Banking on Protected Areas Promoting sustainable protected area tourism to benefit local economies © 2021 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or currency of the data included in this work and does not assume responsibility for any errors, omissions, or discrepancies in the information, or liability with respect to the use of or failure to use the information, methods, processes, or conclusions set forth. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Nothing herein shall constitute or be construed or considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. editor Mark Mattson designer Sergio Andres Moreno Tellez cover photo Wandel Guides, Shutterstock.com SUPPORTED BY: Contents Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ 7 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 9 How was the study done?...................................................................................................10 What did the study find? ...................................................................................................... 11 What lessons can countries draw from the study?....................................................... 13 Recommendation 1–Protect the Asset............................................................................ 13 Recommendation 2–Grow and Diversify the Business.............................................. 13 Recommendation 3–Share the Benefits........................................................................ 14 1. Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 16 1.1. The State of Biodiversity ......................................................................................................... 17 1.2. Benefits of Protected Areas .................................................................................................. 18 1.3. Protected Area Coverage ....................................................................................................20 1.4. Protected Area Challenges ..................................................................................................20 1.4.1. Protected Area Funding .......................................................................................... 23 1.4.2. Community Benefits ................................................................................................ 24 1.5. Rationale for the Study .......................................................................................................... 26 2. Assessing the Economic Impacts........................................................................................30 2.1. Methodology............................................................................................................................. 32 2.1.1 Estimating the Economic Impact of Tourism in Protected Areas .................... 32 2.2. Avenues for Economic Impacts of Protected Areas ..................................................... 34 2.3. Lewie Model ............................................................................................................................ 36 2.4. Data Collection ....................................................................................................................... 37 3. Findings .........................................................................................................................................39 3.1. Country Context and Summary Statistics ......................................................................... 39 3.2. Key Findings From Country Case Studies........................................................................ 48 Effects of Protected Area Tourism on Local Economies ........................................... 48 Return on Government Spending ................................................................................... 52 Impact of Conflicts and Shocks........................................................................................ 53 Impact of Government Policies......................................................................................... 54 3.3. Study Limitations..................................................................................................................... 57 4. Policy Recommendations...................................................................................................... 58 4.1. Protect Natural Assets............................................................................................................60 4.1.1. Formalize Protected Areas.......................................................................................60 4.1.2. Increase Public Investment in Protected Area Management.........................60 4.1.3. Build Capacity of Protected Area Managers...................................................... 64 4.1.4. Regularly Assess the Effects of Visitor Spending............................................. 64 4.2. Grow and Diversify Tourism Businesses .......................................................................... 64 4.2.1. Diversify Tourism Offerings..................................................................................... 64 4.2.2. Develop Concession Policies to Promote Tourism in Protected Areas ....65 4.3. Share Benefits with Local Communities .......................................................................... 68 4.3.1. Formalize Benefit Sharing Arrangements........................................................... 68 4.3.2. Strengthening Income Multipliers........................................................................69 4.3.3. Mitigate and Compensate for Human-Wildlife Conflict.................................. 70 4.4. Green Recovery ..................................................................................................................... 70 5. Conclusion..................................................................................................................................... 74 References.........................................................................................................................................76 authors Banking on Protected Areas is the result of a collaborative effort between the World Bank (Urvashi Narain, Hasita Bhammar, Phoebe Spencer) and the University of California, Davis (Prof. Edward Taylor, Heng Zhu, Edward Whitney, Anubhab Gupta, Mateusz Filipski, Elisabeth Earley). We are also thankful to Jo Pendry and Laura Onofri for their contribution to the report. This global study synthesizes information from four country case studies. We are grate- ful to the co-authors of these studies: BRAZIL  Prof. Carlos Eduardo F. Young, Alexandre Kotchergenko Batista, Camila Rizzini Freitas (University of Rio de Janeiro); Sylvia Michele Diaz and Bernadete Lange (World Bank. FIJI Prof. Stuart Kininmonth (University of South Pacific); Jessie McComb (IFC). NEPAL Sindhu Prasad Dhungana (Government of Nepal); Tijen Arin (World Bank); Siddhartha Bajra Bajracharya (National Trust for Nature Conservation); and Sagar Raj Sharma (Kathmandu University). ZAMBIA Iretomiwa Olatunji, Ngao Mubanga (World Bank) P RO MOT I N G S USTAIN AB L E PROTE CTE D AR E A TOU R IS M TO B ENE F IT LO CAL E CONOM I ES 7 acknowledgements This report is supported by passionate individuals across many institutions and organi- zations who are banking on protected areas to promote conservation and development. The team is grateful for the support, encouragement, and overall guidance of Karin Kemper, Iain Shuker, Christian Peter, Garo Batmanian, Raffaello Cervigni, Christophe Crepin, Charlotte De Fontaubert, Ann Jeannette Glauber and Valerie Hickey. Peer reviewers included: Richard Damania, Giovanni Ruta, Kirk Hamilton, Ross Hughes, Shaun Mann, Juan Pablo Castaneda, Mimi Kobayashi, Maurice Rawlins, Julie Rozenberg, Bernadete Lange, Renato Nardello, Lisa Farroway, Kasia Mazur, Jessie F. McComb, Andre Aquino, Fei Deng, Sylvia Michele Diaz, David Kaczan (World Bank), and Juha Siikamäki (IUCN). Valuable feedback was also provided by: Susan Pleming, Wendy Li, Olga Gavryliuk, and Elisson Wright (World Bank). Finance for the four country case studies was generously provided by the following trust funds: PROBLUE and Window-3 funded the Brazil and Fiji studies; the Nepal study was funded by WAVES; the Zambia study was funded by PROFOR. The global study was supported by the Global Wildlife Program funded by the Global Environment Facility. Country Teams BRAZIL Fernando P.M. Repinaldo Filho (Abrolhos Marine National Park); Betania Fichino, Amanda Silva, Ricardo Castelli Vieira and Renata Carolina Gatti (Brazilian Ministry of Environment); Adriana Moreira, Sergio Margulis, Paula Montenegro, Wanessa Matos, Eduardo Romao Rosa, and Charlotte De Fontaubert (World Bank); and Guilherme Dutra (Conservation International). The dedicated and enthusiastic Brazil survey team includes: Lucas de A. N. Costa, Maira L. Spanholi, Lucas Rolo Fares, Rodrigo Fernandes Gonçalves, Daniel Sander Costa, Rodrigo Abreu Carvalho, Marcos P. Mendes, João Augusto Muniz Videira, Gabriel Pabst da Silva, William John Hester, Aline Guzenski Fioravanso, Patricia Camara de Brito, Miguel Ângelo Portela Pinheiro, and Thais de Jesus Custodio. FIJI C  raig Strong, Saras Sharma (Ministry of Fisheries); Marica Vakacola (Mamanuca Environment Society); Helen Sykes (Marine Ecology Consulting); Lasse Melgaard, Cary Ann Cadman, Jeremy Webster, Sophie Egden, Luke Vueta, and George Henry Stirrett (World Bank). The dedicated and enthusi- astic Fiji survey team includes: Apimeleki Yasawa Nasokitabua, Reshma Ram, Tony Tarivonda, Glen Bule, Noleen Lata Narayan, Simione Naivalu, Solomone Volau, Leba Tavo Miller, Arishma Archna Ram, Shane Rico Henry, Adi Losana Marama Tabuavuka Bulamaibau, Ruth Naomi Narawa, Shilpa Shupriya Lal, and Gabriel Jacob Selema Mara. NEPAL  aneer Lamichhane, Umesh Paudel, Tek Bahadur Gurung (National Trust for S Nature Conservation); Annu Rajbhandari and Sailja Shrestha, (World Bank). The dedicated and enthusiastic Nepal survey team includes: Animesh Shrestha, Saujan Khapung, Jeena Maharjan, Shikha Neupane, Pragya Joshi, Aashruti Tripathy, Pema Sherpa, Muna K.C., Rijan Upadhyay, Sonu Gurung, Pralita Rana Magar, Hrijata Dahal, Bidur Poudel and Rikesh Prasain from Kathmandu University. Co n t en t s ZAMBIA Dr. Chuma Simukonda, Miyanda Gwaba (Department of National Parks and Wildlife, Government of Zambia); Donald Banda (Chipata Town); Moses Saul Kaoma (Lower Zambezi National Park); Nathalie Johnson, and Hellen Mungaila (World Bank); Chiwala Matesamwa (Chiawa GMA); Alex Chidakel and Brian Child (University of Florida); Petros Muyunda and Choizya Mbewe; Ian Stevenson (Conservation Lower Zambezi); Keira Langford-Johnson (PROFLIGHT Zambia); Adrian Coley (Flatdogs Camp); Paul Barnes (Pioneer Camp); and Grant Cumings (Chiawa Camp). The dedicated and enthusiastic Zambian survey team included: Alick Bruce Makondo, Kenneth Mulenga, Sarai Sinyolo, Nozyenji Mwale, Janet Mulla, Chilufya Chisanga, Memory Bwalya, Liseli Moira Banda, Mwila Lunda, Margret Mbewe, Chipo Shimoomba, Christopher Chibwe, Keren Chakaba, and Vincent Katowa. Executive Summary Globally, biodiversity is imperiled. The 2020 which speaks to both crises, addressing Living Planet Index reported a 68 percent economic losses and promoting recovery average decline in birds, amphibians, mammals, through actions which simultaneously support fish, and reptiles since 1970; one third of the biodiversity conservation. Such a view brings world’s terrestrial protected areas are under the world’s protected areas into much-needed intense human pressure and about two-thirds of focus, as they are key to any global effort to the world’s oceans suffer from human impact, as contain biodiversity loss. Their role in doing so habitat loss and degradation, pollution, exploita- will be deliberated at the CBD COP-15 this year, tion, climate change and invasive species drive where threats to biodiversity and their impacts catastrophic biodiversity losses. on development will be stressed, and countries will be encouraged to set aside more land and Biodiversity matters because of its intrinsic marine areas for conservation. worth, and because ecosystem services, which depend upon biodiversity, underpin human well- How can countries address both crises? Can being and support economic activity in a range countries afford to bring even larger areas of sectors. Our survival is, finally, impossible under protection when the need for economic without intact natural landscapes and sea- recovery is so pressing, fiscal spaces are tight, scapes. Land- and marine-based ecosystems and so many development challenges persist? provide food, oxygen, water, carbon seques- This study set out to make the case that it is tration, resilience in the face of climate change, possible. That by promoting sustainable and and a buffer against pandemics. They also inclusive tourism in protected areas, countries foster economic activities such as tourism, which can respond to these escalating crises, recov- attract eight billion visitors to protected areas in er from the economic fallout of the pandemic, a typical year. The need to protect these natural address longstanding development challenges, areas has never been greater. and conserve biodiversity. At the same time, the COVID-19 pandemic has While governments see protected areas as key led to a deep global recession in which much to addressing biodiversity loss, protected areas economic activity has declined and govern- are often overlooked in economic develop- ments face increasing fiscal constraints and ment plans and economic recovery strategies. challenges in allocating scarce resources to One reason for this is that data gaps make it support the health, security, and development difficult to demonstrate protected area tour- of their populations. The tourism sector too, has ism’s far-reaching stimuli to national and local suffered significant setbacks. In tourism-depen- economies, especially in developing countries. dent economies in Africa and the Caribbean, Banking on Protected Areas study therefore for example, GDP is projected to shrink by 12 set out to quantify the impacts of protected percent. Additionally, many biodiversity-rich area tourism on local economies to show that protected areas are located in far-flung, neglect- protected areas promote conservation and ed rural regions, in which poverty is persistent. development. Often, protected areas around these rural The study explores economic impacts on local communities help leverage tourism to provide economies, as local economic development is the few avenues available to support livelihoods a goal in-and-of itself, and community support and address development challenges. is a critical concern for protected areas and is These intersecting calamities – a pandemic in needed to secure their long-term integrity. It a time of biodiversity loss – call for a response therefore estimates protected area tourism’s 10 BA NKI NG ON PROTE C TE D A RE A S economic costs and benefits to local com- How was the study done? munities, and explores how benefits may be increased and costs reduced. Four country case studies were undertaken: two in terrestrial protected areas in Zambia and At the same time, a key challenge for protected Nepal, and two in marine protected areas in areas is lack of finance. Research shows that Fiji and Brazil. While the number of countries poorly financed protected areas lose biodiver- is small, the case studies - from Latin America, sity through poaching, livestock incursions, land Africa, Small Island States, and Asia - cover a grabs, and illegal mining and logging; likewise, mix of economies, environments, and cultures. funding has been found to be the most robust Governments were consulted to select study predictor of successful ecological outcomes sites, and local students were trained to conduct in marine protected areas. Pre-pandemic surveys of tourists, lodges, businesses, and figures show a global biodiversity funding gap households. Information on production, income, of US$598–US$824 billion per year, a figure expenditure, and the locations of transactions mirrored for protected areas, which have lost was gathered, and in each country, partnerships further funding due to the pandemic. Thus, the with local universities grounded the case studies study argues strongly for public investment in in the socio-economic context. Study findings protected areas by providing estimated rates of were shared with stakeholders, both in-country return on investments. and globally, to enhance buy-in and quality. Tourism in protected areas triggers figure es-1 Economic Impact Pathways for Protected Areas economic activities, and as these activities expand, growing income Revenue sharing, community projects Environmental and expenditure increase the Impact b demand for goods and services. Contributions to the economy are direct in the form of visitor spend- ing on park fees, hotels, transport, PARK AUTHORITY, leisure and recreation, which create Businesses pay GOVERNMENT taxes and fees b employment and support local busi- a Pay non-consumptive nesses; while indirect effects occur a Pay a Park and consumptive fees Entrance Fee and taxes when tourism businesses and em- b Park hires guards or ployees further stimulate economic employs households for PA activities activity by using the services of other local businesses. These direct and indirect impacts converge on an income multiplier, which is defined a Protected Areas a as the change in local household Purchase goods Terrestrial / Marine Spend money on and services lodging, tourist TOURISM, incomes per unit of money entering HOUSEHOLDS LODGES AND OU activities the local economy through tourist G N BUSINESSES RIST S VISITI T spending, and is a measure of eco- nomic impact. A general equilibrium Wages paid to Purchase food, a workers employed model is needed to estimate these b,c goods and in tourism activities impacts, and the study adopts a services c Ex ecu tiv e Summary Local incomes increase; b Source goods model known as LEWIE - Local households spend and services Economy-Wide Impact Evaluation. their income to source goods The model attributes values to these multipliers for a range of simulat- ed, direct and spillover impacts, LOCAL FARMS AND BUSINESSES allowing users to: (1) describe the Trade with outside/ a non-local markets manner in which tourism stimulates local economies, (2) clarify returns on public investment in protected Direct Impact Legend of Pathways of Influence areas, (3) understand impacts of a. Direct impacts economic conflicts and shocks, and Indirect impact through b. Production linkages production linkages (4) estimate the effects of govern- c. Income and consumption linkages ment policies. Source: Adapted from Taylor and Filipski 2014. P RO MOT I N G S USTAIN AB L E PROTE CTE D AR E A TOU R IS M TO B ENE F IT LO CAL E CONOM I ES 11 figure es-2 Income Multipliers, 2019 What did the study find? 3.00 Tourism in protected areas generates significant income multipliers. Income 2.50 multipliers from tourism are greater than one in all country cases, showing that local market 2.00 Income multiplier linkages are strong, and amplify tourist spending (Figure ES-2); the multipliers also suggest that 1.50 income leakage from local economies is not considerable. Multipliers across the four country 1.00 1.83 cases are also consistent, suggesting that a 1.82 1.78 1.74 1.53 healthy protected area tourism sector provides 0.50 similar income gains to local households across a variety of contexts, despite variations in per 0.00 Zambia Zambia Nepal Brazil Fiji tourist spending and numbers of visitors. Lower Zambezi South Luangwa Chitwan Abrolhos Mamanuca National Park Marine Park Islands Benefits are broad and help the poor. The Source: World Bank study reveals that tourism benefits households directly involved in the tourism sector and those indirectly linked with the sector. Households figure es-3 Income Multipliers by Household Type, 2019 benefit directly and indirectly through pro- duction and income linkages - when tourism Poor Non-poor Island operators hire local people and buy local goods, and when households spend wages or 2 businesses spend profits earned through the 1.8 1.6 tourism sector. Study findings reveal that despite Income multiplier 1.4 the larger multiplier shares of non-poor house- 1.2 holds in most instances (Figure ES-3), tourism 1 appears to benefit the poor more, as normal- 0.8 izing multiplier shares by populations of poor 0.6 and non-poor residents (Figure ES-4) shows that 0.4 0.2 the multiplier shares per resident are higher for 0 poor residents than for non-poor in all country Lower South Chitwan Abrolhos Mamanuca case studies but one. Zambezi Luangwa National Park Marine Park Islands Tourism in protected areas also creates signifi- Zambia Nepal Brazil Fiji cant job opportunities. Jobs are created directly Source: World Bank through tourism activities, and indirectly by stimulating local economies. Beyond the number of jobs, the share of employment supported Figure es-4 Normalized Income Multipliers by Household Type, 2019 by the tourism sector is substantial. In Zambia, tourism in protected areas generated jobs for Poor Non-poor Island 14 and 30 percent of working age populations around the Lower Zambezi and South Luangwa 100% Parks, respectively. In Nepal, tourism-related E xe cu t iv e Summary jobs around Chitwan National Park are held by 80% Percentage of Multiplier 3 percent of the working age population, while 60% in Brazil’s coastal region this figure is 12 per- cent. Tourism in Fiji’s Mamanuca Islands created 40% 8,304 jobs (through direct and indirect channels), employing 13 percent of the local population in 20% the Mamanucas and adjoining coastal areas. The study accounts for jobs such as hotel employees, 0% tour operators, and restaurant workers, and those Lower South Chitwan Abrolhos Mamanuca Zambezi Luangwa National Park Marine Park Islands employed as a result of the increased demand Zambia Nepal Brazil Fiji for goods and services catalyzed by tourism in sectors such as retail, services, and in some Source: World Bank instances agriculture, livestock, and fishing. 12 BA NKI NG ON PROTE C TE D A RE A S Protected areas can impose costs on commu- million in Lower Zambezi, South Luangwa and nities which must be managed. Human-wildlife Chitwan National Parks, respectively. Similarly, conflict around terrestrial protected areas, and marine protected areas may cause short-term fishing restrictions in marine protected areas, income loss by restricting fishing, a major means can cause critical short-term income loss to of livelihood. Often, those suffering the negative households which should be mitigated through effects of proximity to protected areas may not avoidance measures and timely compensa- be major beneficiaries of tourism, and these im- tion. In 2019, wildlife caused crop losses of 14 balances should be redressed in order to build percent around the Lower Zambezi National much-needed community support. Park and 11 percent at South Luangwa National Public investment in protected areas pays off, Park in Zambia, and 9 percent around Chitwan and generates high economic returns. Rates National Park in Nepal. Over this period, these of return on government spending are signifi- losses were estimated at US$1.8, 1.2 and 2.9 cantly greater than one, making protected areas valuable economic assets. As noted, tourism figure es-5 Annual Estimated Rate of Return on Government triggers direct and indirect economic impacts in Spending, 2018–2019 local economies, which in turn generate rates of return on government spending of between 35 $6.2–$-28.2 for every public dollar invested. 30 This accrual of economic benefits relative to government investment in protected areas 25 Rate of Return reveals the potential of these areas to promote 20 green economic recovery and support sustain- 15 28.2 able development. 