Nature-based Tourism Over-concentrated

By Navin Singh Khadka

John Ingram and Julia Bret had heard a lot about the famous national parks in the country. Right from the time they spoke to their local travel agent in the US till they arrived here, almost every one was talking about the same popular protected areas: Chitwan, Everest and Annapurna.

Having known that these were the most visited conserved areas, the two "inquisitive" visitors began to inquire if there were less visited pristine protected areas across the Kingdom. Among the 15 different conserved areas across the Kingdom, they found there were few of their choice. Finally, they picked up Parsa Wildlife Reserve as their would-be destination.

And so they reached the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation to get the details. The authority of the protected areas handed them out the brochures of all the national parks, reserves and conservation areas.

Yet, the two visitors did not get their problem solved. The brochure of Parsa had information on all aspects but accommodation. Disappointed, they could not decide if they should take the risk.

Upon contacting a travel agent, the two soft-adventure seekers were told that the safest idea could be to visit the "established" national parks that have the facilities and logistics for the visitors. It was only then Ingram and Bret understood why only certain protected areas across the country saw the major chunk of visitors.

Sample this: Last year more than 100,000 tourists visited the Royal Chitwan National Park — the most visited national park in the country. While the Parsa Wildlife Reserve, in the immediate neighbourhood of Chitwan, did not even see half a dozen tourists.

Parsa is not a unique example. There are other protected areas like Khaptad National Park, Shukla Phanta Reserve, Kanchenjunga Conservation Area, among others, that are promising natural and cultural sites but with almost no visitors.

It’s not just the national parks in the Plains that see highly unequal distribution of visitors. Take the cases of the protected areas in the highlands. The Annapurna Conservation Area sees above 60,000 visitors every year followed by Sagarmatha National Park with more than 25,000 tourists in a year.

But, the number of visitors in national parks like Langtang, Rara, and Shey Phoksundo is almost negligible.

It was this imbalance in the nature based tourism, Dr. Harka Gurung, a noted scholar, had highlighted in his keynote speech in the 12th Pacific Asia Travel Association Eco-Tourism Conference in Pokhara last year.

Here is how he had proved his point: Eastern Nepal, that hosts 35 percent of 133 peaks across the Kingdom open for climbing, had above 80 per cent of the total expeditons in 1998. "These were directed to 14 peaks of which Am Dablam alone had 31 expeditions."

Equally concentrated is the trekking scenario. "Of the nearly 100,000 trekking permits issued in 1998, around 70 per cent was for trekking routes in the central area — the Annapurna Conservation Area with the lion’s share.

Almost all the trekkers that visited the eastern part — around 20 per cent of the total figure — were confined to the Sagarmatha Region. The western Highland had a little above one percent of the total trekkers. Nearly 80 percent of the Free Individual Trekkers visited the central area while not even five per cent went to the west.

Even river rafting has no good news. In the country, that boasts of having the second largest water resources in the world, only ten rivers are open for rafting. Interestingly, of these, only two rivers — Trishuli and Kali Gandaki — see around 70 percent of rafters. Around 10,000 tourists row their rafts in the Nepali rivers annually.

The bottomline: All four nature-based tourism — mountaineering, trekking, natural sightseeing and rafting — have proved to regionally unbalanced.

No one knows what ecological loss has the over-concentration of visitors at certain areas caused. But that can be gauged by this fact: Of the total budget expenditure of around Rupees 50 million in 1998/99, only two — Chitwan and Sagarmatha — were in surplus.

Chitwan had the revenue of Rupees 54 million against Rupees 7.9 million as its expenditure while Sagarmatha earned Rupees four million and spent Rupees 3.8 million.

All other conservation areas had very high expenditure compared to their tourist revenue, according to Dr. Gurung.

As a result, many protected areas have already become economically non-viable. Which means, a time may come when these areas may have to be abandoned. And that also means the established, and over-crowded, areas will continue to be under tremendous pressure thanks to the increasing number of visitors.

Tourists like Ingram and Bret, in such a condition, would not be able to visit the less visited natural sites, even if they would like to.

Send your feedback to the editor: bizage@ecomail.com.np
1999 © Mercantile Communications Pvt. Ltd. P.O. Box 876, Durbar Marg, Kathmandu, NEPAL. Tel : 977 1 220 773, 243 566 . Fax: 977 1 225 407. Reproduction in any form is prohibited without prior permission. No part of the articles which appear in the internet version on BUSINESSAGE may be reproduced without the permission of Mercantile Communications Pvt. Ltd. For reprinting rights, please write to us. Send us your feedback:contact us . CLICK HERE FOR PAST ISSUE. This site is best viewed at : 800 X 600 resolution

Back to the top