracking and analyzing financial data. Periodic, independent audits.
• Marketing experience. Adequate marketing expertise to develop marketing campaigns that can attract sufficient tourism volume if it does not already exist.
• Well-trained staff for entrance fee program. Well-trained staff who can effectively collect fees (including differential rates for various tourist profiles) at reasonable administrative costs and provide sufficient information at the entrance gate to help enhance the tourist experience.
• Professional concessionaire operations drawing upon local employee pool. Professional commercial operation for delivering services and collecting revenues. Local community members hired to staff concession operations.

Photo Credit for Solution Icon