10 Together, these findings make the case for gov- 16.7 5 ernments to promote sustainable and inclusive 6.2 7.6 tourism in protected areas to stimulate econom- 0 ic growth and create jobs. Caution is warranted Zambia Zambia Brazil Nepal when drawing lessons from the four country Lower Zambezi South Luangwa Abrolhos Chitwan Marine Park National Park case studies, however. For example, because the study uses a static model, it cannot account Source: World Bank for fluctuations in natural resources which affect incomes, or the negative environmental impacts of tourism, both of which may reduce figure es-6 Framework for Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas the economic benefits of tourism in protected areas. Also, the model does not account for the value of other ecosystem services supplied by protected areas, the focus on local economies neglects the wider economic advantages of tourism, and lack of data prevents the mod- el from capturing all economic linkages and effects. These constraints, when addressed, will increase economic impacts. Finally, the results Ex ecu tiv e Summary cannot be easily generalized, as individual sites do not represent the entire protected area system in a given country, which may contain both tourist hotspots and areas in which tourism is not viable. Source: World Bank P RO MOT I N G S USTAIN AB L E PROTE CTE D AR E A TOU R IS M TO B ENE F IT LO CAL E CONOM I ES 13 What lessons can countries draw Monitor Visitors and Impacts. To make the from the study? case for public spending, and to aid planning, governments and conservation agencies should While the findings of this study cannot be ap- regularly assess the impacts of protected area plied to all protected areas, they offer lessons tourism, and use surveys to capture visitor num- from diverse settings from which policies can bers, tourist spending, and seasonal changes in be tailored. Central to all efforts, however, is tourism behavior. Such information can shape the need to fund and manage protected areas policies, improve tourist services, assist local well, promote tourism and diversify its offerings, communities, refine tourism business models, and share benefits with local communities fairly. and demonstrate the economic returns of in- Taken together, these three factors can enhance vesting in protected areas. development outcomes, secure biodiversity assets and support economic recovery from the pandemic. recommendation 2 Grow and Diversify the Business recommendation 1 Diversify Tourism Offerings. In many countries, Protect the Asset protected area tourism is focused on a few key locations, which concentrate both positive and Formalize Protected Areas. To protect these negative tourism impacts. In the countries fea- natural assets, it is necessary to formalize their tured in this study, this concentration of visitors status. Even if this action restricts resource use, at well-known sites makes it important to ex- such losses may be offset, as exploited wild pand the number of protected area sites, and to stocks recover and disperse under formal pro- select priority sites on the basis of road access, tection. Formalization also confers authority on security, biodiversity, landscape attractions, and governments to raise environmental standards local stakeholder interest in tourism. To dilute and reduce the negative impacts of tourism, negative impacts, the study also advocates the and this demonstrated commitment to conser- selection of an expanded network of protected vation can stimulate private sector investment in areas for phased tourism development, based tourism services. on various desirability and feasibility criteria Increase Public Investment in Protected Area through which sites can be ranked to identify Management. The study advocates strongly for optimal opportunities for private sector partici- investment in protected area management; and pation and community benefits. to accomplish this, it supports the use of finan- Develop Concessions Policies. Another cial instruments such as public budgets, as well means to promote tourism in protected areas as innovative mechanisms to tap private sector is through concessioning, which can enhance resources such as conservation trust funds, park operations through managing and financing carbon finance, conservation bonds and collab- infrastructure, and providing services such as orative public-private management partnerships. accommodation, food, merchandise, recreational Build Capacity of Protected Area Managers. activities, rental equipment, and transport. Similar To deliver the benefits described in this study, approaches to outsource tourism development protected areas must be well managed, and may include leases, management contracts, and the underlying factors associated with poor licensing, and such mechanisms should stipulate key terms and conditions for business operation, E xe cu t iv e Summary performance must be addressed. Successful protected areas have qualified managers who such as duration, type of operation, environmen- understand protected area laws and policies, tal conditions, and fees for access. Concessions and the business needs of tourism operators programs should include strong protected and commercial entities. For example, managing area laws and regulations, public support for commercial visitor services requires abilities that proposed commercial activities, demonstrat- go beyond the skills of wildlife management, ed economic benefits, stakeholder input into and this capacity must be built. concession operations, and legal frameworks to support implementing agencies. 14 BA NKI NG ON PROTE C TE D A RE A S recommendation 3 and help to secure support for conservation Share the Benefits from local communities who are critical ben- eficiaries and conservation allies. The study Formalize Benefit Sharing. As noted, protected stresses the need for well-managed compensa- area neighbors are essential stakeholders, and tion payouts that are timely and transparent. The sharing benefits in these communities across determination of losses to park neighbors, such poor and non-poor households is key to main- as crop losses, is very difficult, and the study taining protected area integrity. Perhaps most also advocates further research, standardized importantly, these benefits should be distributed methods for estimating crop losses, and local fairly by including the poor and disadvantaged, level management actions, such as seasonal and the study recommends that policies be fences and the corralling of livestock, to mitigate put in place to enable this. Advocated benefit losses and build park-neighbor relations. sharing approaches include direct and indirect employment, revenue sharing by protected In conclusion, the pandemic has affected econ- area authorities, revenue sharing schemes from omies globally, leading to large losses in tourism tourism businesses and partnerships, sustain- revenue, and a weakened, under-financed able utilization of plants and animals, and shared conservation sector at a time of unprecedented decision making and capacity building. threats to the biosphere. In such a context, the message of this study is crucial – countries must Strengthen Income Multipliers. Because champion sustainable and inclusive tourism in tourism is the strongest lever for delivering protected areas in order to recover from the protected area benefits to communities, govern- pandemic, conserve biodiversity, and promote ments should assist households to participate in sustainable development. This study reveals the tourism economy through entrepreneurship that conserving biodiversity and promoting tour- training, skills development, credit services and ism can together be compatible with a green, logistics; governments should also support busi- post-pandemic revival that is driven by govern- ness diversification, and local procurement to ments and the private sector, and yield high strengthen linkages in local economies, prevent returns from protected area investments. And in leakage and increase multipliers. responding to a pandemic that has heightened Mitigate and Compensate for Human-Wildlife awareness of inequality, protected area tourism Conflict. Mitigation and compensation are should distribute its benefits fairly in response fundamental to managing human-wildlife conflict to development needs, and losses incurred by protected area stakeholders. Ex ecu tiv e Summary P RO MOT I N G S USTAIN AB L E PROTE CTE D AR E A TOU R IS M TO B ENE F IT LO CAL E CONOM I ES 15 E xe cu t iv e Summary 16 BA NKI NG ON PROTE C TE D A RE A S 1 Introduction In tro duc tio n P RO MOT I N G S USTAIN AB L E PROTE CTE D AR E A TOU R IS M TO B ENE F IT LO CAL E CONOM I ES 17 1.1 the state of biodiversity Biodiversity has been declining globally at an billion people depend on marine and coastal alarming rate. Scientists warn that the world may biodiversity for their livelihoods (UNDP n.d.) be in the midst of its sixth mass extinction event, and around 1 billion people depend to some this time caused by human activity (Barnosky extent on wild meat, plants, mushrooms and et al. 2011; Ceballos, Ehrlich, and Raven 2020; fish (FAO and UNEP 2020). Biodiversity and Wake and Vredenburg 2008). A recent report of ecosystem services also underpin a significant the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform number of jobs. Around 60 million people are on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) employed worldwide in fishing and fish-farming - Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and (FAO 2020), and an estimated 45 million jobs Ecosystem Services (IPBES 2019) - estimates are provided by the formal forest sector (FAO that over one million species are threatened with and UNEP 2020). Biodiversity and healthy extinction. The 2020 Living Planet Index reported ecosystems mitigate climate change, while the an average decline of 68 percent in monitored conversion of these systems increasingly risks vertebrate species populations between 1970 spillovers i.e. the emergence of zoonotic diseas- and 2016 (WWF 2020), while only three percent es in humans (Gibb et al. 2020). of the ocean was free from human pressure in The greatest pressures on biodiversity stem 2014 (IPBES 2019). from habitat loss, fragmentation, and degrada- Biodiversity matters because of its intrinsic tion (IPBES 2019). Land use change has caused value, and because biodiversity and ecosys- 70 percent of global biodiversity loss (WWF tem services underpin human well-being, 2020). Demand for agricultural land to meet livelihoods, and many of the Sustainable growing food needs has degraded land sur- Development Goals. As biodiversity declines, rounding protected areas, leading to reductions so does the health of ecosystems on which key in species richness and abundance (Newbold et sectors such as agriculture, fisheries, and water al. 2014). Studies also show the impact of roads utilities rely. Moreover, conserving biodiversity and infrastructure development on species is important for the world’s poor because their decline (Benítez-López, Alkemade, and Verweij livelihoods are linked to and dependent on 2010). Other threats to biodiversity include natural ecosystems, and renewable natural over-exploitation of natural resources (including capital makes up 23 percent of the wealth in hunting, fishing, and logging), pollution, invasive low-income countries (World Bank forthcoming). species, and climate change (IPBES 2019) (see Forests and trees provide vital resources to 1.3 Figure 1) (WWF 2020). Similarly, threats to marine billion people (World Bank 2016b), over three ecosystems include pollution, overfishing, and figure 1 Drivers of Species Decline for Animal Groups In t ro duc tio n Birds Habitat degradation/loss Mammals Exploitation Invasive species & disease Fishes Pollution Climate change Reptiles and amphibians 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Source: WWF 2018 18 BA NKI NG ON PROTE C TE D A RE A S marine litter. Climate change is expected to drive The year 2020 was positioned to be a “su- biodiversity loss, intensify other drivers, and lead per year” for biodiversity. A number of global to higher extinction rates (Newbold 2018). conferences, including the Fifteenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP-15) of These threats are significant. One third of the the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), world’s terrestrial protected areas—2.3 million were planned to stress threats to biodiversity square miles—are threatened by road expan- and their impacts on development. COP-15 sion, grazing, and urbanization (Jones et al. aimed to bring countries together to examine 2018), while about two-thirds of the world’s progress toward the Aichi Biodiversity Targets oceans showed signs of increased human and to negotiate a post-2020 global biodiver- impact between 2008 and 2013 (Halpern et sity framework (CBD 2019) to address growing al. 2015), with climate change driving most of threats. The delayed CBD COP-15 will now be these impacts (IPCC 2019). Over 30 percent of held in 2021 and will deliberate the key roles of fisheries are overfished (FAO 2020). An average protected areas in conserving biodiversity and of 13,000 pieces of plastic litter can be found addressing global biodiversity decline. on every square kilometer of ocean (UNDP n.d.) and it is estimated that 4.8–12.7 million metric tons of plastic waste enters the oceans every year (Jambeck et al. 2015). 1.2 benefits of protected areas Protected areas, defined by IUCN as “area[s] of the carbon sequestered by all land ecosys- of land and/or sea especially dedicated to tems (Melillo et al. 2016). Fully protected marine the protection and maintenance of biological areas also build resilience against the effects of diversity, and of natural and associated cultural climate change (Roberts et al. 2017). resources, and managed through legal or other Protected areas also support development and effective means,” are critical to maintaining the are informally dubbed as “engines of develop- earth’s biodiversity. Protected areas conserve ment,” because of their economic contribution biodiversity, maintain habitats and species pop- to communities living around them (den Braber, ulations, and confer resilience to climate change Evans, and Oldekop 2018; Ferraro, Hanauer, (Duraiappah et al. 2005; Edgar et al. 2014; and Sims 2011). Naidoo et al. (2019) analyzed Geldmann et al. 2013; Leverington et al. 2010; socioeconomic and health data for 87,033 chil- Melillo et al. 2016; Roberts et al. 2017; Watson dren and 60,041 households in 34 developing et al. 2014). These areas provide ecosystem countries and concluded that people living near services such as food and water, sediment protected areas are better off; households near retention, and carbon storage. Well-managed protected areas were on average 20 percent marine protected areas have been shown to wealthier, had a 26 percent lower probability of have five times more large fish biomass and being poor than those farther away, and were fourteen times more shark biomass than fished healthier. Protection of poor areas has also been areas (Edgar et al. 2014). In addition, protected found to reduce both poverty and deforestation, areas provide landscape immunity1 in the form on average (Ferraro, Hanauer, and Sims 2011). of undisturbed habitats which separate people In tro duc tio n A study in Nepal showed that protected areas and wildlife, and from which zoonoses are less reduce poverty without increasing inequality, and likely (Reaser, Tabor, et al. 2020). With increas- that these benefits were greater when a larger ing urbanization, the role of protected areas in proportion of the area was protected (den Braber, providing clean water is significant, as a third of Evans, and Oldekop 2018). Marine protected the world’s 100 largest cities rely on protected areas, too, reduce poverty through improved fish areas for drinking water (Dudley and Stolton catches, benefits to health and women (Leisher, 2003). Terrestrial protected areas also seques- Van Beukering, and Scherl 2007), and improved ter 0.5 Pg C annually—approximately one-fifth human well-being (Ban et al. 2019). 1 J. Reaser et al., (2020) define ‘landscape immunity’ as the ecological conditions that, in combination, maintain and strengthen the immune function of wildlife within an ecosystem. P RO MOT I N G S USTAIN AB L E PROTE CTE D AR E A TOU R IS M TO B ENE F IT LO CAL E CONOM I ES 19 Many countries also reap the benefits of na- in the Volcanoes National Park is now the ture-based tourism, and from the perspective country’s largest source of foreign exchange, of this report, such tourism arguably constitutes generating US$200 million annually (Maekawa the single strongest lever to achieve sustain- et al. 2013). Australia’s Great Barrier Reef has able development goals through conservation. been valued at AU$56 billion, contributes Protected areas receive 8 billion visits a year AU$6.4 billion per year to the economy and (Balmford et al. 2015) and before the COVID-19 supports 64,000 jobs (Deloitte 2017). According pandemic, tourism, including in protected areas, to the OECD, it is projected that ocean-based was a rapidly growing economic sector, provid- industries such as marine and coastal tourism ing 1 in 10 jobs globally (WTTC 2019b). Tourism will double their contribution to global val- not only creates jobs through employment in ho- ue-added tourism by 2030 (OECD 2016). Global tels and hospitality services, but also generates coral reef tourism is valued at US$36 billion per park fees and other resources for conservation year—the equivalent of about 70 million tourist and community development. In many develop- visits to reefs (Spalding et al. 2017). In Africa, ing countries, income derived from protected a burgeoning wildlife economy contributes to areas is important to the economy (Balmford et employment and revenues through diverse ac- al. 2009). In the Galapagos, tourism contributed tivities (see Box 1) (Snyman et al. 2021), and such to a 78 percent growth in income over six years, nature-based tourism offers countries a means creating the fastest growing economy in the to use natural resources to pursue sustainable world (Taylor, Hardner, and Stewart 2009) over development. this period. In Rwanda, mountain gorilla trekking box 1 Wildlife-Based A wildlife economy is defined as Wildlife economy sectors and related activities Economy in Africa “wildlife, plants and animals (marine and terrestrial), as an economic SECTOR WILDLIFE ECONOMY ACTIVITIES asset to create value that aligns with conservation objectives and Agriculture Game farming and ranching; live capture delivers sustainable growth and and sale; cropping and culling; wild harvest- economic development” (Snyman ing; crops and livestock et al. 2021). This includes consump- Tourism Wildlife-based tourism; coastal tourism; tive and non-consumptive uses, as recreation; sport fishing described in Table 1. Energy Hydro-electric; wave energy In South Africa, for example, wildlife Fisheries Multiple use of marine resources; freshwater may be farmed on private land, fisheries; aquaculture and fish ranching; which has led to an increase in subsistence fishing game farming and growth in the wildlife economy. It is estimated Forestry Timber; non-timber forest products that the informal African Traditional Health Bioprospecting Medicine industry is valued at about US$1.4 billion per year; in Trade and Commercial film and photography; wildlife 2018, South African National Parks Industry products; bioprospecting; nature-based car- (SANParks) revenue from the sale of bon credits; other payments for ecosystem fauna and flora was US$1.3 million, services; real estate and between 2005 and 2014, the Other Education; research, including research value of South Africa’s exports of involving off-take; cultural activities; religious CITES*-listed species was estimated activities In t ro duc tio n at US$1.1 billion. Source: Snyman et al. 2021 20 BA NKI NG ON PROTE C TE D A RE A S 1.3 protected area coverage In recognizing the need to protect biodiversity landscape and seascape.” While this target has and nature, and the role of protected areas not been fully met, countries have made signif- in meeting this goal, several countries have icant progress, setting aside approximately 15 increased terrestrial and marine areas under percent of the planet’s land and 7.6 percent of protection over the past decade (see Figure 2). its oceans (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2020; see In part, these increases reflect countries’ Figure 3). The post-2020 framework is expected commitments to the CBD Aichi Biodiversity to be ambitious, and to call on countries to set Target 11 to conserve by 2020: “at least 17% aside more land for protection and biodiversity of terrestrial and inland water areas and 10% conservation. Additionally, since 2018, other of coastal and marine areas, especially areas effective area-based conservation measures of particular importance for biodiversity and (OECM)2 have been recognized as essential to ecosystem services, through effectively and achieve conservation targets outside of protect- equitably managed, ecologically representa- ed area networks. As of September 2020, there tive and well-connected systems of protected are 146 OECMs covering almost 61,000 km² of areas and other effective area-based conser- land and over 273,000 km² of ocean (Dudley et vation measures and integrated into the wider al. 2018). 1.4 protected area challenges While Figure 3 suggests significant areas under and counterfeiting activities. Challenges to protection, such areas face challenges which combatting wildlife crime include weak legis- severely limit their efficacy. For example, in the lation and limited law enforcement capacity Pacific Ocean’s Coral Triangle, an assessment of (UNODC 2020). Wildlife crime is a growing coral reefs in marine protected areas found that threat to wildlife in protected areas. There are only 1 percent of these areas were effectively reports of increased poaching and exploitation managed (Burke et al. 2011). Poor management of natural resources in Asia and southern and of protected areas can lead to deforestation, eastern Africa (Hockings, Dudley, and Elliott which may lead to a loss of formal protection 2020). Poaching in marine protected areas as a through downsizing or degazetting (Mascia and result of poor enforcement has also been doc- Pailler 2011; Tesfaw et al. 2018). umented (Bergseth et al. 2018). A World Bank study found that over the period 2010–2016 An analysis of the Global Database on Protected more than US$2.35 billion was invested in Area Management Effectiveness reported that combatting the illegal wildlife trade in Africa and less than a quarter of protected areas had ade- Asia, US$948 million of which was dedicated quate staff and budgets (Coad et al. 2019), and to protected area management as a strategy to that this hampered conservation, habitat man- reduce poaching (World Bank 2016a). This is a agement, patrolling, community engagement, small amount compared to the estimated costs and wildlife monitoring. Other challenges relat- of illegal logging, fishing and trade in wildlife ed to lack of management plans, equipment and which are estimated to be over US$1 trillion infrastructure, while the size and designation In tro duc tio n annually3 (World Bank 2019a). Illegal fishing is of protected areas may also limit conservation responsible for the loss of 11–26 million tons of outcomes (Hockings 2006). fish each year, equivalent to US$10–23 billion The illegal wildlife trade is the fourth larg- (FAO 2019). est global criminal enterprise, exceeded Competition over natural resources intensifies in value only by drug, human trafficking, the challenges to protected area management. 2 An OECM is a geographically defined area other than a Protected Area, managed to achieve sustained, long-term, in-situ conservation of biodiversity, ecosystem functions and services; and, where applicable, cultural, spiritual, and socio–economic values (CBD, 2018). 3 More than 90 percent of these losses are from ecosystem services that forests, wildlife and coastal resources provide, and that are not currently priced by the market, such as carbon storage, biodiversity, water filtration, and flood retention (World Bank 2019a). P RO MOT I N G S USTAIN AB L E PROTE CTE D AR E A TOU R IS M TO B ENE F IT LO CAL E CONOM I ES 21 Figure 2 Growth in Protected Areas since 2010 In t ro duc tio n Source: UNEP-WCMC and IUCN 2020 22 BA NKI NG ON PROTE C TE D A RE A S Figure 3 Terrestrial and Marine Protected Area Percentages Per Country In tro duc tio n Source: Adapted from Maxwell et al. (2020), using data from UNEP-WCMC and IUCN 2020. Note: The figure is showing the increase in area coverage (%) per year for marine and terrestrial protect- ed-area estates for countries >25,000 km². P RO MOT I N G S USTAIN AB L E PROTE CTE D AR E A TOU R IS M TO B ENE F IT LO CAL E CONOM I ES 23 figure 4 Concentration of Biodiversity in the Tropics In Latin America, large scale habitat loss from Species density distribution cross the world agricultural expansion, infrastructure develop- ment, cattle ranching, and fires threaten fragile AMPHIBIANS ecosystems. Human encroachment is increasing across the world’s protected areas as well. In sub-Saharan Africa, cropland coverage inside protected areas has increased at nearly double the rate of coverage in non-protected areas. In Latin America, outside the Amazon biome, agricultural pressure increased by 10 percent in protected areas (Geldmann et al. 2019). Poor management can also increase human-wild- life conflict, leading to loss of livelihoods for communities living near protected areas, loss of wildlife through retaliation, and diminishing sup- port for conservation (Hill, Osborn, and Plumptre 2002). Over 75 percent of the world’s felid species are at risk through human-wildlife conflict BIRDS (Inskip and Zimmermann  2009). Lack of finance and community engagement to support conservation are likely the most critical challenges to the management of protected areas and are discussed below. 1.4.1 Protected Area Funding Research in marine protected areas has shown that funding is the most robust predictor of suc- cess for ecological outcomes (Gill et al. 2017), and that poorly financed protected areas lose biodiversity through poaching, livestock incursions, land grabs, and illegal mining and logging. Broadly, the global biodiversity funding gap MAMMALS Source: Pirlea et al. 2020 hovers between US$598 billion and US$824 billion per year (Deutz et al. 2020), and these gaps are mirrored for protected areas, which are underfunded worldwide (Coad et al. 2019; Gill et al. 2017; IUCN ESARO 2020; Waldron et al. 2017; Watson et al. 2014). Nearly all protected areas in Africa are inadequately funded, and a deficit of US$1 billion annually must be addressed to save iconic species and landscapes (Lindsey et al. 2018). Protected areas in Latin America In t ro duc tio n are under-funded by approximately US$700 million annually, and this figure is likely to grow (Bovarnick et al. 2010). The funding needed for a global network of marine protected areas cov- ering 20–30 percent of the seas is estimated to be between US$5 and US$19 billion per year (Balmford et al. 2004). 24 BA NKI NG ON PROTE C TE D A RE A S figure 5 Global Distribution of Extreme Poverty Source: World Bank 2018 1.4.2 Community Benefits of tourism revenues in the local economy (Rylance and Spenceley 2017). The tropics are home to a large share of the world’s biodiversity, as seen in Figure 4 (Barlow Many governments recognize the importance et al. 2018; Raven et al. 2020). Areas in these of benefit-sharing mechanisms4 (see Box 3) latitudes also have high levels of poverty to garner local support for protected areas (Figure 5). The relationship between protected (Spenceley, Snyman, and Rylance 2019), but areas and poverty is, however, complex. Many even established mechanisms may fail to deliver poor, rural communities depend upon natural re- benefits (Spenceley, Snyman, and Rylance 2019) sources for food, fuel, and livelihoods, and may for reasons including, but not limited to (i) exces- be prevented from harvesting these resources sive bureaucratic processes, (ii) poorly designed from protected areas; in the short term this may mechanisms in which benefits do not off-set lead to a loss of support for conservation. costs of conservation, are low, or are captured by elites, or (iii) lack of agreement on means of Local communities may bear other costs of bio- disbursement and recipients. It is also important diversity conservation, such as changes in land to note that benefits of living around protected tenure or governance, displacement, and the areas accrue collectively, while costs are borne costs of human-wildlife conflict (see Box 2). by individual households (Munanura et al. 2016). In tro duc tio n In the absence of benefits from protected-ar- Research indicates that equitable and transpar- ea tourism, communities bearing the costs of ent benefit-sharing may advance development human-wildlife conflict are unlikely to support and conservation goals (Snyman and Bricker conservation, while the loss of tourism reve- 2019), and that conservation and socioeconom- nues from local economies, known as revenue ic gains are more likely when protected areas leakage, may further alienate local communities. pursue co-management, reduce economic in- In Uganda’s Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, equalities, empower local people, offer cultural tourism leakage was estimated at over 75 per- benefits and reduce negative livelihood impacts cent (Sandbrook 2010), while in Botswana, value (Oldekop et al. 2016). chain analysis showed only 37 percent retention 4 Benefit sharing mechanisms include tangible benefits such as jobs, direct income, and revenue sharing from park entrance fees; and intangible benefits include capacity building, skills training, and cultural benefits (Spenceley, Snyman, and Rylance 2019). P RO MOT I N G S USTAIN AB L E PROTE CTE D AR E A TOU R IS M TO B ENE F IT LO CAL E CONOM I ES 25 box 2 Human-Wildlife Conflict Costs to Local Communities Human-wildlife conflicts typically occur in the park over six months was US$74 (1.5 percent agricultural and production landscapes which of median household capital asset wealth). are near protected areas. The impacts of Approximately 73 percent of respondents expe- human-wildlife conflict include, but are not rienced crop raids in which 45 percent of their limited to, loss of livelihoods from crop raiding, maize was lost to animals from the protected livestock depredation, damage to property and/ area (Mackenzie and Ahabyona 2012). or loss of life. Global estimates of the costs of human-wildlife In Bhutan, a survey of 274 households living conflict are not available, and only 10 percent near the Jigme Singye Wangchuck National of studies on this topic have quantified its Park reported a yearly average financial loss economic impacts (Inskip and Zimmermann equal to 17 percent of the total per capita cash 2009). These studies reveal that (i) direct costs income due to livestock predation (Wang and are unevenly distributed within communities Macdonald 2006). Around Chebera-Churchura (Thirgood, Woodroffe, and Rabinowitz 2005); National Park in Ethiopia, a study of 145 house- (ii) individual/household losses may be severe holds estimated economic losses of US$75,234 (Woodroffe et al. 2005); and (iii) economic costs caused by wildlife between 2007–2011, with 30 only partially describe social and cultural im- percent of livestock lost over a three year period pacts because livestock and produce are forms (Acha, Temesgen, and Bauer 2018). In Uganda, of wealth which enhance resilience (Dickman, a survey around Kibale National Park estimated Macdonald, and Macdonald 2011). that the average financial loss for farmers around box 3 Efforts to Share Benefits from Tourism in Protected Areas in Africa To work towards a pro-poor distribution of ben- revenue shares of 7.5–25 percent of fees from efits, governments in several African countries tourism and hunting benefit local communi- have instituted mechanisms to share a per- ties through development projects such as centage of park and protected area entry fees schools, clinics, bridges, water infrastructure, In t ro duc tio n with neighboring communities. These funds are and training programs (Mtui 2007). In Rwanda’s typically invested in local projects rather than National Parks, a 2005 scheme distributed 5 distributed as direct cash transfers (Mitchell and percent of park revenues through local districts Ashley 2009). (Verdugo 2007), while in Namibia, members of the Namibia Association of Community In Kenya, local governments distribute ap- Based Natural Resource Management Support proximately 19 percent of tourism revenues Organizations (NACSO) receive up to 40 under their jurisdictions to local communities percent of revenues from community conser- living next to protected areas including Maasai vancies in the form of cash incomes, game Mara National Reserve, Lake Bogoria National meat, or development projects (IUCN ESARO Reserve, and Samburu National Reserve. 2020). Spenceley, Snyman, and Rylance In parks run by the Kenya Wildlife Service, (2019) describe many more African exam- a percentage of park fees is invested in ples of revenue sharing between protected community projects through their Community area authorities/tourism businesses and local Service department (Weru 2007). In Tanzania, communities. 26 BA NKI NG ON PROTE C TE D A RE A S 1.5 rationale for the study Government spending is generally determined protected areas, and thus, a major objective of by limited resources and competing demands, this report is to describe these benefits to local and under such conditions, governments may economies in order to advance the case for be reluctant to invest in protected areas if they investment in conservation. Tourism activities in are unable to quantify the economic returns protected areas vary depending upon the IUCN provided by such areas to local and national designation of the protected area (see Figure 6). economies. If returns on public investment are In 2018, for example, wildlife tourism contributed not demonstrated, this reinforces the perception US$120.1 billion in GDP to the global economy that protected areas “do not pay for themselves” and sustained 21.8 million jobs (WTTC 2019a). An and that funding protected areas funds only analysis of over 240 protected areas, covering conservation. Thus, it is crucial to be able to 40 million hectares, in seven countries in eastern demonstrate to governments that investing in and southern Africa (Kenya, Tanzania, South protected areas helps economic growth, and Africa, Namibia, Eswatini, Uganda and Ethiopia) that protected area tourism can advance sustain- found that nature-based tourism accounted able development agendas. for approximately 80 percent of the income In countries where returns on protected area generated by protected areas (IUCN ESARO investments are tracked, governments have 2020) (see Figure 7). Such evidence strength- found wide-reaching benefits. The United States, ens the economic case for public investment for instance, invests US$3 billion annually in in protected areas, much like investments in its national park system which contributes up roads and other forms of public infrastructure to US$20 billion to GDP via visitor spending in and assets needed for development. Describing gateway communities (Cullinane Thomas and the other benefits of protected areas to local Koontz 2020). Similarly, Parks Canada gener- economies, including ecosystem services, ated returns to GDP of US$3.1 billion, and tax biodiversity conservation, habitat support, and revenues of almost US$0.4 billion for a public climate co-benefits, is beyond the scope of this investment of approximately US$1 billion (Parks work. The second main objective of this study is Canada Agency 2019). In countries across to understand how tourism helps local communi- southern Africa, nature-based tourism reportedly ties, the ripple effects these benefits produce in generates revenues comparable to farming, for- local economies, and how these benefits can be estry, and fisheries combined (Scholes and Biggs improved and equitably distributed. 2004). Such evidence vindicates government It is important to note that tourism is not a pana- investment in national parks and other protected cea for challenges faced by protected areas. Not area systems, and advances conservation and all protected areas can attract tourists, who avoid development goals. However, such evidence is some destinations out of concern for safety, lack often lacking in developing countries. In tro duc tio n of infrastructure, or accessibility. The growth Tourism in protected areas is arguably the most of protected area tourism may also generate important lever to deliver economic bene- adverse impacts such as degradation of habitats fits such as jobs to communities living near and pollution (Newsome and Hughes 2018), and this study draws attention to these impacts where possible, and offers recommendations objectives of the report to manage them. The role of private finance will » To assess the effects of protected area tourism on local economies be key in addressing significant resource gaps » To estimate the benefits of tourism for local communities and to explore for biodiversity conservation. While beyond the how these benefits can be improved scope of this study, we draw attention to the re- » To assess the impact of COVID-19 and potential for green recovery port: ‘Mobilizing Private Finance for Nature’ (see Box 4), which addresses this topic. P RO MOT I N G S USTAIN AB L E PROTE CTE D AR E A TOU R IS M TO B ENE F IT LO CAL E CONOM I ES 27 figure 6 IUCN Protected Area Categories IUCN Protected Area Primary goal and protected value(s) Approach to tourism and visitor use Category* Ia) Strict Nature Reserve Biodiversity or geoheritage protection • Public access only possible through organized scientific, citizen (ecological and scientific values) science or volunteer service programs Ib) Wilderness Area Protection of the natural character • Low-density, self-reliant visitor use is often a management and condition of unmodified or slightly objective modified areas (wilderness and • Restricted public access in terms of amount of use, group size, ecological values) activity, etc. • Tourism activity limited and highly regulated (e.g., through special use permits) II) National Park Protection of an ecosystem and its • Visitor use and experience is often a management objective large-scale ecological processes • A range of recreation opportunities typically provided through (ecological, recreation, and zoning, facility development, and visitor services (countries have community values) marked differences in their attitudes to tourism accommodation within protected areas) III) Natural Monument Conservation of specific natural • Visitor use and experience is often a management objective features (ecological, recreation, and • Recreation opportunities are typically provided to facilitate community values) feature protection and public understanding IV) Habitat/ Species Conservation through management • Recreation visitation and commercial tourism are usually Management Area intervention (ecological, community, management objectives and recreation values) • A range of recreation opportunities is provided with associated facilities and services • Commercial tourism common for wildlife viewing V) Protected Landscape/ Landscape/ seascape conservation • Tourism is usually a management objective Seascape (community, ecological, and recreation • A range of recreation opportunities is provided with associated values) facilities and services • Commercial tourism common VI) Managed Resource Sustainable use of natural ecosystems • Recreation visitation and commercial tourism can be key Protected Area (community, recreation, and ecological objectives values) • A range of recreation opportunities is provided with associated facilities and services • Commercial tourism common Source: World Bank 2020c figure 7 Tourism Generates Approximately 80% of All Revenues from Protected Areas in Eastern and Southern Africa 1% Shop/ Merchandise sales 2% Hunting 1% Revenue Harvesting and sales of natural products 15% In t ro duc tio n Other 0% Carbon credits, biodiversity o sets, other PES 81% 0% Tourism Filming and revenue photography Source: Adapted from IUCN ESARO 2020 Note: Countries included in the figure are Ethiopia, Eswatini, Kenya, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, and Uganda 28 BA NKI NG ON PROTE C TE D A RE A S This study comes at a time when the economic systems and decades-long efforts to promote fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic is jeopardizing conservation. Additionally, communities around conversation efforts, and has impacted tourism protected areas, many of whom are extremely worldwide. The real GDP for tourism-dependent poor, and depend on benefits from tourism, are economies in Africa and the Caribbean nations burdened with the loss of these benefits. Thus, is projected to shrink by 12 percent (IMF 2020) an additional objective was added to this report: against a projected global average contraction to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandem- of 4.4 percent. The tourism sector is the largest ic on tourism in selected sites and propose a market-based contributor to protected area pathway for green recovery. financing (Spenceley, Snyman, and Eagles 2017), The audience for this report is wide ranging, and thus, its decline will jeopardize conservation, from policy makers in low and middle-income protected area management and the financial countries, especially from the Ministries of stability of the conservation sector (Peter Lindsey Finance, Economic Planning, Tourism, and the et al. 2020). As the pandemic has tragically Environment; to conservation practitioners, tour- demonstrated, over-dependence on tourism to ism operators, civil society organizations, and fund basic conservation activities can lead to donors who wish to support protected areas. financial losses which jeopardize protected area box 4. Opportunities to Mobilize Private Finance for Nature A 2020 World Bank report, ‘Mobilizing Private Finance for Nature’, flags the need to attract private finance to address the systemic impacts on economies of the rapid loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services. While public sector financing is insufficient in the face of this challenge, the report highlights the role of the public sector to support an enabling and incentivized regulatory environment, to provide data, and to help investors understand the value of nature and the financial and economic risks associated with its loss. The report highlights the growing private sector interest in—and capital available for—biodiversi- ty financing, and notes the approaches that are emerging to address the challenges investors face – namely, lack of steady cashflows, below-market returns, and the small scale and heterogeneity of conservation initiatives. Examples include PPPs which blend conservation efforts with commercial nature-based activities, or increase the flow of capital to conservation via diverse commercial revenue streams such as the sale of carbon credits in the voluntary carbon market, tourism projects, and sustainable agriculture, often working with local communities. Private sector stakeholders are also working with public sector managers to attract new sources of revenue for conservation projects In tro duc tio n and to manage them more effectively. Innovative financing mechanisms, including environmental impact bonds and insurance (such as the para- metric coral reef insurance policy in Quintana Roo, Mexico) can broaden the investor base and reduce funding shortfalls. Source: World Bank Group 2020a P RO MOT I N G S USTAIN AB L E PROTE CTE D AR E A TOU R IS M TO B ENE F IT LO CAL E CONOM I ES 29 In t ro duc tio n 30 BA NKI NG ON PROTE C TE D A RE A S 2 Assessing the Economic Impacts A sse s sin g the Ec on o mic Impact s P RO MOT I N G S USTAIN AB L E PROTE CTE D AR E A TOU R IS M TO B ENE F IT LO CAL E CONOM I ES 31 Four country case studies were undertaken to pursue the objectives of the report as given in Box 5. Criteria for Site Selection the previous section. Two of these case studies i. Tourism numbers are sufficient for sampling focused on terrestrial protected areas – in purposes Zambia and Nepal – and two focused on marine ii. Site is a formally designated protected area or protected areas (MPAs) – in Fiji and Brazil (see in the process of registration Table 1). This global report synthesizes the find- iii. Government buy-in and/or recommendation ings of the four country case studies, each of for the site which is also available as a standalone report. iv. Manageable logistics for site visits These four countries cover a mix of economies, environments and cultures. Ongoing World Bank engagements on protected areas and tourism helped to align this study with existing priori- ties, and protected area sites were selected in consultation with governments. The criteria for selecting the sites are provided (see Box 5). Furthermore, in each country, the study focused on one or two protected areas due to financial, logistical and time constraints. At the same time, the intent was to pilot a robust methodology, build local capacity, and formalize methods for similar studies globally. table 1 Protected Area Study Sites M A R I N E P R OT E C T E D AR EAS TER R ESTR IAL PR OTEC TED AR EAS BRAZIL NEPAL Abrolhos Marine National Chitwan National Park, Park, IUCN Category II IUCN Category II A s se s sin g the Ec on o mic Impact s FIJI ZAMBIA Tavarua, Navini, and Lower Zambezi National Malolo (Mamanuca Park, IUCN Category II Islands archipelago) South Luangwa National Park, IUCN Category II 32 BA NKI NG ON PROTE C TE D A RE A S 2.1 methodology 2.1.1 Estimating the Economic Impact and national levels. Some of the more common of Tourism in Protected Areas approaches are input-output models, Keynesian multiplier models, social accounting matrix mod- To estimate the economic impact of tourism els, computable general equilibrium modelling, in protected areas, it is necessary to assess tourism satellite accounting modelling, and tourism’s direct and indirect contributions to value chain analysis (see Table 2). economic growth. Contributions to the economy are direct in the form of visitor spending on park There is no single, standard method to study fees, hotels, transport, leisure and recreation, the impacts of tourism, and research in this field which create local employment; indirect effects must tailor approaches to the environmental occur when tourism businesses and employees and social contexts in which tourism occurs. further stimulate economic activity by using the Differences between approaches are high- services of other local businesses. lighted in Table 3, which presents the results of studies that used methods listed above, along A variety of methods have been used to esti- with their strengths and limitations. mate the economic effects of tourism at local Table 2. Summary of the Primary Objective of Analysis and Corresponding Research Methods Primary Objective of Analysis Research Methods Assess the economic effects (direct, indirect, static & dynamic) of Regression Analysis, Social Accounting Matrices, Computable tourism on the regional/national (macro) economy General Equilibrium models, Input-Output Models, SAM multiplier Models Describe the size of the tourism sector Tourism Satellite Accounts Measure impacts of tourism on poor people or local economies at Applied General Equilibrium, Livelihoods Analysis, Enterprise tourist destinations Analysis, Local Economic Mapping and Pro-poor Value Chain Analyses, Ecosystem Service Approach Source: Revised from Mitchell and Ashley 2009 A sse s sin g the Ec on o mic Impact s P RO MOT I N G S USTAIN AB L E PROTE CTE D AR E A TOU R IS M TO B ENE F IT LO CAL E CONOM I ES 33 Table 3. At a Glance: Key Studies on Local or National Economic Impacts Method Description Strength/ Limitations Case study example Tourism Survey conducted on Strengths: Provides information Zambia - The average protected area Expenditure Survey visitor expenditures among on tourist expenditures, tourist spent US$1,100 (2005 US$) per trip + Input-Output domestic and international characteristics, and satisfaction; in Zambia in 2005, adding up to a total of Table tourists at border crossings. and estimates impact on value US$194 million or 3.1% of 2005 GDP for the These are combined added, wages, employment, tax 176,000 tourists. 19,000 formal jobs were with IO tables (based on revenue, and imports. created (World Bank 2007). a matrix of inter-sectoral Limitations: Only direct impacts, Uganda -The analysis shows that tourist flows accounting for the and indirect production linkages exports amounted to US$431 million in intermediate demand are considered. Does not 2019 (2019 US$), or 6.3% of total exports for goods and services consider household consumption (World Bank 2019b). between economic sectors) linkages. Impacts not USA – Visitor Spending Effect Model to estimate economic disaggregated by households, of the US NPS:5 In 2019, NPS visitor impact of tourist spending firms, or other institutions. Factor spending directly supported 204,800 jobs, at national level. of production and output prices $6.3 billion (2019 US$) in labor income, do not vary. $10.7 billion in value added, and $17.2 billion in economic output in the national economy. Combined with secondary effects, NPS visitor spending supported a total of 340,500 jobs, $14.1 billion in labor income, $24.3 billion in value added, and $41.7 billion in national economic output (Cullinane Thomas and Koontz 2020). Tourism A SAM is a data framework Strengths: Same as above and Zambia -Tourism in South Luangwa Expenditure that usually represents brings in household consumption contributed ~US$38 million (2015 US$) Survey + Social the real economy of a linkages. Impacts can be in value-added (GDP) and US$19 million Accounting Matrix country or other entity, disaggregated by households, in wages and salaries to the country’s (SAM) distinguishing between firms, and other institutions. economy, and supported ~3,000 jobs activities and commodities, Limitations: Factor of production (Chidakel, Child, and Muyengwa 2021). and ensuring revenues are and output prices do not vary. equal to total expenditures (Chikuba, Syacumpi, and Thurlow 2013). Tourism Micro economy-wide Strengths: Same as above and Ecuador – Tourism generated US$62.9 Expenditure approach using data allows factors of production and million (2005 US$) on the Galapagos Survey + General from tourist, business output prices to vary. islands and US$113.9 million in Ecuador; Equilibrium Model and household surveys. Limitations: Data intensive. US$1000 increase in foreign tourist SAM and small-economy Requires specialized software expenditure raises island income by general-equilibrium models (e.g., GAMS) and training. US$218; US$1000 increase in domestic consider direct and indirect tourist expenditure results in a US$429 income effects. (Taylor, increase in total island income. because Hardner, and Stewart 2009) most domestic tourists spend money on the island (Taylor, Hardner, and Stewart A s se s sin g the Ec on o mic Impact s 2009). Kenya - Every dollar invested in conservation and wildlife tourism could generate benefits 3 to 20 times higher (Damania et al. 2019). Tourism Economic As part of a larger effort to Strength: The tool can be used The TEMPA tool requires three key inputs, Model for assess the socio-economic to calculate the economic impact namely, the number of visitors, their Protected Areas impacts of GEF-funded of a park by non-economists, expenditures, and multipliers, all of which – (TEMPA) protected areas, TEMPA park managers, and other come from different sources. was developed for project field-based stakeholders managers and stakeholders operating under budget and staff to present tourism spending restrictions. data with a spreadsheet- Limitation: Use of multipliers from based tool. the input-output tables of other sectors, which may be outdated or over-estimated. 5 Approach uses IMPLAN multipliers to scale up estimates from individual protected areas to national levels. IMPLAN leverages granular data across industries to calculate multipliers for regions of interest and ensures that the analysis represents complete impact. The foundation upon which IMPLAN economic impact analyses are built is the input-output (I-O) model. 34 BA NKI NG ON PROTE C TE D A RE A S 2.2. avenues for economic impacts of protected areas Figure 8 describes the economic pathways within the local economy (see Box 6 for definition), Box 6. What is a Local Economy? including households, tourism and non-tourism A local economy could be a village, a collection of villages, a town, region, businesses, and the government. Tourism in pro- or even country. The definition of “local economy” will depend on the tected areas can impact local economies through goals of the study, and wider areas will capture more economic activities direct (shown by arrows a in Figure 8) and indirect and benefits. To be effective, management plans for protected areas should incentivize surrounding communities to support conservation; and channels. Indirect channels can, in turn, be broadly thus, for the purpose of this study, the local economy is defined by the classified into two types: production linkages communities which lie within the protected area’s sphere of economic in- (shown by arrows b in Figure 8 and income and fluence as determined by community members, tourism operators and the consumption linkages (shown by arrows c in government. Section 3.1 defines the local economy for each of the project Figure 8). sites. Moreover, because village households and businesses routinely visited a nearby market town to purchase goods and services, market towns nearest to each park were included as part of the local economy for the study. Direct Impacts a share of protected area-related income which stimulates local eco- nomic activity. When tourist services, protected area management Protected areas attract tourists who pay park entry fees, stay at lodg- activities, and those promoted by community programs expand, they es, and spend money on game drives, walking safaris, scuba-diving, create positive indirect impacts on the local economy. On the other snorkeling and many other services provided either through lodges hand, restrictions on natural resource use may reduce local econom- or other tourism facilities. Purchasing goods and services directly ic stimuli. An input-output (IO) analysis would stop here and capture from local businesses and households is the only channel through only direct and indirect impacts through production linkages.  which tourists contribute directly to the local economy. A conven- tional impact analysis based on tourist spending would stop here, A critical issue when analyzing these production linkages is whether and thus capture only a fraction of protected area tourism’s local the local supply of goods and services can expand to meet the economic impacts. new demand. If not, growth in demand around protected areas may increase prices, reducing the real, or inflation-adjusted income gains Beyond tourism benefits, protected areas affect the economic from protected areas. The estimation of indirect impacts must take behavior of people by influencing their use of natural resources, for these potential inflationary effects into account. example, through restrictions on hunting, fishing, or wood gathering. By regulating these activities, protected areas can have an adverse effect on the incomes of households that otherwise would rely on local resources, and these effects should be considered when de- Indirect Impacts Through Income and Consumption Linkages A sse s sin g the Ec on o mic Impact s scribing the contributions of tourism to local economies. In addition, production in local economies supported by tourism in protected areas generates wages and profits which lead to positive Indirect Impacts Through Production Linkages indirect effects by stimulating local spending. Earnings from locally As tourism activities expand and resource extraction contracts, these owned tourist facilities and the businesses which supply them flow activities’ demand for intermediate inputs will change, producing a into local households who in turn feed this income into the local first round of indirect effects in the local economy through production economy. However, where conservation efforts prevent harvesting of linkages. For example, more tourists increase the demand for lodg- natural resources the indirect income effects of protected areas may ing and restaurant meals, creating greater demand for everything be negative. from ingredients (meat, fish, fruits, vegetables, etc.) to beverages, As local activities expand to meet growing household demands, napkins, and workers. To the extent that lodges and tour operators new rounds of demand, income, and expenditure follow, elevating hire workers locally, and purchase goods and services from local incomes, and demand in the local economy. Successive rounds of farms and businesses, this increase in demand will have positive impacts become smaller and smaller, and the total (direct and indirect) linkage effects on the local economy. Inputs purchased from outside effect of a growing tourism market eventually converges to an income the local economy will create positive linkages for other parts of the multiplier, defined as the change in local household incomes per unit country, or potentially in other countries and not for the local econo- of fresh infusion of cash into the economy through tourist spending. my. Similar outcomes are realized when park authorities hire locals The general equilibrium (GE) model will capture all of these effects for security or park management jobs, or when communities receive i.e., the direct impacts and both channels of indirect impacts. P RO MOT I N G S USTAIN AB L E PROTE CTE D AR E A TOU R IS M TO B ENE F IT LO CAL E CONOM I ES 35 figure 8 Economic Impact Pathways for Protected Areas Revenue sharing, community projects Environmental Impact b PARK AUTHORITY, GOVERNMENT Businesses pay b taxes and fees a Pay non-consumptive a Pay a Park and consumptive fees Entrance Fee and taxes b Park hires guards or employs households for PA activities a Protected Areas a Purchase goods Terrestrial / Marine Spend money on and services lodging, tourist TOURISM, HOUSEHOLDS LODGES AND OU activities G N BUSINESSES RIST S VISITI T Wages paid to Purchase food, a workers employed b,c goods and in tourism activities Local incomes services c increase; b Source goods households spend and services their income to source goods LOCAL FARMS AND BUSINESSES A s se s sin g the Ec on o mic Impact s a Trade with outside/ non-local markets PA rules a ect resource exttraction (restriction on hunting and fishing) but also promote recovery of overexploited Legend of Pathways of Influence Direct Impact common resources (forest, animals, a. Direct impacts fish). Human-wildlife conflict incidences Indirect impact through b. Production linkages impact household livelihoods production linkages c. Income and consumption linkages Source: Adapted from Taylor and Filipski 2014. 36 BA NKI NG ON PROTE C TE D A RE A S 2.3. lewie model Quantifying the direct and indirect impacts of and household-farm models describe each tourism in protected areas on local economies household group’s production, income, and therefore requires an applied GE approach. consumption/expenditure. In a typical model, For this global study, a GE method called “local households participate in activities such as crop economy-wide impact evaluation—LEWIE” and livestock production, resource harvesting was used across the four country case studies (e.g., fishing), retail, and other business activities, (Taylor and Filipski 2014). LEWIE uses simulation as well as in the labor market. Production func- methods to estimate the direct and indirect (or tions for each activity are the recipes that turn “spillover”) effects of tourism in protected areas inputs into outputs. on local economies (see Box 7); it also uses a Micro survey data are required as inputs to the structural approach that integrates models of model and play two main roles in its construc- actors (businesses and households) within a GE tion. They provide initial values for all variables model of the local economy in which businesses in the model (production inputs and outputs, include locally-owned businesses and those not household expenditures on goods and ser- owned by locals but typically employing some vices). The data are also used for econometric local workers and purchasing some locally estimates of model parameters for each house- supplied inputs. hold group and sector, together with standard The focus on the local economy illuminates errors for these estimates. The initial values and the potential of protected areas to benefit local parameter estimate interface with the GAMS households, which are often unable to harvest (Generalized Algebraic Modeling System) soft- natural resources, suffer human-wildlife conflict, ware used to program the LEWIE model. and whose cooperation is critical to maintain The LEWIE model can be used to quantify protected areas by discouraging encroach- impacts on a local economy. Because its ment, poaching, illegal fishing, and other parameters are econometric estimates, Monte threats. Local economic development is also a Carlo methods are used to test significance and goal in-and-of itself, and an additional reason to construct confidence intervals around the sim- have a local focus. ulated impact results as shown by (Taylor and LEWIE builds upon econometric methods of Filipski 2014). For this study, 500 iterations of agricultural household modelling (e.g., Singh, the simulations for each park were conducted Squire, and Strauss, 1986), and uses micro-sur- for each country case study; these simulations vey data to model firms, households, and require judgements, based on the survey data, agricultural households within local economies about where and how prices are determined that are both producers and consumers of food. (i.e., market closure, which is not known with These micro-models are “nested” within a GE certainty), and account for nonlinearities and lo- model of the local economy, and draw from a cal price effects. Sensitivity analysis, combined A sse s sin g the Ec on o mic Impact s long period of GE modeling in economics (Dixon with the Monte Carlo method described above, and Jorgenson 2012). The models of firms de- was used to test the robustness of simulated scribe how businesses combine various factors impacts to market-closure assumptions. (e.g., hired labor, family labor, land, capital) and The impact of protected area tourism on a intermediate inputs (fertilizer, seed, and a variety local economy is estimated in two steps. First, of purchased inputs) to produce an output the impact of an additional tourist on the local (corn, prepared meals, a service) which may economy is simulated and provides an estimate be consumed locally or sold. The household of the income multiplier of an additional dollar of tourist spending. Secondly, the total impact is estimated by multiplying the per-tourist estimate Box 7. Estimating Economic Impacts of Protected Areas by the number of tourists. There is no way to know what the counterfactual of these local Under the best of circumstances, it is difficult and costly to estimate spillover effects of public interventions using conventional experimental economies would be, but this model provides approaches (e.g., randomized control trials (RCTs) or econometric IV or the best approximation. A comparison between “quasi-natural” experiments). Given the non-random location of protected tourism impact and public investment in the park areas, RCTs are not a feasible way to quantify their economic impacts. also provides an estimate of the rate of return Because baseline data pre-dating protected areas are rare, neither are on public investment. econometric methods that try to emulate experiments. P RO MOT I N G S USTAIN AB L E PROTE CTE D AR E A TOU R IS M TO B ENE F IT LO CAL E CONOM I ES 37 The model can also be used to understand the areas. The difference between the model and economic impacts of government policies and conventional cost-benefit analysis is that LEWIE shocks to the economy – such as the economic simulations capture the total benefits created by fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic. Once the tourism, including indirect effects, whereas con- impact of nature-based tourism on local GDP ventional cost-benefit analyses do not consider has been estimated, it can be compared to these indirect impacts (Taylor and Filipski 2014). government spending on the protected area to Both the method used here, and conventional obtain the local income impact per dollar spent cost-benefit analyses face the same questions on the park. This exercise produces evidence concerning attribution, in particular, whether and for the argument that investing in protected to what extent changes in government spending areas delivers development outcomes via on the park will affect tourism and the economic tourism and is similar to a partial cost-benefit and development benefits it creates. analysis of government spending on protected 2.4. data collection To build the LEWIE model, data were gath- Tourist survey information was collected ered through surveys of tourists, lodges and through questionnaires administered by the resorts, local businesses, and local house- country (as in the case of Fiji’s International holds. Information on production, income, and Visitor Survey), by a tourism operator (in Zambia, expenditure, and the locations of transactions Proflight Zambia made the questionnaire (i.e., whether they are inside or outside the local available to passengers on their flights), or economy) was gathered (see Figure 9). The at hotels in which tourists stayed (in the case household and local business survey data were of Nepal and Brazil). Tourist surveys in Nepal entered on tablets using the Open Data Kit and Brazil were impacted by COVID-19, and (ODK) platform for Android. required additional work to generate a repre- sentative sample.6 For the Household and Figure 9: Survey Data Characteristics and Elements business survey, com- munities in the area that defined the local economy were ran- domly selected from a master list. In each village, roughly 45–55 households were ran- domly selected using A s se s sin g the Ec on o mic Impact s an every-nth house- hold sampling strategy based on the size and geographical disper- sion of the community. The household survey included a module to gather information about businesses, and this was adminis- tered to households Source: World Bank with businesses. 6 Nepal’s study area had uncharacteristically low international tourist numbers, and so a more representative sample was constructed using known ratios of international to domestic tourists from the previous year (2019) to increase the weight (or importance) of foreign tourists in the sample. Reduced tourism in Brazil’s study area resulted in surveys which were inadequate to provide tourism expenditures. Expenditure shares were obtained from this sample, while per tourist expenditures were collected from secondary sources with larger and more representative samples (SEBRAE’s Pesquisa de Perfil da Demanda Turistica – Costa das Baleias/BA, Brazil 2019 and The Ministry of Tourism International tourist demand Studies 2012–2018). 38 BA NKI NG ON PROTE C TE D A RE A S Businesses in villages and nearby market towns wage and non-wage expenditure needed to were surveyed to supplement the household maintain and manage the protected areas business samples, and used the same ques- was obtained from government offices. tions. Lacking a master list, all small businesses Academic collaborations - in each of the coun- evident in villages were approached (villages tries, local students were trained to participate typically had only a few businesses), while in in the survey collection, and partnerships with market towns an every-other-business approach local universities grounded the case studies was adopted. As in the household surveys, in the socio-economic context of the country. owner-operator participation in the surveys In Nepal, the World Bank team collaborated was voluntary. Tourism business surveys with Kathmandu University, in Brazil, with the were collected by the survey team at lodges University of Rio de Janeiro, and in Fiji with the or using secondary sources. Government University of South Pacific. Box 8 elaborates on expenditure on protected areas, including these collaborations. Box 8. Building Capacity while doing Research In each of the four country case studies, a team of local enu- platform. These skills were field-tested, and enumerators were merators were trained to carry out the business and household given certificates of completion of the LEWIE survey training surveys. This included a course on the LEWIE methodology and course and fieldwork. Surveys were administered over two on how to conduct detailed household and business surveys weeks around each protected area. with questionnaires programmed onto tablets using the ODK ZAMBIA NEPAL A team of 15 Zambian university students (8 men and 7 women) A team of 14 Nepalese students (6 men and 8 women) from the and recent graduates were trained to carry out the fieldwork for Kathmandu University, and three NTNC staff were trained to this study. carry out the fieldwork for this study. Collaboration with Prof. Sagar Raj Sharma, Dean, School of Arts, Kathmandu University and Dr. Siddhartha Bajracharya, Executive A sse s sin g the Ec on o mic Impact s Director of National Trust for Nature Conservation. FIJI BRAZIL A team of 15 Fijian students (7 men and 8 women) from the A team of 16 Brazilian students (11 men and 5 women) from the University of South Pacific were trained to carry out the field- Federal University of Rio de Janeiro were trained to carry out work for this study. the fieldwork for this study. Collaboration with Prof. Stuart Kininmonth, Senior Lecturer at the Collaboration with Prof. Carlos Eduardo Young, Associate School of Marine Studies, University of South Pacific, Fiji. Professor, National University of Rio de Janeiro. 3 Findings 3.1 country context and summary statistics The following section provides a summary of the data from each of the four countries and an overview of protected areas and tourism in each country. protected area ZAMBIA • Protected Areas cover ~40% of the country’s land area • 20 National Parks, 36 Game Management Areas (GMA) and 1 bird sanctuary • GMAs are a category of protected areas that are mostly customarily owned lands designated as buffer zones between national parks and open areas. Human settlement is allowed in GMAs, as are other land uses such as agriculture, forestry, hunting, etc. • Threats: Poor regulation, open access, population growth, demand for fuel and agricultural expansion are leading to habitat degradation • Human-wildlife conflict reduces support for conservation • Few visitors due to lack of funding for field staff, accommodation, park management and infrastructure tourism • 7% tourism contribution to GDP (WTTC 2019b) • Zambia scored 3.2 out of a maximum of 7 and was ranked 113 out of 140 countries (WEF 2019a) » Strengths – natural resources, price competitiveness » Weaknesses – infrastructure, health and hygiene • Zambia’s protected area regulations mandate sharing of revenues with community resource boards in GMAs • Protected areas typically contain a limited number of privately-run lodges that offer accommodation, food, viewing safaris (photo-tourism) within the park, but no human settlements. Villages and lodges are available within GMAs surrounding parks study sites 1. Lower Zambezi National Park (NP) and adjacent 2. South Luangwa National Park and adjacent GMAs GMAs • Established in 1972, designated as IUCN • Established in 1983, designated as IUCN Category II Category II • 21 lodges at South Luangwa inside the park • 6 lodges at Lower Zambezi inside the park • The Mfuwe International Airport is the point of • Airstrip is located inside the park entry • Chiawa GMA and the market town of Chirundu • Upper and Lower Lupande GMA and the market constitute the local economy for Lower Zambezi town of Chipata constitute the local economy for NP South Luangwa NP • 11,161 visits were made to Lower Zambezi NP in • 43,469 visits were made to South Luangwa NP 2018 in 2018 data Summary Data Collected: • 800+ household and local business surveys • 20+ lodges /tourism business surveys • 226 tourist surveys Poverty around both the parks is high: • 56% of households surveyed in Lower Zambezi were poor • 83% of households surveyed in South Luangwa were poor Household income: • The most common source of income for households is agriculture, followed by livestock rearing, and wage employment • 40% of poor households in Lower Zambezi and 24% in South Luangwa had some form of wage employment • Tourism-related jobs include visitor services (restaurant work, employment at hotels/lodges and tour agencies), maintenance (repairs) and craft Local Business: • 30% of households in Lower Zambezi and 25% in South Government revenues and expenditures: Luangwa owned and operated some form of business • The Government of Zambia received ~US$1.1 million in • In Lower Zambezi retail businesses make up almost visitor fees in 2018 between the two study sites 70% of household businesses • The largest single source of revenue from protected • In South Luangwa retail and services make up over 75% areas was animal/trophy hunting fees – ~US$2.5 million of household business types • Other consumptive and non-consumptive fees added US$1.6 million to the revenue generated by the park Tourists by Origin: • Government expenditure on the two parks was US$4.2 • The largest share of tourists was from the United million (54% wages, 41% payments to community Kingdom, and Europe resource boards and 5% non-wage expenditures) • Thus, these two protected areas generated a net of US$1.1 million Tourist expenditures: Asia 4% • Majority of the visitors came for tourist activities • On average, tourists to Lower Zambezi spent US$2,904 per person and US$2,454 per person to visit South Oceania Luangwa. Average nights spent in Lower Zambezi was 12% UK 30% 3 and in South Luangwa 5 • The largest expenditure was on tourism packages that included lodging, meals, and park entry fees • Hotels purchase ~80% of their daily inputs locally Africa 13% US/Canada Europe 22% 19% protected area NEPAL • Protected Areas cover ~23% of the country’s land area • 12 National Parks, 1 Wildlife Reserve, 6 Conservation Areas, 1 Hunting Reserve and 13 Buffer Zones • Threats: Large infrastructure projects are encroaching on protected areas, land degradation, and insufficient funding and human resources for protected area management • Land-use and human-wildlife conflict are barriers to community engagement for conservation • Protected areas lack sufficient infrastructure such as visitor centers and trails, and face a growing challenge of solid waste management tourism • 6.7% tourism contribution to GDP (WTTC 2019b) • Over 45% of tourists visit the country’s protected areas • Nepal scored 3.3 out of a maximum of 7 and was ranked 102 out of 140 countries (WEF 2019b) » Strengths – natural resources, price competitiveness, safety & security and prioritization of tourism » Weaknesses – infrastructure, international openness • Regulations allow for 30–50% of park income to be channeled to local communities living in buffer zones • Locally-owned and operated lodging is available in buffer zones but hotel/lodge concessions inside the park have recently been rescinded for environmental reasons study site Chitwan National Park • Declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1984 • Chitwan National Park and three municipalities – • Designated as IUCN Category II Bharatpur, Khairahani and Ratnanagar constitute • The buffer zone includes 70 community forests the local economy tracts covering approximately 11,000 ha managed • 211,888 visitors to Chitwan in 2019 by local buffer zone user committees • Communities are compensated for human- wildlife conflict data Summary Data Collected: • 596 household and local business surveys • 8 lodges/tourism business surveys • 67 tourist group surveys Poverty: • In Khairahani and Ratnanagar 3.8% of households surveyed were poor • In Bharatpur 10.4% of households surveyed were poor Household income: • Most households grow crops and roughly half own livestock • 25% of non-poor households own and operate some form of business, compared with 7–8% of poor households • Roughly half of all households have at least one wage worker Tourist expenditures: • Employment types include construction, agriculture, • On average, a tourist spends US$31.6* per day in hotels, restaurants, and tour operation Chitwan NP, a third of which goes to accommodation and food at a hotel or lodge Local Business: • More than 70% of tourists participated in jeep safaris, • 25% of households owned and operated some form followed by elephant safaris and the tharu dance and/or of business. Common business types included grocery cultural programs shops, and hotels, restaurants and bars • Construction related businesses were more prevalent in Bharatpur International Tourist Visits to Chitwan NP by Fiscal Year: • Most hotels (74%) purchase inputs locally Significant Tourism Rebound Since the 2015 Earthquake Government revenues and expenditures: 250,000 • The Government of Nepal received ~US$1.7 million in visitor fees from Chitwan National Park in 2018–2019 200,000 • Other revenues (concessions, fees) totaled 150,000 US$784,000 • The total expenditures were US$5.7 million (58% were 100,000 wage expenditures) • The total expenditures incurred by the Government of 50,000 Nepal are more than double the revenues from the park 0 – – – – – * COVID-19 disrupted data collection, and international tourists only represent 12 percent of the sample and were therefore under-represented. To correct for this, a more representative sample was constructed using known ratios of international to domestic tourists from the previous year (2019) to increase the weight (or importance) of foreign tourists in the sample. protected area FIJI • The Government of Fiji set a goal to designate 30% of the country’s inshore and offshore marine areas as protected areas by the end of 2020. However, only 1 percent has been officially designated as a marine protected area • There is an informal network of MPAs known as tabu, which are established by indigenous communities as protected areas in customary fishing grounds (qoliqoli), and in which fishing rights are restricted • Tabu areas may also be designated by chiefs, through agreements between communities and tourism operators, or through partnerships with the Fiji Locally Managed Marine Area (FLMMA) Network • De-facto protected areas can be established when a foreshore lease is issued to a tourism enterprise. No fishing is subsequently permitted in the area • Threats: Marine pollution, coastal development, over-fishing and over- harvesting of corals • Hesitation of community groups as designation requires surrender of fishing rights • Inadequate policy and lack of a Marine Park Authority limits ability to regulate the marine environment tourism • 34% tourism contribution to GDP (WTTC 2019b), • Formal benefit-sharing mechanisms are limited largest source of foreign exchange by regulations, mainly, the Surfing Area Decree • In the 2018–19 fiscal year, 900,000 visitors spent (2010) that grants unrestricted access and use an estimated US$904 million visiting the country of any surfing area by any person and does not • LMMAs or tabus do not provide economic require the right-holder to be compensated incentives for communities study sites Three islands - Tavarua, Navini, and Malolo – part of • The Mamanuca islands, and mainland - western the Mamanuca Islands coastal region in Nadroga-Navosa province, • All three sites are being considered for formal including its main city, Nadi - constitute the local (“gazetted”) MPA status, either fully (Tavarua, economy Navini) or in part (Malolo) • These islands are connected to the main island • These islands are a popular destination for of Viti Levu and in particular, to the economy tourists due to their pristine waters and coral in and around Nadi (also the location of the reefs international airport) • Informal marine conservation agreements* exist • In 2019, close to 900,000 tourists visited Fiji, and on all three islands of those, 9% visited the Mamanuca islands and 21% visited Nadi * Formal or informal contractual arrangement to pursue ocean or coastal conservation goals through temporary or permanent no-fishing zones in exchange for voluntary commitment to deliver explicit (direct or indirect) economic incentives. data Summary Data Collection • 527 household and local business surveys • 8 lodges/tourism business surveys (Tavarua and Navini islands have a single resort and Malolo has a few resorts*) • 11,465 Tourist group surveys (IVS 2019**) Poverty • 19% of households on the mainland (main island, Viti Levu) and 9.5% of households on islands were poor Household • 82% of households had at least one wage worker • A large percentage of households were engaged in agriculture, though the scale of farming was small and usually at a subsistence level Tourists by origin • Around 75% of tourists come from Australia and New Zealand Pacific Islands Japan Local Business 2% 1% • 24 to 36 percent of households own and operate some China 2% Canada 2% Rest of Asia form of business 1% • Approximately 23% of hotel supply purchases are from UK 3% Others outside the local economy of Nadroga-Navosa province Europe 5% 1% and the Mamanucas Tourist Expenditures US 11% • The average tourist spend was US$167 per night • 61% of mainland non-poor workers, 64% of mainland poor workers, and 85% of island workers were employed by hotels, restaurants, or tour operators Australia 47% New Zealand 25% * Due to the small number of hotels in Nadi and the Mamanucas, all hotels nearby were contacted for the survey. ** The International Visitor Survey (IVS) is administered by the Ministry of Commerce, Trade, Tourism & Transport and is undertaken on a rolling basis. protected area BRAZIL • Marine protected areas comprise 26.82% of marine and coastal areas • 158 marine protected areas • Threats: lack of regulations for the use of natural resources, conversion of natural areas for aquaculture and coastal development, pollution, and deterioration of aquatic habitat quality • Insufficient finance for protected area management • Overfishing, unsustainable fishing practices and lack of fisheries management are depleting fish stocks and jeopardizing local livelihoods dependent on the fisheries sector tourism • 10.3% tourism contribution to GDP (WTTC 2019b) • In 2016, 16.8 million tourists visited 209 National (Federal) and State Parks • While most tourists visit coastal areas for their beaches and cultural offerings, 12% of respondents cited “natural areas” for the purpose of their visit, which can in turn be attributed to the marine protected areas • Brazil has no mechanisms to share park and concession revenues with local communities; however, the Ecological ICMS provides tax revenues to state and » Strengths – natural resources, cultural resources and municipal governments price competitiveness • Brazil scored 4.5 out of a maximum of 7 and » Weaknesses – transport infrastructure on land, was ranked 32 out of 140 countries (WEF international openness 2019b) study sites Abrolhos Marine National Park • Established in 1983, IUCN Category II the south-west of Caravelas and to Prado in the • Largest whale nursery in the South Atlantic North) opposite Abrolhos Marine National Park • Surrounding the marine national park is the constitutes the local economy Corumbau Marine Extractive Reserve (RESEX); • 1.2 million tourists visited the Abrolhos region in local fisherfolk have exclusive fishing rights 2019, most of whom were domestic tourists • The marine area supports the livelihoods of an • 8,044 tourists visited Abrolhos Marine National estimated 20,000 fisherfolk whose main source Park, less than 10% of the maximum allotted of income is from small-scale fishing capacity. Some visitors to the coast are attracted • Whale watching is the biggest attraction and by the pristine environment of the marine tourism is seasonal as a result protected area • The Abrolhos region including the coastline • The peak season for tourism in Abrolhos runs (extending from Nova Viçosa in the south to from July to January (whale watching season) data Summary Data Collected • 590 household and local business surveys • 7 lodges/tourism business surveys • 12 tourist group surveys* Poverty • 14.2% of households were poor Household income • Over 65% of households had at least one wage earner, while around 22–23% of households fished • 53% of the poor were employed for more than 150 days in 2019, compared with 73% of the non-poor • 29% of poor households grew crops compared to 22% of non-poor households Local Business • The majority of household businesses were vendors, grocery shops and other retail-type businesses that operated close to year-round Tourist Expenditures • Only 3% of the businesses surveyed were directly • The average tourist spent close to US$127 per day, • related to tourist activities mostly on hotels • Tourism businesses spend 20% of their operating Government Expenditures budgets purchasing inputs from outside the local • Total government expenditure on the Abrolhos Marine economy National Park was US$455,606 (~70% of which was on wages) * COVID-19 travel restrictions made it difficult to collect tourist data. To mitigate this, we used data from “SEBRAE/BA (Brazilian Micro and Small Business Support Service), COMTUR and Bahia’s Tourism secretary in 2019, who surveyed tourists in the Whale coast region and had a sample size of 501. 48 BA NKI NG ON PROTE C TE D A RE A S 3.2 key findings from country case studies The LEWIE model was applied in each of the Effects of Protected Area Tourism on four country case studies. Findings synthesized Local Economies here relate to: impacts of tourism in protected areas on the local economy, returns on govern- An additional tourist generates economic ment spending, impacts of conflicts and shocks, activity in the local economy by stimulating local and effects of government policies. demand for goods and services, either directly (as when tourists buy goods and services from local businesses and households) or indirectly figure 10 Annual Contribution to Local Income Per Additional Tourist (as when lodges pay wages to local households, (total real income, 2019)7 or source goods from local businesses, who in turn spend this income on locally-supplied goods and services). Figure 10 summarizes the economic impact of an additional tourist on Total income contribution (USD) local incomes for the four country case studies. While an additional tourist generated a posi- tive economic impact on the local economy at 2,400 all sites, this impact was significantly higher in 1,355 Zambia and Fiji, where per tourist spending is 1,045 357 substantially higher than in Nepal and Brazil. 169 Each additional tourist spends in the high hundreds or thousands of US dollars in Zambia Zambia Zambia Nepal Brazil Fiji and Fiji: US$745 in Lower Zambezi National Lower Zambezi South Luangwa Chitwan Abrolhos Mamanuca Islands Park, US$683 in South Luangwa National Park National Park Marine Park in Zambia, and US$1,311 in Nadroga-Navosa and Source: World Bank data Mamanucas in Fiji. In contrast, spending per tourist was just over US$200 in Brazil and under US$100 in Nepal. These differences indicate the type of tourism or tourists who visit protect- figure 11 Disaggregation of Economic Impact by Household, 2019 ed areas in the four countries. Sites in Fiji and Zambia draw high-value, international tourists, Poor Non-poor Island the site in Nepal attracts low-value international 2500 and national tourists, and the Brazilian site sees mid-value domestic tourism. Total income contribution (US$) 2000 The economic impact of an additional tourist can 1500 be disaggregated by category of beneficiary households i.e., poor8 and non-poor. In Zambia, poor residents, who are the majority of surveyed 1000 households (56% in Lower Zambezi and 83% in South Luangwa), receive a larger share of 500 the economic impact of tourist spending on the local economy than non-poor residents (see 0 Lower South Chitwan Abrolhos Mamanuca Figure 11). The opposite is true in Nepal, Brazil, Zambezi Luangwa National Park Marine Park Islands and Fiji, where mainland non-poor residents Zambia Nepal Brazil Fiji Fi n din g s receive a larger share of these economic Source: World Bank data impacts than poor residents on the mainland and island residents.9 In each of these cases, only 20% of surveyed households were poor, explaining in part the contrast with Zambia’s 7 Income figures presented in these findings are inflation-adjusted. Bars represent 95% confidence interval. 8 Poverty headcount calculated as the proportion of households with under $1.90/person/day (ppp adjusted using ppp exchange rate for all countries except Brazil where, because of the small sample size for poor households, the definition of poverty was altered to those living under US$5.8/person/day. 9 Due to the small sample size for island households, these households are not disaggregated into poor and non-poor catego- ries for the LEWIE model in Fiji. P RO MOT I N G S USTAIN AB L E PROTE CTE D AR E A TOU R IS M TO B ENE F IT LO CAL E CONOM I ES 49 figure 12 Annual Real Inflation-Adjusted Income Multipliers, 2019 Another metric that can be used to capture the impact of tourists on local economies and 3.00 communities is the income multiplier. As local 2.50 activities grow to meet household demands, new rounds of increased demand, income, and 2.00 household expenditures follow, creating addi- Income multiplier tional increases in income and demand in the 1.50 local economy. Figure 12 shows the income multipliers for each 1.00 1.83 of the case studies. In all cases, the multiplier 1.82 1.78 1.74 1.53 is greater than one, signaling that local market 0.50 linkages are strong, and that each additional dollar spent by a tourist increases local incomes 0.00 Zambia Zambia Nepal Brazil Fiji by more than a dollar. A local income multipli- Lower Zambezi South Luangwa Chitwan Abrolhos Mamanuca er of less than one would indicate that tourist National Park Marine Park Islands demand is met mainly by purchases from other Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals parts of the country or from abroad, causing Source: World Bank data income to “leak out” from the local economy to where purchases occur or are processed. This does not appear to be the case in any of Box 9. Strengthening the Economic Case by Comparing our the four case studies, although it is likely that Multiplier Results to Green Stimulus Multipliers some leakage occurs. Multipliers across the According to the IMF’s latest working paper, the cumulative multipliers for four studies are consistent, suggesting that an ecosystem conservation or green land use-related spending are greater than active protected area tourism sector provides those for conservation-incompatible land use after the first year in developing similar income gains to local households across countries. For every dollar spent on conservation, there is a return of almost seven dollars in the medium term (5 years) (Batini et al. 2021). These high a variety of contexts, despite variations in per multipliers are a result of (i) spending programs mostly financed by donors tourist spending and number of visitors. These who supplement domestic spending, (ii) strong labor intensity in the conser- multiplier results are similar to those found in vation sector, and (iii) increased revenues in agriculture because the scarcity studies of other sectors (see Box 9). of available land following the expansion of areas under protection pushes up the prices paid to producers for their goods and motivates productivity As with the contribution to total income, the improvement. In contrast, the IMF estimates that multipliers of spending on LEWIE methodology can also be used to ex- industrial agriculture are less than one. amine how an income multiplier is distributed Similarly, Waldron et al. (2020) modeled the global economic effects of among households both poor and non-poor, expanding the global protected area target to 30 percent and noted that and near-to and far-from a protected area. In revenues from protected areas exceeded their maintenance costs by a factor of five, a multiplier close to the IMF estimates. Their results suggest that Zambia, poor households benefited more - each protected area revenues are likely to grow faster (4–5 percent per year) than dollar spent raised their incomes by US$0.99 that from agriculture (less than 1 percent). in Lower Zambezi National Park and US$1.34 in South Luangwa National Park - compared to non-poor households - each dollar spent case. As detailed in the country case studies, raised their incomes by US$0.83 and US$0.19 in Zambia and Brazil, the largest impact is on in Lower Zambezi and South Luangwa National retail activities of mainly small family-owned Parks, respectively (see Figure 13). In communi- enterprises, which is where households around ties near Nepal’s Chitwan National Park, on the parks spend the largest share of their incomes. other hand, the share of the income multiplier In Nepal, park revenue is shared with a buffer accruing to non-poor households was much zone user committee as part of benefit sharing higher than that for poor households: of the total F in di n g s arrangements and contributes around US$4.50 income multiplier of 1.78, non-poor households per tourist to household incomes. In Fiji, where received 1.6 while poor households received mainland non-poor households reap most of 0.18. In Brazil as well, most benefits accrue to the economic benefits from tourism, over 60 non-poor households which are better able to percent of both poor and non-poor mainland increase production to meet growing demands workers and 85 percent of island workers were generated by tourism, and which are a larger employed by hotels, hostels, restaurants, or tour population than poor households. For each operator businesses, indicating that wages and/ dollar spent by a tourist in the Abrolhos region, or indirect linkages of tourism are greater for US$1.44 is generated for non-poor households, non-poor residents. while poor households receive US$0.30. 50 BA NKI NG ON PROTE C TE D A RE A S figure 13 Annual Income Multiplier Share by Household Type, 2019 Finally, in Fiji, non-poor households tend to benefit more than poor ones because their busi- Poor Non-poor Island nesses profit from the ripple effects of tourist 2 spending. 1.8 1.6 Despite the larger multiplier shares of non-poor Income multiplier 1.4 households in most cases, tourism appears to 1.2 benefit poor residents more than non-poor res- 1 idents in all but one case. Normalizing multiplier 0.8 shares by the populations of poor and non-poor 0.6 0.4 residents (i.e., dividing the share of the multiplier 0.2 by the share of population; see Figure 14) shows 0 that the multiplier share per resident is actually Lower South Chitwan Abrolhos Mamanuca higher for poor residents than for non-poor, in all Zambezi Luangwa National Park Marine Park Islands cases except around Lower Zambezi National Zambia Nepal Brazil Fiji Park in Zambia. Source: World Bank data In summary, tourist spending generates income multipliers for households in the local economy, figure 14 Annual Distribution of Multipliers Across Poor and Non- benefiting households directly involved in the poor Communities, 2019 tourism sector and those not, and benefitting poor and non-poor households. Households Poor Non-poor Island benefit directly and indirectly through pro- duction and income linkages-when tourism 100% operators hire local people and buy local 80% goods, and when households spend wages and Percentage of Multiplier businesses spend profits earned through the 60% tourism sector. 40% TOTAL IMPACT OF TOURISM ON THE LOCAL ECONOMY 20% The total impact of protected area tourism on local incomes can be estimated by multiplying 0% the impact per tourist by the number of tourists Lower South Chitwan Abrolhos Mamanuca Zambezi Luangwa National Park Marine Park Islands who visit the protected area. Figure 15 summa- Zambia Nepal Brazil Fiji rizes the total impact of tourism in protected area sites for the four country case studies. In Source: World Bank data Brazil, some tourism in the surrounding Whale Coast region can be attributed to the ecological spillover effects of the Abrolhos Marine Park, figure 15 Annual Impact of Protected Area Tourism on Local Incomes, such as healthier fish stocks and habitats, but 2019 quantifying these effects requires information on 300 regional economics beyond the scope of this study. This accounts for the relatively small total Total impact of tourism to local GDP, 250 impact in Brazil. 200 The total impact of protected area tourism on millions US$ the local economy is largest in Fiji because of Fi n din g s 150 the high amount of tourist spending per day and the large volume of tourists. The Zambian parks 100 237.6 also see high tourist spending on guided safaris and hunting, but these parks have relatively 45.4 43.4 50 few tourists due to a lack of connectivity. Nepal, 15.1 on the other hand, generates large revenues 2.9 0 despite low tourist spending, due to high tourist Zambia Zambia Nepal Brazil Fiji numbers. While the model generates significant Lower Zambezi South Luangwa Chitwan Abrolhos Mamanuca National Park Marine Park Islands stimuli for the local economy around Nepal’s Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals Chitwan National Park, these comes with Source: World Bank data trade-offs—if large numbers of tourists degrade P RO MOT I N G S USTAIN AB L E PROTE CTE D AR E A TOU R IS M TO B ENE F IT LO CAL E CONOM I ES 51 figure 16 Jobs Generated Annually by Protected Area Tourism, 2019 Tourism generates jobs directly through tourism activities, and indirectly by stimulating the local 35,000 economy (see Figure 16). Employment effects 30,000 are calculated by taking the impact on labor income from the LEWIE model simulations Jobs generated 25,000 and dividing it by the median annual wage to 20,000 obtain the change in year-round equivalent jobs. This covers tourism-related jobs such as 15,000 hotel employees, tour operators, and restaurant 10,000 workers, as well as those employed as a result 5,000 of increased demand for goods and services brought on by tourism in sectors such as retail, 0 services, and in some instances agriculture, Zambia Zambia Fiji Brazil Nepal Lower Zambezi South Luangwa Mamanuca Abrolhos Chitwan livestock, and fishing. Islands Marine Park National Park Beyond the total number of jobs, the share of Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals employment supported by tourism in protected Source: World Bank data areas is significant. In Zambia, tourism in protect- ed areas generated jobs for 14 percent and 30 percent of working age populations around the the natural area that is attracting them, fewer Lower Zambezi and South Luangwa Parks re- tourists may visit in the future. As noted, the spectively. In Nepal, tourism-related jobs around Abrolhos Marine Park may benefit tourism in sur- Chitwan National Park are held by 3 percent rounding coastal areas by supporting species of the working age population, while in Brazil’s and maintaining a healthy ecosystem, even if coastal region - the Whale coast, a total of tourists do not visit the park itself. Furthermore, 46,800 jobs (300 of these jobs can be attributed the 8,044 annual visits to Abrolhos Marine to the Abrolhos Marine Park directly) represents Park are less than 10 percent of the maximum 12 percent of the local population. Tourism in allowed capacity, which is 225 visitors per day. Fiji’s Mamanuca islands created 8,304 jobs If the Park operated at full capacity during peak (through direct and indirect channels), em- season, then the economic impact of tourism ploying 13 percent of the local population in would increase to US$11.9 million, almost four Nadroga-Navosa and the Mamanucas. times the current estimated impact. F in di n g s 52 BA NKI NG ON PROTE C TE D A RE A S Return on Government Spending from protected areas that attract tourists can be used to subsidize investments in other parts of A key motivation for this study is to assess the protected area network. On the other hand, whether public investment in protected areas is in Nepal’s Chitwan National Park, government good for development. Does the benefit of the revenues from visitor fees and concessions investment outweigh the costs? This question is were significantly less than expenditure on park assessed through financial analysis, where data protection and maintenance, which also includ- permit,10 and economic analysis, for the three ed expenses incurred by the army. case studies. However, simply comparing revenues with The Zambia and Nepal case studies provide expenditures gives an incomplete picture of the detailed information on the revenues and effects of protected areas on local economies, for expenditures of government departments/ which it is necessary to compare park costs with agencies in charge of protected area manage- their broader local economic impacts. The return ment. In Zambia, government revenues from on investments are presented in Figure 17, and tourism in protected areas (park visitor fees, were obtained by dividing these total economic other fees, and concessions) exceed the value impacts by the sum of wage and non-wage ex- of current investments in the park (see Table 4). penditures by governments on the parks. Thus, these protected areas are a source of12 revenue for the government and not a financial In all cases in which this could be assessed, the sink and refute the assumption that protected rate of return on government spending is signifi- areas are not ‘self-financing’. Surplus revenue cantly greater than one, making the protected area a valuable economic asset. These results indicate that public investment in protected table 4 Annual Government Revenues and Expenditures, 2018/201911 areas not only helps to conserve biodiversity, US$ Amounts but also helps to make protected areas more attractive to tourists – for example, by protect-   Zambia Nepal ing wildlife and habitats, preserving the natural and cultural integrity of the landscape and Revenue 5,373,327 2,583,041 oceanscape, and/or by providing well-main- Expenditure 4,242,227 5,726,025 tained recreational services such as trails. When Surplus 1,131,100 -3,142,984 tourists visit protected areas, they not only Source: Government data spend their money on park entry fees, but also Note: Data for Fiji and Brazil unavailable on hotels, meals, transport, souvenirs and other services. These expenditures benefit both those in the tourism sector, and beyond, as tourism figure 17 Annual Estimated Rate of Return on Government Spending, service providers hire labor and source goods 2018/201912 and services from the local economy, triggering 35 a chain of benefits for local businesses and households. It is the sum of these direct and 30 indirect benefit flows that lead to high economic 25 returns on government investments in protect- Rate of Return 20 ed areas. Thus, investments in protected areas are good for biodiversity conservation, good 15 28.2 for local economic development, and provide 10 favorable returns to governments. 16.7 5 6.2 7.6 In summary, the analysis flags the importance Fi n din g s 0 of protected area tourism’s broad, and indirect Zambia Zambia Brazil Nepal impacts, which ripple beyond the tourism sector Lower Zambezi South Luangwa Abrolhos Chitwan and into local economies, offering economic Marine Park National Park stimuli and development benefits which make Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals for favorable returns on government invest- Source: World Bank data ments in protected areas. These far-reaching knock-on effects offset leakage and make a 10 Note: Government expenditure data were not available for the Fiji case study, and a rate of return could not be calculated. 11 Figures for Zambia are for 2018, while figures for Nepal are June 2018–June 2019. 12 Government expenditures for Zambia are for 2018, June 2018–June 2019 for Nepal, and 2019 for Brazil. P RO MOT I N G S USTAIN AB L E PROTE CTE D AR E A TOU R IS M TO B ENE F IT LO CAL E CONOM I ES 53 compelling case for investment in protected areas Impact of Conflicts and Shocks as potentially self-financing sources of revenue which can help governments to pursue sustain- Besides estimating the economic impacts of able development. The need to consider both tourism on local economies, the LEWIE model direct and indirect mechanisms to assess the can be used to simulate the local impacts of economic impact of tourism in protected areas economic shocks. The categories of shocks on local economies suggests that studies which assessed are those caused by human-wildlife look only at tourism expenditures to estimate im- conflict, and by the economic fall-out of the pacts will underestimate the impacts on the local COVID-19 pandemic. economy, and over emphasize the leakage from tourism activities outside the local economy. HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT Just as the benefits of protected area tourism can incentivize communities to support conser- vation, the costs of human-wildlife conflict may reverse these gains. Living near terrestrial protected areas can lead Figure 18 Annual Income Losses from Human-Wildlife Conflict in to human-wildlife conflict, as seen in Zambia Protected Areas, 2019 and Nepal. Such conflict often entails crop loss 3.5 and livestock predation, and animals may also harm or kill humans. The study estimates the 3 negative impacts of human-wildlife conflict on Real income loss in millions US$ 2.5 a local economy as household income forgone due to crop losses. Wildlife incursions onto 2 farms caused crop losses of almost 14 percent at Lower Zambezi National Park, 11 percent at South 1.5 2.9 Luangwa National Park in Zambia, and 9 percent 1 around Chitwan National Park in Nepal. The 1.8 LEWIE model uses harvest data reported at the 1.2 0.5 time of the survey, and the base model therefore already reflects losses. The cost of human-wildlife 0 conflict is therefore estimated as a counterfactual: Zambia Zambia Nepal Lower Zambezi South Luangwa Chitwan what would the income of households be if there National Park was no human wildlife conflict. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals Crop losses can have major impacts on house- Source: World Bank data holds and send negative ripple effects through local economies. Figure 18 presents these im- pacts and shows that animals caused millions of Figure 19 Annual Estimated Loss of Household Earnings from Human- dollars in lost income, signaling a critical issue for Wildlife Conflict by Location and Income, 2019 households living near terrestrial protected areas. While households suffered significant losses 3.5 Poor households Non-poor households in the three study contexts, the distribution of effects varies by country, and between poor and 3.0 non-poor households (see Figure 19). In Nepal, 2.5 non-poor households, which are in the major- Millions USD Lost ity, produce more crops and thus suffer most 2.0 F in di n g s losses; while in Zambia, most households are 1.5 poor, largely reliant on subsistence farming, and thus suffer the greatest losses. This distribution 1.0 of impacts highlights the need for equitable 0.5 approaches to avoid, mitigate and compensate losses; households most vulnerable to crop 0.0 destruction may require compensation, espe- Zambia Zambia Nepal cially if they are not beneficiaries of protected Lower Zambezi South Luangwa Chitwan National Park area tourism. Source: World Bank data 54 BA NKI NG ON PROTE C TE D A RE A S The creation of marine protected areas may also COVID-19 IMPACT ON TOURISM cause income loss in the short run by prohibit- Just as tourism can boost incomes within and ing or limiting fishing. In Fiji, household survey beyond the sector, a loss of tourism not only im- data indicate an average, annual per-household pacts employment in tourist facilities, but also in catch value of approximately FJ$13,000; and businesses supplying their goods and services. 57.9 percent of Nadroga-Navosa’s 58,931 in- And as increases in tourism and tourist spend- habitants (2017 Population and Housing Census, ing have positive multiplier effects, negative Fiji Bureau of Statistics) are fisherfolk, giving a shocks produce negative income multipliers in fishing income of about FJ$ 89 million (US$ 39 local economies. The COVID-19 pandemic has million) annually. However, when compared with caused substantial losses in tourism and tourism the value of Marine Protected Area tourism in income, and the LEWIE model can be used to the Mananucas, these potential losses in fishing simulate the impact of a complete loss of income are small; nonetheless, they flag the tourism for one month on the local economies question of how tourism benefits are shared, around protected areas (see Figure 20). These and how the losses suffered by fisherfolk will be losses are felt most strongly by households that compensated. Similar comparisons are needed normally benefit the most from tourism - around for Brazil but are unavailable due to lack of data. the Zambian parks, poor households have suffered the greatest losses, while around those Additionally, while the creation of marine pro- in Nepal, Fiji, and Brazil, non-poor households tected areas may reduce household incomes have lost the most tourist-related income. from fishing in the short term, environmental protections may offset these losses, as no-fish zones create spillovers into adjacent fishing Impact of Government Policies grounds, accelerating the recovery of stocks and increasing catch sizes. This effect has been Finally, the LEWIE model can be used to sim- recorded in Fiji, where a marine protected area ulate the impact of government policies on a designated in 2014 seeded adjacent areas and local economy. Two policies were considered – resulted in larger and more consistent catches hiring of locals for protected area management by 2019, leading to increased incomes and and increased local sourcing of goods by the support for conservation. Estimation of the me- tourism sector – and the results of these policy dium-term impact of the protected area requires simulations are presented below. a bio-LEWIE model and is beyond the scope of this study. WHEN LOCALS ARE HIRED FOR PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT Jobs are also created when governments hire conservation staff from local communities. In Chitwan National Park, hiring a park guard gen- erates an increase in local income of US$6,535 (see Table 5), a substantial figure when com- pared to the cost - US$2,442 - of employing the guard. Thus, hiring the guard produces indirect Figure 20 Monthly Income Loss from No Tourism, 2019 benefits, as each additional dollar spent by the government on park wages creates a local 25 multiplier of US$2.67. These park employment multipliers are larger than tourist spending 20 multipliers, because wages paid to locally hired Income loss, millions USD park personnel go directly to local households, 15 whereas a fraction of tourist spending does. Fi n din g s In Zambia, where the Department of National 10 19.9 Parks and Wildlife is working at very low staff numbers (25 percent of its capacity), hiring a 5 park guard increases the park’s impacts on 1.3 0.7 3.8 3.8 the local economy to the amount of US$1,479 0 at Lower Zambezi and US$1,038 at South Zambia Zambia Nepal Brazil Fiji Luangwa. Thus, hiring staff locally can promote Lower Zambezi South Luangwa Chitwan Abrolhos Mamanuca National Park Marine Park Islands conservation, improve local incomes, and Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals generate social benefits through community Source: World Bank data representation in park management. Similarly, P RO MOT I N G S USTAIN AB L E PROTE CTE D AR E A TOU R IS M TO B ENE F IT LO CAL E CONOM I ES 55 table 5 Annual Effect of Government Hiring a Local Park Ranger, 2019 in Brazil, as shown in Table 5: Annual Effect of US$ amounts Government Hiring a Local Laborer, 2019, the economic impact of an additional hire from   Zambia Nepal Brazil the local economy outweighs the cost, with an income multiplier of 2.7. Chitwan Abrolhos Changes in local Lower South National Marine economy incomes Zambezi Luangwa SOURCING GOODS LOCALLY Park National Park Real Income 1,479 1,038 6,799 24,045 While the income multiplier for visitor spending in protected areas is significant, leakages occur Poor households 911 668 912 9,875 when goods and services are sourced from Non-poor outside the local economy. 567 370 5,887 14,170 households Cost to hire In Zambia, for instance, hotels on average pur- 978 669 2,442 8,963 chase 16 percent of their daily inputs (in value additional worker Source: World Bank data terms) from non-local sources. While leakages Note: Government expenditures were not available for Fiji. are low, a simulated five percent increase in local sourcing boosts local incomes by US$0.21 million in Lower Zambezi and US$0.35 million in South Luangwa (see Table 6). The largest share table 6 Annual Impacts of 5% Increase in Local Purchasing for of benefits in Lower Zambezi goes to non- Businesses, 2019 poor households in the GMA (US$0.14 million). US$ amounts In Nepal, hotels purchase 26 percent of their inputs from outside the local economy, and a   Zambia Nepal Brazil Fiji five percent increase in local purchasing raises Abrolhos local incomes by US$3.0 million (see Figure 21). Chitwan Lower South Marine Mamanuca As in Zambia, most of these benefits accrue to   National Zambezi Luangwa National Islands Park non-poor households. In Fiji, the five percent in- Park Total Real crease in local purchasing boosts local incomes 207,573 352,894 3,017,214 102,045 291,374 Income by US$291,374, with most benefits accruing to Poor 10,671 260,175 29,395 13,345 55,500 non-poor households on the mainland (US$ 211,587); the incomes of poor households on Non-poor 196,901 92,720 2,987,818 88,700 211,587 the mainland and of island residents increase Island n/a n/a n/a n/a 24,287 by US$55,500 and US$24,287, respective- Source: World Bank data ly. Finally, in Brazil, a 5 percent increase in local purchasing boosts local incomes by US$102,045; once again, most benefits accrue to non-poor households, which increase their Figure 21: Annual Impacts of 5% Increase in Local Purchasing for incomes by US$88,700 compared to US$13,345 Businesses, 2019 for poor households. In all four countries, poor households benefit less than non-poor ones 3.5 due to their lesser capacity to take advantage of economic opportunities. 3.0 2.5 increased input, millions US$ Income impact of 5% 2.0 3.02 F in di n g s 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.35 0.29 0.21 0.10 0.0 Lower South Chitwan Abrolhos Mamanuca Zambezi Luangwa National Park Marine Park Islands Zambia Nepal Brazil Fiji Source: World Bank data 56 BA NKI NG ON PROTE C TE D A RE A S To conclude, the findings from the four country case studies can be summarized in the following key takeaways: Protected areas are natural assets that provide substantial economic benefits, and support significant numbers of jobs Benefits of tourism in protected areas go beyond tourism businesses and households directly involved in the sector • Impacts are differentiated by poor and non-poor There are however winner and losers, and policies are required to compensate households which lose income, and to equitably distribute benefits to local communities Government programs, such as hiring locals to work in protected areas, and locally sourcing goods and services, can strengthen tourism’s economic impacts Investing in protected areas is good economics- • In some cases, protected areas are self-financing and not a resource sink • Economic impacts of protected area tourism outweigh its costs in all four countries The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the tourism sector, and multiple effects on economies Fi n din g s P RO MOT I N G S USTAIN AB L E PROTE CTE D AR E A TOU R IS M TO B ENE F IT LO CAL E CONOM I ES 57 3.3 study limitations While estimations of direct/indirect tourism impacts or externalities associated with tourists; impacts provide a better picture of the sector’s however, it recognizes that tourists can degrade links to surrounding communities, such esti- environmental assets. Data limitations detailed mates remain conservative, and may not reflect in the report have meant that not all econom- the full effects of protected area investment. ic linkages can be captured; as an example, Critical to this point, the LEWIE model is not impacts on the local economy from the expen- dynamic, and thus, varying factors like fishery ditures made by protected area managers were stocks, which are critical to marine protected not considered. areas, are not considered. Scaling the LEWIE Attribution - the link between protected area methodology to fit additional needs can provide status and the desire of tourists to visit - is further evidence of the benefits of investment another challenge for this kind of study. In the in protected areas. In marine protected areas, case of terrestrial protected areas, the reasons this includes developing a “bio-LEWIE” model for visits are usually clear, as these areas are which incorporates data on fishery stocks, the far-removed from competing attractions and are sustainability of their harvest, and the supply visited for reasons specific to the site. In marine and demand of sea products to the local tourist protected areas, however, these motivations are industry. Unmeasured benefits, such as the less direct because visitors are drawn to coastal maintenance and supply of ecosystem services areas irrespective of the conservation status of are increasingly revealed to have significant marine environments. Because of this, the evi- economic values. dence linking protected area status with tourist It is also possible that this study understates numbers is not clear, and site-specific data are the full economic impact of tourism around needed to cast light on this issue. parks as only benefits to the local economy Finally, these findings are specific to the pro- have been estimated. Tourists who visit protect- tected areas chosen for this study and may not ed areas also spend money outside the local apply to other protected areas. As countries economy, and tourism businesses are likely to consider the results of this study, they should source goods and services from outside the assess comparability of their protected areas local economy too. Both these channels add with our case studies before adopting recom- to returns on government spending and to the mendations. Scaling this methodology to cover nation’s economy/GDP. Also, the study does not more parks and more contexts in future studies consider the costs of adverse environmental can help to overcome this issue. F in di n g s 58 BA NKI NG ON PROTE C TE D A RE A S 4 Polic y Re co mmen dati on s Policy Recommendations P RO MOT I N G S USTAIN AB L E PROTE CTE D AR E A TOU R IS M TO B ENE F IT LO CAL E CONOM I ES 59 As presented in the previous section, analysis of contribute to development goals and to secure the country case studies has shown that protect- biodiversity assets. While the findings of this ed areas, because they attract tourists, are able study cannot be applied to all protected areas, to conserve biodiversity and to stimulate local they offer lessons from diverse settings from economic development in surrounding areas, which policies can be tailored. Central to all ef- providing employment for poor and non-poor forts, however, is the need to manage protected households, and for those directly involved in areas well, promote tourism and diversify its the tourism sector, and others. offerings, and share benefits with local commu- nities fairly. Taken together, these three factors As countries begin to realize these benefits, can promote both development and biodiversity there is great potential for protected areas to conservation (see Figure 22). figure 22 Framework for Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas P olic y R eco mme n dati on s Source: World Bank 60 BA NKI NG ON PROTE C TE D A RE A S 4.1 protect natural assets 4.1.1. Formalize Protected Areas While investing in protected areas to grow tourism generates positive impacts for local Biodiversity cannot be recovered once lost, and economies, there are also tradeoffs that need to to conserve ecological assets, it is crucial to for- be considered. Higher tourist numbers increase malize protection. In Fiji, for example, few marine the environmental footprint of the sector and areas have been formally protected, and to rem- may lead to the degradation of natural assets, edy this situation, it is important, as a first step, to reducing the net benefit to local economies. In align these areas with formal (“gazetted”) marine Nepal’s mountains, for example, deforestation protected areas in order to build benefit sharing for construction, cooking and heating in lodges, arrangements and scale up the impacts of these and waste generated by tourists threaten the areas on local economies. Even if formalization quality of the very environment that attracts restricts resource use, and prevents local people visitors from around the world. Similarly, plastic from fishing, hunting, or harvesting plants, such debris and aquatic litter in marine protected restrictions may be offset in the medium term, as areas are unsightly, and can harm marine life. over-harvested wild populations recover under Damage to coral reefs from boat traffic, anchor- formal protection and disperse into surrounding ing, and scuba diving also compromise marine GMAs, buffer zones and favorable habitats. As habitats. Targeted, system-wide investments noted in section 3.2, formal marine protection can contain impacts on environments and local may cause recovering fish stocks to populate economies, and one approach is high-value adjacent areas in which fishermen benefit from low-volume tourism which attracts fewer tourists increased catch sizes. Formalization also gives that generate more income. Conservation governments authority to work with local busi- tourism, ecotourism13, and related activities nesses to pursue environmental standards which may also promote low-impact development of may reduce the impact of tourism on fragile the industry. Each of these strategies relies on ecosystems, including reefs. local community participation and leadership for stakeholder buy-in and locally tailored actions. 4.1.2 Increase Public Investment in A recent World Bank report provides a review of tools and knowledge to guide nature-based Protected Area Management tourism practitioners to prepare projects that To promote biodiversity conservation and se- promote sustainable tourism practices and pol- cure the natural assets visitors enjoy, protected icies, improve visitor management, and reduce areas must be conserved and well managed. impacts from tourism, among other important This requires governments to address the topics (see Box 10) (World Bank 2020c). Polic y Re co mmen dati on s underlying factors associated with poor per- While asset protection is largely a public formance, and to invest in their management. sector responsibility, government investment Conservation spending can address threats to in protected areas demonstrates a commit- natural assets (Waldron et al. 2017; McCarthy ment which makes private sector funding more et al. 2012; Waldron et al. 2013), and improve likely. In some African countries, collaborative management when used to hire and train staff, approaches have emerged in which the state invest in infrastructure for enforcement and delegates authority to manage protected areas tourism, manage wildlife and other natural to private or non-profit operators (Baghai et al. resources, and promote outreach. Investing in 2018). This enabling environment has resulted in protected areas with viable tourism can also more funding than state budgets allow for, and subsidize other parks in which tourism is still to increased revenue retention for protected areas be developed or is not suitable. Some of the (Lindsey et al. 2021). broad categories of investments and activities are described in Table 7 below. 13 For tools and resources on developing these and other forms of nature-based tourism, see World Bank 2020c. P RO MOT I N G S USTAIN AB L E PROTE CTE D AR E A TOU R IS M TO B ENE F IT LO CAL E CONOM I ES 61 Table 7 List of Investments and Activities from Increased Public Investment in Protected Areas Categories Sub-categories Examples of activities in which investments can be made I. Protected Area Creation of protected Creation and expansion of protected area network. Management areas Infrastructure Infrastructure establishment and support for visitor centers, roads, accessibility and connectivity of protected areas, water holes, wetland management. Operations Development of budgets, management plans, training & equipment for park guards, anti-poaching initiatives, fire protection, communications, and technology. Finance Capitalization of conservation trust funds, design of regulatory framework for incentive structures for funding, and financial modeling. Monitoring, Research & Implementation of- national and site level wildlife surveys, wildlife and habitat Species Conservation management, buffer zone and corridor management, trans-frontier cooperation, remote sensing and geospatial analysis for monitoring, rehabilitation, marine spatial planning, and reef and forest restoration. II. Policy Policy & Legal Reforms Development of concessions, benefit sharing mechanisms, park entry fees, CITES compliance, and laws to combat illegal wildlife trade. Institutional Capacity Staffing, equipment, technical assistance and training, support for administration and Building management, stakeholder analysis, research, information and knowledge sharing nationally and internationally. III. Tourism Tourism Development Technical assistance to develop a business plan and strategy for protected areas, Strategy (“product”) marketing and branding, improving business climate i.e., awareness of nature-based tourism, feasibility studies, private sector investment, tourism opportunities, cultural and heritage conservation. Tourism Training & Skills Skills development for locals to enter tourism sector, scholarships, sensitization Development to conservation activities, training local authorities, employment choices in tourism, education program for local youth, small-scale tourism/community-based ecotourism. IV. Community Livelihoods improved livelihoods, conflict mitigation, “entrepreneurial” investments, Engagement conservation-linked incentives, sustainable use, and community action plans. Governance and Sustainable resource management, land zoning, natural resource mapping, capacity community-based building of local community members, indigenous knowledge sharing, governance, natural resource awareness, and behavior change. management P olic y R eco mme n dati on s V. Partnerships Integrated Planning Landscape and seascape management; cross-sector infrastructure, irrigation, Across Sectors transport, and agriculture; efficiency of complementary sectors (fisheries, climate- smart agriculture, climate change, forestry, pollution, and waste management). Source: World Bank 62 BA NKI NG ON PROTE C TE D A RE A S Box 10 Tools and Resources for Nature-Based Tourism A recent report, “Tools and Resources for Nature-based Tourism,” gathered over 360 tools and resources catego- rized by the broad topics listed below. TWO TOPICS HIGHLIGHTED IN THIS REPORT ARE: 1) Visitor Management - Visitor management tracks tourist behavior at a destination. There are a number of tools and techniques for pursuing the objectives of nature-based tourism while managing its negative impacts. The Visitor use management framework (2016) is such a tool, and is complemented by the Visitor capacity guidebook (2019), which helps protected area managers to collaboratively develop long-term strategies to manage the amounts and types of visitor use. The Congestion management toolkit (2014) provides approaches to managing congestion, and tools to address specific congestion problems, focusing on national parks in the United States. The IUCN’s Best Practice Guidelines on Tourism and visitor manage- ment in protected areas (2018) provides guidance on using tourism to generate wider economic benefits for communities, reviews nature-based tourism’s social and cultural impacts, and outlines prin- ciples of tourism and visitor management in protected areas. 2) Reducing Environmental Impacts. Several tools exist to reduce the environmental impacts of tourism, and to help practitioners balance its positive and negative outcomes. Environmental impacts of ecotourism (2004) reviews the environmental impacts and man- agement of particular activities, such as hiking and camping, and impacts specific to certain ecosystems (e.g., marine environments, polar coasts, mountain environments). Conservation tourism (2010) Polic y Re co mmen dati on s provides case studies from tourism companies that have contribut- ed to the conservation of global biodiversity. Green your business: Toolkit for tourism operators (2008) is a Canadian handbook which helps operators in protected areas to pursue sustainability, including through socio-cultural approaches. A practical guide to good practice for marine-based tours (2008) helps marine tour operators to im- prove their environmental and social performance so as to contribute to marine conservation and the economic development of coastal communities, and to appeal to increasingly discerning consumers. Source: World Bank 2020c P RO MOT I N G S USTAIN AB L E PROTE CTE D AR E A TOU R IS M TO B ENE F IT LO CAL E CONOM I ES 63 To reduce over-reliance on tourism and sta- an overview of financial instruments, and the bilize protected area financing, other sources report, “Mobilizing Finance for Nature” provides of finance such as conservation trust funds detailed guidance on financing mechanisms for (Doinjashvili, Méral, and Andriamahefazafy 2020), biodiversity conservation (World Bank 2020a). impact bonds (Withers and Zoltani 2020), and Robust strategies may involve several of these payment for ecosystem services (Börner et al. approaches in tandem, working towards a sys- 2017) can also be considered. Table 8 provides tems approach to protected area finance. table 8 Financial Instruments for Protected Areas Instruments Description Conservation Conservation Trust Funds are legally independent institutions (i.e., non-government) Trust Funds managed by an independent board of directors, which provide long-term, sustainable funding for conservation and/or protected area agencies through local grants. Trust funds can be endowments, sinking funds, or revolving funds. Government Government revenue allocations come from local, regional and national bodies, and/ budget/revenues or authorities’ public budgets. They also include earmarked government taxes on tourism, and on commodities such as gasoline, structured debt relief earmarked for conservation, and government bonds. Carbon Finance Carbon markets serve as a new opportunity for protected area funding but are usually inadequate to meet full management costs. Revenues from Mechanisms include protected area entry and recreation fees, sport hunting and tourism and “green” safari fees, hotel and airport taxes, tourist and tourism operator contributions, recreation and public land and tourism concessions, among others. Revenues should ideally be channeled to protected area management. Compensation Compensation payments are instruments to hold companies accountable for payments their impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity. They finance conservation by collecting fines for pollution, royalties for natural resource use, compensation for environmental impacts, or even voluntary contributions. Although compensation payments don’t necessarily reflect actual environmental impacts or provide one- for-one compensation, they pay for the use of a natural resource by investing in the conservation of another. They are typically calculated as a percentage of project development costs and pertain to bioprospecting, royalties from resource extraction, fines for environmental damage, voluntary and mandatory payments, mitigation banking and biodiversity offsets. Revenues from Revenue comes from the legal sale and trade of plants and wildlife products for the sale and conservation. International conventions, such as the CITES and associated national trade of wildlife laws govern and monitor the legality of such trade. Financing mechanisms such as fines, wildlife auctions, loans, and in-situ-ex-situ partnerships contribute funding to species conservation. P olic y R eco mme n dati on s Innovative Financial instruments can design and incubate mechanisms to raise and invest new financing capital which finances conservation and pays for results. These include Wildlife mechanisms Conservation Bonds such as the Rhino Impact Bond, Lion’s Share Fund, and Conservation Capital’s Umiliki Investment fund, among others. Collaborative CMPs between state wildlife agencies and NGOs can attract investment and technical Management capacity to improve protected area performance. The three main CMP models - Partnerships financial and technical support, co-management, and delegated management - yield (CMP) median funds that are 1.5, 2.6 and 14.6 times greater, respectively, than baseline state budgets for protected area management (Lindsey et al. 2021). Source: World Bank 64 BA NKI NG ON PROTE C TE D A RE A S Table 9. Staff Competencies agreements will depend on the number of contracts that are under development and/or operational. However, at a minimum, a national Core competencies Fundamental competencies level program will require a program manager, • Organizational • Understanding the legal framework that project development team member (2–3 de- Awareness applies to operators pending upon the number of projects), finance • Oral and Written • Developing contracts or other authorizing team member, operations and planning team Communication instruments, and soliciting bids if applicable member, facility management team member • Problem Solving • Monitoring and evaluating operators • Technological Skills • Data collection and analysis and a legal advisor. And finally, two types of • Accountability • Business acumen competencies are needed for concession man- • Individual Development • Contract negotiation skills, and agement personnel (see Table 9). and Planning • Asset management training if government Core competencies refer to general skills need- • Flexibility facilities are used by operators • Attention to Detail ed by all staff in commercial services and could By developing training and on-the-job • Interpersonal Skills education strategies, protected area managers apply to departments/ministries in charge of • Integrity/Honesty can cultivate and retain the skills of their staff. protected area management. Fundamental com- petencies refer to key technical abilities needed Source: Thompson et al. 2014 by all staff in concession management. 4.1.4 Regularly Assess the Effects of 4.1.3 Build Capacity of Protected Area Visitor Spending Managers To make the case for public spending, and to Successful protected areas have qualified man- support planning, governments should regularly agers who are well versed in protected area laws assess the impacts of protected area tourism, and policies, and also understand the business and use visitor surveys on a rolling basis to needs and obligations to conservation of tourism capture seasonal changes in tourism behavior. operators and commercial entities. For example, Among the case studies, only Fiji had a regu- managing concession programs requires skill lar International Visitor Survey, which is led by sets that go beyond knowledge of wildlife man- the Ministry of Commerce, Trade, Tourism and agement, and this capacity must be built. Transport in partnership with the IFC. Visitor Experience from many countries has shown that surveys and information on park visitor numbers centralizing conservation at the national level and tourist spending behavior can be used to allows for better access to specialists and deci- inform policies, improve services to tourists, sion makers, and more policy consistency, while assist local communities, refine tourism business the day-to-day management of concessions models, understand the impacts of tourism and is best accomplished at the protected area how they may change over time, and demon- level by trained park managers. Secondly, the strate the economic returns of investing in number of staff needed to manage concessions protected areas. Polic y Re co mmen dati on s 4.2 grow and diversify tourism businesses  4.2.1 Diversify Tourism Offerings just five national parks (Ministry of Tourism and Arts, Republic of Zambia 2018). Similarly, in In the countries we studied, to grow and diver- Nepal, tourists predominantly visit only four pro- sify tourism will require policies, programs, and tected areas: Shivapuri-Nagarjun National Park investments that go beyond protected areas. (close to Kathmandu), Annapurna Conservation In many countries, nature-based tourism is Area, Chitwan National Park, and Sagarmatha clustered around key protected areas, con- National Park, home of Mount Everest. In Brazil centrating both positive and negative impacts too, tourists are concentrated in a relatively on these regions. In Zambia, for example, over small number of protected areas. For example, 40 percent of the country’s land is under some according to ICMBio (2019), the most visited form of protection, including 20 national parks, national parks in 2018 were Tijuca, with 2.6 mil- yet 95 percent of tourism is clustered around lion visitors, followed by Iguaçu (1.9 million) and P RO MOT I N G S USTAIN AB L E PROTE CTE D AR E A TOU R IS M TO B ENE F IT LO CAL E CONOM I ES 65 Jericoacoara (1.9 million). The most visited fed- A business will need a concession agreement eral marine protected areas in 2018 were Arraial to operate inside a protected area, for example. do Cabo Extrativist Reserve (1.2 million visitors) A concession agreement stipulates key terms and PN Fernando de Noronha (0.1 million). and conditions that the business must oper- ate under, such as duration, type of operation, In the four countries, this concentration of visitors environmental conditions, and fees for access. at well-known sites makes it important to expand A commercial services/concessions program the number of protected area sites in order in any country should include the following to better manage tourism’s impacts. Thus, the elements: tourism potential of new sites in each country’s protected area network needs to be assessed, 1. Strong protected area laws and regulations and priority sites identified which consider road 2. Public support for commercial activity in parks access, security, biodiversity, landscape attrac- 3. Demonstrated economic benefit tions, and local stakeholder interest in tourism 4. Commercial Service/Concession laws drafted development. A recent World Bank publication with stakeholders, including potential opera- on Nepal provides guidance on site selection tors/concessionaires, environmental groups, and private sector inclusion in this process and the general public (see Box 11). 5. Legal framework allowing implementing agency to set policy details 6. Socializing the draft law 4.2.2 Develop Concession Policies to 7. Implementing the law through regulations Promote Tourism in Protected Areas that are clear and thorough; and Another means to promote tourism in protect- 8. Modifying these laws/regulations when ed areas is through concessioning, which can necessary. help to address tourism infrastructure financing, The regulatory framework of concessions managing existing infrastructure (mandate, skills, policies is discussed further in Box 12, in which personnel), and offering public services. Leases, current policies in the four country contexts are management contracts, and licensing (Leung et outlined. al 2018; Thompson et al 2014) may play similar roles (see Figure 22). Figure 23. Instruments to Outsource Tourism MANAGEMENT CONCESSION LEASE LICENSE/ PERMIT CONTRACT Long-term Lease agreement. Agreement with License for undertaking user rights. Private operator operator of payment activities in PA that could Concessionaire has leases facility and of an existing otherwise be considered Description responsibility for assumed operating fee based on illegal and where operators investment and is responsibility performance are screened. Permit for usually accountable legal activities P olic y R eco mme n dati on s for management 10-40 years, fee More than 5 years, <5 years, Up to 10 years, licenses/ (could include fee government pays permits paid by operator Duration and revenue sharing) fee, might be Payment performance-based fee Design, rehabilitate, Maintain, operate, Depends on the Depends on the contract extend, build, and provide services contract Private Operator finance, maintain Functions and operate. Ownership PA Accommodation, Use of fixed Use of fixed Vehicle-based tour Activities restaurant, retail infrastructure infrastructure (license), guiding, canoeing, hunting. Source: World Bank 66 BA NKI NG ON PROTE C TE D A RE A S Box 11. Selecting Protected Area Destinations for Phased Nature-Based Tourism Development To diversify and expand nature-based tourism in Nepal, the WBG has identified twelve destinations across the seven Desirability Criteria Feasibility Criteria newly-formed administrative provinces, in consultation with Employment creation potential - Potential for more stakeholders (see Map B11.1). Selected destinations can be Potential over 5 years (e.g., from less visitors (market appeal) ranked according to private sector opportunities, based on than 500 jobs to high potential of - Competitive in relation the desirability of growing key sectors and the feasibility of 5000+ jobs) to other natural & cultural addressing constraints to this growth. Desirability and feasi- destinations bility can be roughly equated to social returns (desirability) versus risk-adjusted private returns (feasibility) of investment Impact on inclusiveness - Potential Potential for more in each sector. impact in addressing poverty, spending by visitors marginalized ethnic groups/gender - Demand from higher- These destinations may be ranked according to the criteria through direct and indirect benefits spending tourists is above to identify optimal sites for high private sector develop- present but not fully ment impact. Such sites need to score highly for both criteria realized due to lack of in order for the private sector to contribute to development, activities, facilities and as even if social returns are high, private sector involvement is access profit-driven. However, the expansion of protected area tourist offerings is critical to manage tourism’s negative impacts and Private sector investment potential Access infrastructure - achieve conservation/development goals, and requires private - Potential to attract relatively large Infrastructure availability, sector participation to complement scarce public funds. By investors (FDI, large investor and level and planned both leveraging the private sector and optimizing the use of medium-size investor) in the high- development public resources, financing for development and growth can end to mid-range market segment be maximized. e.g., ‘tourist hotel’ three to five-star accommodation In terms of the desirability/feasibility criteria, Provinces 4 and 5 offer the greatest opportunities for private sector engagement, Product innovation and value chain Alignment with national and may be able to develop destinations to attract high-end addition - Potential to add value to and local government and mid-range markets. Mid-West (Province 6) and Langtang the destination/tourist activity, be priorities - Alignment and Gaurishankar (Province 3) have similar potential, while replicable, and improve positioning, with national strategies Far West Nepal (Province 7) and Eastern Nepal destinations brand and appeal and local/regional (Province 1) are not ranked as highly due to access limita- development policies tions. Kathmandu valley (Province 3), Everest (Province 1), and Cultural and environmental Empowerment at Chitwan (Province 3) are relatively mature markets with little protection – Improved environmental destination level - Clarity diversification potential. sustainability/protection and of local mandates & protection of cultural assets involvement of local public and private stakeholders and communities Map B11.1 Twelve Potential Tourism Destinations in Nepal Polic y Re co mmen dati on s Source: World Bank 2020b P RO MOT I N G S USTAIN AB L E PROTE CTE D AR E A TOU R IS M TO B ENE F IT LO CAL E CONOM I ES 67 Box 12 Concessions Policies for Protected Areas Commercial visitor services, or tourism concessions, are facili- 1. Well defined, transparent and consistent processes to deal ties and services provided to protected area visitors to facilitate with commercial interests so that parties are treated fairly and their use and enjoyment of a park. Concessions enhance park consistently. operations by providing services such as accommodation, food, 2. Explicit and transparent criteria should be applied to commer- merchandise, recreational activities, rental equipment, and transpor- cial decisions. tation services. These typically do not include services needed for 3. Decision-makers must be identifiable, and independent from the operation of the park itself, like park infrastructure, trails, visitor the process. education centers, ranger stations and restrooms. Concessions, 4. Conflicts of interest should be avoided, and agencies should rather, provide services and activities that enable visitors to enjoy have processes to prevent these. and explore parks in a manner aligned with the conservation goals 5. Separate processing/management and decision making of of the area. concession activities, in support of principle four. When concession and commercial service agreements are man- Concessions policies from Brazil, Fiji, Nepal, and Zambia were aged well, they benefit the park, the community, and the operator. reviewed with respect to the legal frameworks for commercial opera- Private concessions can provide opportunities to communities tions in parks, regulations, and procedures that are publicly available around protected areas through employment, training, and econom- to interested parties (see Table 10). Concessions laws vary between ic development. Concession operators can be private companies, the countries: in Nepal and Zambia, concessions policies are includ- non-profits, community groups or partnerships. ed in protected areas law, while in Brazil, a separate law exists for The US National Park Service was the first national park service to concessions in protected areas. Fiji has no specific legislation, but use concessions, starting over one hundred years ago. Since then, existing laws do not prohibit concessioning. Revenue to govern- concessions policies have come to resemble licenses to operate ments from commercial concessions totalled US$15M in Brazil (with on government property, in which visitors are customers and the 11 concessions contracts and over 2,000 commercial use authori- government oversees the operator/concessionaire. In addition to a zations) and US$120M in Nepal (with 6,630 concessions contracts). supportive relationship with the concessioning authority in the pro- Strong concessions policies allow for sustainable tourism growth in tected area, best practices for a commercial services/concessions protected areas, especially if governments prioritize these policies system include: and support protected area management staff to uphold them. table 10 Authority, Law, or Regulation Governing Concession Component Concession component Authority, law, or regulation governing component Brazil Fiji Nepal Zambia Contract Term By policy N/A Law Unknown Methodology for Determining Appropriate No, relies on N/A X No, relies on Activities management plan management plan Written Regulations and Policies that are legally Yes N/A In process Unknown enforceable Solicitation, Selection, Evaluation & Award Yes, procurement N/A X Unknown Procedures law Non-Competitive Award of Concession No N/A X Unknown Contracts P olic y R eco mme n dati on s Unsolicited Applications No N/A Never Unknown Standard Concession Contract Provisions No, by policy N/A X Unknown Protection of Concessionaire Investment In contract N/A X Unknown Franchise Fees Yes N/A X Yes Community Award of Concession Contracts No, separate law N/A Unknown Unknown Reasonableness of Rates to Visitors No, by contract N/A X Unknown Economic Development/Benefit to Indigenous No, separate law Yes Unknown Unknown Populations Annual and Periodic Reviews No, by policy N/A Unknown Unknown Dispute Resolution No, by policy N/A Unknown Unknown 68 BA NKI NG ON PROTE C TE D A RE A S 4.3 share benefits with local communities  4.3.1 Formalize Benefit Sharing economies. Even when tourism generates rev- Arrangements enues, these need to be equitably distributed among beneficiaries in order for these commu- As noted, when communities benefit from pro- nities to support the protected areas from which tected areas, particularly through tourism, they the benefits are derived. Furthermore, there are have an incentive to support parks, and become differences between income impacts for women stakeholders in conservation. Benefit sharing and men living in protected areas and OECMs, formalizes this process, and each of the four and it is important that these differences inform countries have different benefit sharing arrange- the conservation and use of natural resources. ments as seen in Table 11. Table 12 provides an overview of benefit sharing It is important to note that not all protected ar- arrangements along with examples that can eas generate tourism revenues for communities, be used by park authorities in discussions with and that destinations must be sufficiently popu- communities. lar to provide ongoing economic stimuli to local table 11 Comparative Benefit Sharing Arrangements in the Four Countries Country Benefit sharing arrangements Zambia The Zambia Wildlife Act (2015) states that revenue from consumptive and non- consumptive tourism (hunting) must be shared with communities - 50 percent of the revenue from outfitter licenses, animal fees, and hunting fees, and 20 percent from safari hunting concessions is shared with community resource boards (CRB), and 5 percent is shared with local traditional leaders. Payments to CRBs are split three ways: 20 percent for CRB administrative costs; 35 percent for community development projects (boreholes, toilets and schools); and 45 percent for resource protection, primarily through employing scouts for patrols. In addition, lodges in GMAs participate in social responsibility programs, usually involving reinvestment in the community in the form of schools, hospitals and conservation. This serves as another mechanism for communities to benefit from tourism in protected areas. Nepal The Buffer Zone Management Regulations (1996) allow for 30–50 percent of park income to be channeled to local communities living in buffer zones for community development and natural resource management. These regulations allow user committees to spend 30 percent of their annual funds on community development, 30 percent on conservation, 20 percent on income generation and skills development, 10 percent on conservation education, and 10 percent on administration. Additionally, tourism is encouraged in community forests in buffer zones, many of which offer a variety of tourist products, including locally owned and operated accommodation. The regulations, however, prohibit Polic y Re co mmen dati on s land occupation and tree cutting, which restricts construction of lodges in forests, while The Forest Act prevents communities’ forest user groups from mortgaging or transferring their use rights, and thus precludes direct partnerships with private sector concession or lodge operators. Fiji In Fiji, there are no formal benefit sharing agreements, apart from the Shark Reef Reserve in which a community trust fund receives 20 Fijian dollars per diver; this is in part due to the Surfing Area Decree (2010) which was enacted to promote Fiji as a premier surfing destination. The decree grants unrestricted and uncompensated access to surfing areas and supersedes all other forms of title, meaning that communities cannot charge for the use of traditional fishing grounds for tourism. However, in de-facto protected areas that are established when a foreshore lease is issued to a tourism enterprise, the Department of Land requires that local communities are compensated for their loss of fishing rights. Brazil Brazilian legislation makes no provision to share park fees and concession revenues with communities living adjacent to national parks. P RO MOT I N G S USTAIN AB L E PROTE CTE D AR E A TOU R IS M TO B ENE F IT LO CAL E CONOM I ES 69 table 12 Benefit Sharing Arrangements with Local Communities Benefit Sharing Examples Arrangement Direct and indirect Direct: restaurant employees, wait staff, gardeners, taxi/boat drivers, park guides, and handicraft. employment Indirect: Construction, food/goods for restaurants etc. Revenue sharing Refers to tourism revenues from concessions and partnerships, and income from levies, permits, mechanisms of protected hunting fees and/or taxes which are allocated to local communities. Such funds may be distributed area authorities through organized/formal trusts and used to finance local public goods and community development initiatives such as schools, clinics, small scale infrastructure, energy projects, environmental protection, etc. (Spenceley, Snyman, and Rylance 2019). Revenue sharing schemes Approaches or partnership models include public-community initiatives, public-private partnerships, from tourism businesses community-owned-and-run enterprises, community-private partnerships, and public-private- and partnerships community partnerships. Information on roles, responsibilities, challenges and limitations for each of these approaches are detailed in the World Bank report, “Supporting Sustainable Livelihoods through Wildlife Tourism” (Twining-Ward et al. 2018). Sustainable harvesting of Many communities depend upon natural resources for their livelihoods. Allowing access to and plants and animals sustainable harvesting of these resources can improve community support for protected areas. Shared decision-making Local consultation on tourism development and protected area access, and support for communities and capacity building to start small businesses and conservation enterprises. 4.3.2 Strengthening Income Employment in and through tourism provides Multipliers the most tangible demonstration of the value of protected areas and is arguably the stron- Communities benefit from the economic activity gest single lever for delivering this value to spurred by tourists visiting protected areas, and local people living near them. For this reason, the economic impact of this activity, through di- governments should invest in projects which rect and indirect linkages, may be expressed as assist households to participate in the tourism an income multiplier. Once these mechanisms economy through entrepreneurship training, have been understood, government policies skills development, credit services and lo- and programs can be designed and imple- gistics, among others. Governments should mented to strengthen their economic impact. also support business diversification and local Providing opportunities for tourists to interact procurement to strengthen linkages in local with local communities can achieve this, and in economies, drive production and employment, some areas, transport is needed so that tourists prolong circulation of money and thus increase can more easily visit local towns and villages; multipliers. These benefits may be distributed strengthening the capacity of local communities more fairly by including the poor and disadvan- to provide goods and services to tourists also taged. More opportunities for benefit sharing strengthens income multipliers. are presented in Table 13. P olic y R eco mme n dati on s Table 13: Opportunities to Increase Benefits for Local Communities Around Protected Areas Tourism Impact Avenues/Opportunities to increase benefits Direct • Formalize revenue-sharing mechanisms • Build capacity and develop skills • Promote sustainable use of natural resources • Reduce human-wildlife conflict through mitigation and/or compensation • Pursue inclusive governance Indirect • Hire local labor for tourism and protected area management • Encourage local sourcing of goods by tourism establishments • Strengthen market linkages • Offer small grants for businesses and enterprises • Provide agricultural extension and increase capacity of local communities to supply goods and services 70 BA NKI NG ON PROTE C TE D A RE A S 4.3.3 Mitigate and Compensate for or lack of transparency in the transfer of funds to Human-Wildlife Conflict communities. Mitigation and compensation are fundamental In Nepal, over a million people depend on to the management of human-wildlife conflict, resources in buffer zone community forests, and to secure constituencies for conservation and thus, conflicts arise over land use and in communities surrounding protected areas. resources. Buffer zone user committee groups However, the management of compensa- compensate farmers for a portion of their crop tion payouts is important, and some studied losses through cash transfers, but the estimation communities expressed concern that they of crop damage is very difficult, and surveys do not receive revenue shares in a timely or from the six buffer zones indicate that payments appropriate manner. In Zambia, for instance, cover only a small fraction of losses. Other distrust between park authorities and com- approaches to mitigation include investment in munities arises through delays in the timing of local level strategies (seasonal fences, livestock payouts, which do not coincide with peaks in corrals, etc.), and while these may be effective, human-wildlife conflicts. The positive effects of further research is needed, along with standard- other benefit-sharing mechanisms may be less- ized methods for the estimation of crop losses. ened by operational and financial weaknesses, 4.4 green recovery The economic impacts of COVID-19 are The world currently faces a crisis with similar far-reaching, with monthly losses recorded in features: pressures on the environment are all study sites. Fiji, where tourism accounts for unprecedented, and COVID-19 has resulted in over one-third of the country’s economy (WTTC large-scale unemployment, making the CCC 2020), showed the greatest monthly losses. In as relevant as a green recovery model now as each site, the pandemic has resulted in lost jobs it was in 1933. This year, the U.S. Government and income following declines in tourism, an has repurposed this initiative. The new Civilian industry previously known for its global growth. Climate Corps aims to put Americans to work through conservation and restoration of public These losses do not signal a volatile or risky lands and water, and addressing climate change sector, but rather the effects of the pandemic; (The White House 2021). Similarly, countries nonetheless, they flag the need for strong gov- with potential to grow their nature-based ernance, built-in resilience, and a social safety tourism sectors, such as those in this study, net. They also indicate the added imperative to could benefit from CCC-like schemes to kick- make the case for protected area tourism as a start their protected area tourism sectors to means towards a green economic recovery. In maximize benefits to protected area-adjacent making such arguments, evidence is needed to communities. persuade governments that, through tourism, Polic y Re co mmen dati on s protected areas can play a role in economic The COVID-19 pandemic provides a win- recovery from the pandemic and attract private dow-of-opportunity for countries to develop sector participation to deliver economic and management settings and systems while development outcomes aligned with conserva- demand and use pressure are low. Frameworks tion objectives. can be devised that are not immediately binding (due to lower demand), which will give manag- Large-scale investments in protected areas can ers time to trial, consult and lay a foundation create jobs and boost economic recov- for what sustainable tourism may look like. As ery and resilience. In the United States, the demand returns, systems can gradually become Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) was estab- binding, following testing of new operations lished during the Great Depression, and created that prioritize long-term, sustainable, and sys- jobs, infrastructure, and an industry which tem-wide approaches. Similarly, the low demand thrives to this day. The initiative was a govern- period will give park authorities time to collect ment-wide partnership between the Forest data on social, ecological and tourism impacts Service, the National Parks Service, the Labor for later evaluation. Department, and the US Army (see Box 13). P RO MOT I N G S USTAIN AB L E PROTE CTE D AR E A TOU R IS M TO B ENE F IT LO CAL E CONOM I ES 71 box 13 Transforming Landscapes, Creating Jobs and Laying the Foundation for Long-Term Economic Growth - Learning from the Civilian Conservation Corps: a Green Economic Recovery Initiative Context ACHIEVEMENTS In 1933, the Great Depression had left JOB CREATION ECOLOGICAL TOURISM DEVELOPMENT about 25% of Americans unemployed, RESTORATION and America had endured years of drought, forest fires, severe land deg- • Employed ~3 million • 3.5 billion trees planted • 28,000 miles of hiking radation, and rampant soil erosion. The people (~5% of the U.S. • 3,470 fire towers built, trails CCC was established as part of the male workforce) 97,000 miles of fire roads • 63,000 visitor buildings New Deal Program, and while tasked • 250,000 hired in the first constructed, 4,235,000 • 711 state parks with generating employment, was 3 months person-hours fighting established more than a cash-for-work program. • Mostly urban recruits, fires • Investments in It restored natural capital, correcting aged 18–25 years • Erosion arrested on infrastructure for the years of forestry mismanagement, > 20 million acres (e.g., • Professionals - landscape iconic Yellowstone and deforestation and land degradation, check dams, terracing, architects, engineers, Grand Canyon National and invested in physical capital, laying re-vegetation) historians, foresters, Parks a foundation for economic growth. geologists, ecologists, • Investments in flood • Hoover Dam was built During the CCC’s nine-year operation, administrators – also control, irrigation, and with funding and labor it employed approximately 5 percent employed and trained drainage (21 000 men) from CCC; of the US male workforce (about three • College students were the largest reservoir in million people) as skilled and unskilled recruited through the the US. CCC involved in labor, training them to build and man- internship program the construction, artwork, age businesses in construction and sculptures, excavation, landscape design, for example, some and building of the tourist of which persist to this day. The CCC museum led to the creation and expansion of the nationwide state parks system. It ECONOMIC LEGACY P olic y R eco mme n dati on s invested in the infrastructure for almost all of America’s national parks, and • Expansion of U.S. Recreation and Heritage Tourism Sector increased visitor numbers to national » Visitors to national and state parks increased from 3.2 to 20.4 million in nine years and state parks from 3.2 to 20.4 million » Today, parks receive over 320 million visitors per year who spend an estimated in nine years. US$21 billion in local gateway regions, supporting more than 340,500 jobs, generating US$41.7 billion in economic output • Some of the entrepreneurs trained through the CCC created businesses that exist to this day • The CCC became a model for future conservation programs » More than 100 present-day corps programs operate at local, state, and national levels, engaging young adults in community service and conservation activities 72 BA NKI NG ON PROTE C TE D A RE A S Globally, many countries seek to invest in green Box 14. Green Recovery Initiatives in Tourism and Conservation policies as part of their recovery strategies (see Box 14). As the global economy re-opens, na- ture-based tourism can empower small- and medium-sized firms through concessions poli- cies in and around natural areas, and encourage NEW ZEALAND PAKISTAN spending in local communities. Additionally, sup- is investing aims to create port can be given to local businesses through $200 million 200,000 jobs loans, fast-track financing, technical assistance to create green jobs on by investing in nature and to diversify operations, and use of digital tech- public conservation lands, expanding its national nologies. Jobs created, for example, to improve which will improve parks network accessibility (e.g., road network improve- nature-based tourism ments), patrol protected areas, and improve park infrastructure can grow tourism and create a sustainable source of income for households in surrounding areas. KENYA USA A window-of-opportunity is now open to ad- is investing will invest dress the failures and challenges of the industry, and to promote a more inclusive, pro-poor, and $18 million $3 billion environmentally sustainable protected ar- in tourism by supporting to restore parks and support 160 community land and water conservation. ea-based tourism sector. conservancies and It is expected to create engaging 5,500 scouts approximately 100,000 jobs Polic y Re co mmen dati on s P RO MOT I N G S USTAIN AB L E PROTE CTE D AR E A TOU R IS M TO B ENE F IT LO CAL E CONOM I ES 73 P olic y R eco mme n dati on s 74 BA NKI NG ON PROTE C TE D A RE A S 5 Conclusion Co n clus io n P RO MOT I N G S USTAIN AB L E PROTE CTE D AR E A TOU R IS M TO B ENE F IT LO CAL E CONOM I ES 75 The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a global recession, while at the same time, biodiversity loss poses a growing jeopardy to the biosphere. In the wake of the pandemic, the tourism and conservation sectors have suffered setbacks, with tourism dwindling worldwide, and the funding deficit for conservation growing ever larger. In this context, the question was posed: can countries afford to maintain and expand their protected area networks under such economic duress, and while so many development challenges remain intractable? The report’s answer to this question is ‘yes’ –the promotion of inclusive, sustainable tourism in protected areas offers a way for countries to arrest biodiversity loss, assist post-pandemic recovery, and address longstanding development challenges. To back this argument, the report quantifies some of the economic impacts of protected area tourism to show that pro- tected areas promote conservation and development. From case studies covering a mix of economies and contexts, the report draws on survey data and modelling to show how tour- ism catalyzes expanding patterns of cross-sectoral demand and supply which support growing shares of employment among poor and non-poor households. This research con- cludes that protected area tourism is associated with growing local economies, job creation, high income multipliers, pover- ty reduction, and attractive returns on public investment. While caution is warranted in interpreting results and over-generalizing findings, protected areas prove to be valuable economic assets, high-return investments, and a promising means to protect biodiversity and to recover from the pandemic via greener development pathways. To secure these potentials, however, the report recommends that conservation areas receive formal protection, increased public and private investment, close monitoring, and capacity support for managers if their role as ‘engines of develop- ment’ is to be realized. In addition, and to dilute tourism’s negative impacts, the report calls for an expanded network of protected areas to host a diversifying tourist sector which attracts private investment and strengthens its operations through concessions and similar instruments. Finally, and in response to a pandemic which has laid bare the persistence of global inequalities, the report notes that protected area neighbors are crucial conservation allies and beneficiaries, and argues strongly to formalize benefit sharing, strengthen income multipliers, and manage human-wildlife conflict. COVID-19 has led to a global recession, reversed devel- Co n clusi on opment gains, crippled the tourism industry, and shrunk conservation funding in the face of dire threats to the bio- sphere. In such a context, the conclusions of this report are of vital importance – they ask that decisionmakers view protect- ed areas and the tourists who visit them as an opportunity to act wisely and sustainably in response to these challenges. References Acha, Alemayehu, Mathewos Temesgen, and Hans Bauer. 2018. “Human–Wildlife Conflicts and Their Associated Livelihood Impacts in and Around Chebera-Churchura National Park, Ethiopia.” Society & Natural Resources 31 (2): 260–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2017.134797 4. Baghai, Mujon, Jennifer R. B. Miller, Lisa J. Blanken, Holly T. Dublin, Kathleen H. Fitzgerald, Patience Gandiwa, Karen Laurenson, James Milanzi, Alastair Nelson, and Peter Lindsey. 2018. “Models for the Collaborative Management of Africa’s Protected Areas.” Biological Conservation 218 (February): 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.11.025. Balmford, Andrew, James Beresford, Jonathan Green, Robin Naidoo, Matt Walpole, and Andrea Manica. 2009. “A Global Perspective on Trends in Nature-Based Tourism.” PLOS Biology 7 (6): e1000144. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000144. Balmford, Andrew, Pippa Gravestock, Neal Hockley, Colin J. McClean, and Callum M. Roberts. 2004. “The Worldwide Costs of Marine Protected Areas.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101 (26): 9694–97. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0403239101. Balmford, Andrew, Jonathan M. H. Green, Michael Anderson, James Beresford, Charles Huang, Robin Naidoo, Matt Walpole, and Andrea Manica. 2015. “Walk on the Wild Side: Estimating the Global Magnitude of Visits to Protected Areas.” PLOS Biology 13 (2): e1002074. https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002074. Ban, Natalie C., Georgina Grace Gurney, Nadine A. Marshall, Charlotte K. Whitney, Morena Mills, Stefan Gelcich, Nathan J. Bennett, et al. 2019. “Well-Being Outcomes of Marine Protected Areas.” Nature Sustainability 2 (6): 524–32. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0306-2. Barlow, Jos, Filipe França, Toby A. Gardner, Christina C. Hicks, Gareth D. Lennox, Erika Berenguer, Leandro Castello, et al. 2018. “The Future of Hyperdiverse Tropical Ecosystems.” Nature 559 (7715): 517–26. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0301-1. Barnosky, Anthony D., Nicholas Matzke, Susumu Tomiya, Guinevere O. U. Wogan, Brian Swartz, Tiago B. Quental, Charles Marshall, et al. 2011. “Has the Earth’s Sixth Mass Extinction Already Arrived?” Nature 471 (7336): 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09678. Batini, Nicoletta, Mario Di Serio, Matteo Fragetta, Giovanni Melina, and Anthony Waldron. 2021. “Building Back Better: How Big Are Green Spending Multipliers?” IMF Working Paper WP/21/87. International Monetary Fund. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/ Issues/2021/03/19/Building-Back-Better-How-Big-Are-Green-Spending-Multipliers-50264. Benítez-López, Ana, Rob Alkemade, and Pita A. Verweij. 2010. “The Impacts of Roads and Other Infrastructure on Mammal and Bird Populations: A Meta-Analysis.” Biological Conservation 143 (6): 1307–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.02.009. Bergseth, Brock J., Georgina G. Gurney, Michele L. Barnes, Adrian Arias, and Joshua E. Cinner. 2018. “Addressing Poaching in Marine Protected Areas through Voluntary Surveillance and Enforcement.” Nature Sustainability 1 (8): 421–26. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0117-x. Börner, Jan, Kathy Baylis, Esteve Corbera, Driss Ezzine-de-Blas, Jordi Honey-Rosés, U. Martin Persson, and Sven Wunder. 2017. “The Effectiveness of Payments for Environmental Services.” World Development 96 (August): 359–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. worlddev.2017.03.020. Bovarnick, Andrew, Jaime Fernandez-Baca, Jose Galindo, and Helen Negret. 2010. “Financial Sustainability of Protected Areas in Latin America and the Caribbean: Investment Policy Guidance.” United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC). https://www.cbd.int/financial/finplanning/g-planscorelatin-undp.pdf Buckley, Ralf. 2004. Environmental impacts of ecotourism. https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/27855 Buckley, Ralf. 2010. Conservation Tourism. https://www.cabi.org/bookshop/book/9781845936655/ Burke, Lauretta, Katie Reytar, Mark Spalding, and Allison Perry. 2011. Reefs at Risk Revisited. https:// www.wri.org/publication/reefs-risk-revisited. CBD. 2018. Decision Adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity: 14/8 Protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures. CBD/COP/DEC/14/8. Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt. https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-14/cop- 14-dec-08-en.pdf CBD. 2019. “Biodiversity Year in Review.” Convention on Biological Diversity. 2019. https://www.cbd. int/article/2019-12-20-16-57-49. Ceballos, Gerardo, Paul R. Ehrlich, and Peter H. Raven. 2020. “Vertebrates on the Brink as Indicators of Biological Annihilation and the Sixth Mass Extinction.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117 (24): 13596–602. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1922686117. Chidakel, Alexander, Brian Child, and Shylock Muyengwa. 2021. “Evaluating the Economics of Park- Tourism from the Ground-up: Leakage, Multiplier Effects, and the Enabling Environment at South Luangwa National Park, Zambia.” Ecological Economics 182 (April): 106960. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.106960. Chikuba, Zai, Malunga Syacumpi, and James Thurlow. 2013. “A 2007 Social Accounting Matrix (SAM) for Zambia.” Lusaka, Zambia; and Washington, D.C.: Zambia Institute for Policy Analysis and Research; and International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). https://www.ifpri.org/ publication/2007-social-accounting-matrix-sam-zambia. Coad, Lauren, James E.M. Watson, Jonas Geldmann, Neil D. Burgess, Fiona Leverington, Marc Hockings, Kathryn Knights, and Moreno Di Marco. 2019. “Widespread Shortfalls in Protected Area Resourcing Undermine Efforts to Conserve Biodiversity.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 17 (5): 259–64. Conservation International. 2008. A practical guide to good practice for marine-based tours. http:// cpps.dyndns.info/cpps-docs-web/planaccion/docs2011/oct/turismo_biodiv/Doc.18.Best- practice-tourism-galapagos.pdf Cullinane Thomas, Catherine, and Lynne. Koontz. 2020. “2019 National Park Visitor Spending Effects: Economic Contributions to Local Communities, States, and the Nation. Natural Resource Report.” NPS/NRSS/EQD/NRR—2020/2110. Fort Collins, Colorado: National Park Service. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/socialscience/vse.htm. Damania, Richard, Sebastien Desbureaux, Pasquale Lucio Scandizzo, Mehdi Mikou, Deepali Gohil, and Mohammed Said. 2019. “When Good Conservation Becomes Good Economics : Kenya’s Vanishing Herds.” Washington D.C.: World Bank. https://openknowledge.world- bank.org/handle/10986/33083. Deloitte. 2017. “At What Price? The Economic, Social and Icon Value of the Great Barrier Reef.” Brisbane, Australia: Deloitte Australia. den Braber, Bowy, Karl L. Evans, and Johan A. Oldekop. 2018. “Impact of Protected Areas on Poverty, Extreme Poverty, and Inequality in Nepal.” Conservation Letters 11 (6): e12576. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12576. Deutz, Andrew, Geoffrey M. Heal, Rose Niu, Eric Swanson, Terry Townshend, Zhu Li, Alejandro Delmar, Alqayam Meghji, Suresh A. Sethi, and John Tobin-de la Puente. 2020. “Financing Nature: Closing the Global Biodiversity Financing Gap.” The Paulson Institute, The Nature Conservancy, and the Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability. https://www. paulsoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/FINANCING-NATURE_Full-Report_Final- Version_091520.pdf. Dickman, Amy J., Ewan A. Macdonald, and David W. Macdonald. 2011. “A Review of Financial Instruments to Pay for Predator Conservation and Encourage Human–Carnivore Coexistence.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108 (34): 13937–44. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1012972108. Dixon, Peter, and Dale Jorgenson. 2012. “Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling.” Handbook of Computable General Equilibrium Modeling. Elsevier. https://econpapers. repec.org/bookchap/eeehacgem/1.htm. Doinjashvili, Pikria, Philippe Méral, and Fano Andriamahefazafy. 2020. “Sustaining Protected Areas through Conservation Trust Funds: A Review.” International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 0 (0): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2020.1762257. Dudley, Nigel, Holly Jonas, Fred Nelson, Jeffrey Parrish, Aili Pyhälä, Sue Stolton, and James E. M. Watson. 2018. “The Essential Role of Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures in Achieving Big Bold Conservation Targets.” Global Ecology and Conservation 15 (July): e00424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2018.e00424. Dudley, Nigel, and Sue Stolton. 2003. Running Pure : The Importance of Forest Protected Areas to Drinking Water. World Bank/WWF Alliance for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Use. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/15006. Duraiappah, Anantha Kumar, Shahid Naeem, Tundi Agardy, Neville J. Ash, H. David Cooper, Sandra Diaz, Daniel P. Faith, et al. 2005. “Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis; a Report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.” https://experts.umn.edu/en/ publications/ecosystems-and-human-well-being-biodiversity-synthesis-a-report-o. Edgar, Graham J., Rick D. Stuart-Smith, Trevor J. Willis, Stuart Kininmonth, Susan C. Baker, Stuart Banks, Neville S. Barrett, et al. 2014. “Global Conservation Outcomes Depend on Marine Protected Areas with Five Key Features.” Nature 506 (7487): 216–20. https://doi. org/10.1038/nature13022. FAO. 2019. “Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing.” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2019. http://www.fao.org/iuu-fishing/en/. ———. 2020. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ ca9229en. FAO and UNEP. 2020. “The State of the World’s Forests 2020.” Rome: FAO and UNEP. https://doi. org/10.4060/CA8642EN. Ferraro, Paul J., Merlin M. Hanauer, and Katharine R. E. Sims. 2011. “Conditions Associated with Protected Area Success in Conservation and Poverty Reduction.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108 (34): 13913–18. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1011529108. Fiji Bureau of Statistics. 2017. Population and Housing Census. Geldmann, Jonas, Megan Barnes, Lauren Coad, Ian D. Craigie, Marc Hockings, and Neil D. Burgess. 2013. “Effectiveness of Terrestrial Protected Areas in Reducing Habitat Loss and Population Declines.” Biological Conservation 161 (May): 230–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biocon.2013.02.018. Geldmann, Jonas, Andrea Manica, Neil D. Burgess, Lauren Coad, and Andrew Balmford. 2019. “A Global-Level Assessment of the Effectiveness of Protected Areas at Resisting Anthropogenic Pressures.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116 (46): 23209–15. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1908221116. Gibb, Rory, David W. Redding, Kai Qing Chin, Christl A. Donnelly, Tim M. Blackburn, Tim Newbold, and Kate E. Jones. 2020. “Zoonotic Host Diversity Increases in Human-Dominated Ecosystems.” Nature 584 (7821): 398–402. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2562-8. Gill, David A., Michael B. Mascia, Gabby N. Ahmadia, Louise Glew, Sarah E. Lester, Megan Barnes, Ian Craigie, et al. 2017. “Capacity Shortfalls Hinder the Performance of Marine Protected Areas Globally.” Nature 543 (7647): 665–69. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21708. Halpern, Benjamin S., Melanie Frazier, John Potapenko, Kenneth S. Casey, Kellee Koenig, Catherine Longo, Julia Stewart Lowndes, et al. 2015. “Spatial and Temporal Changes in Cumulative Human Impacts on the World’s Ocean.” Nature Communications 6 (1): 7615. https://doi. org/10.1038/ncomms8615. Hill, Catherine, Ferrel Osborn, and Andrew Plumptre. 2002. Human-Wildlife Conflict: Identifying the Problem and Possible Solutions. Albertine Rift Technical Reports Series. Vol. 1. Hockings, Marc. 2006. Evaluating Effectiveness: A Framework for Assessing Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas. IUCN. Hockings, Marc, Nigel Dudley, and Wendy Elliott. 2020. “Editorial Essay: COVID-19 and Protected and Conserved Areas.” PARKS, no. 26.1 (June): 7–24. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN. CH.2020.PARKS-26-1MH.en. IMF. 2020. “Regional Economic Outlook. Sub-Saharan Africa: A Difficult Road to Recovery.” ISBN 9781513557601. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund. https://www.imf.org/-/media/ Files/Publications/REO/AFR/2020/October/English/text.ashx. Inskip, Chloe, and Alexandra Zimmermann. 2009. “Human-Felid Conflict: A Review of Patterns and Priorities Worldwide.” Oryx 43 (1): 18–34. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060530899030X. Interagency Visitor Use Management Council. 2016. Visitor Use Management Framework: A Guide to Providing Sustainable Outdoor Recreation. https://visitorusemanagement.nps.gov/con- tent/documents/lowres_VUM%20Framework_Edition%201_IVUMC.pdf Interagency Visitor Use Management Council. 2019. Visitor Capacity Guidebook: Managing the Amounts and Types of Visitor Use to Achieve Desired Conditions. https:// visitorusemanagement.nps.gov/Content/documents/IVUMC_Visitor_Capacity_Guidebook_ newFINAL_highres.pdf IPBES. 2019. Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Edited by E. S. Brondizio, J. Settele, S. Díaz, and H. T. Ngo. Bonn, Germany: IPBES Secretariat. https://ipbes.net/global-assessment. IPCC, 2019. “IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate.” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/. IUCN ESARO. 2020. “Closing the Gap. The Financing and Resourcing of Protected and Conserved Areas in Eastern and Southern Africa.” Nairobi, Kenya: IUCN ESARO; BIOPAMA. https://por- tals.iucn.org/library/node/49045. Jambeck, Jenna R., Roland Geyer, Chris Wilcox, Theodore R. Siegler, Miriam Perryman, Anthony Andrady, Ramani Narayan, and Kara Lavender Law. 2015. “Plastic Waste Inputs from Land into the Ocean.” Science 347 (6223): 768–71. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1260352. Jones, Kendall R., Oscar Venter, Richard A. Fuller, James R. Allan, Sean L. Maxwell, Pablo Jose Negret, and James E. M. Watson. 2018. “One-Third of Global Protected Land Is under Intense Human Pressure.” Science 360 (6390): 788–91. https://doi.org/10.1126/science. aap9565. Leisher, Craig, P.J.H. Van Beukering, and Lea Scherl. 2007. “Nature’s Investment Bank. Marine Protected Areas Contribute to Poverty Reduction.” The Nature Conservancy, January. Leung, Yu-Fai, Anna Spenceley, Glen Hvenegaard, and Ralf Buckley (eds.). 2018. “Tourism and Visitor Management in Protected Areas: Guidelines for Sustainability.” Gland. https://www. sprep.org/attachments/VirLib/Global/tourism-protected-areas.pdf. Leverington, Fiona, Katia Lemos Costa, Helena Pavese, Allan Lisle, and Marc Hockings. 2010. “A Global Analysis of Protected Area Management Effectiveness.” Environmental Management 46 (5): 685–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9564-5. Lindsey, P., M. Baghai, G. Bigurube, S. Cunliffe, A. Dickman, K. Fitzgerald, M. Flyman, et al. 2021. “Attracting Investment for Africa’s Protected Areas by Creating Enabling Environments for Collaborative Management Partnerships.” Biological Conservation 255 (March): 108979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.108979. Lindsey, Peter A., Jennifer R. B. Miller, Lisanne S. Petracca, Lauren Coad, Amy J. Dickman, Kathleen H. Fitzgerald, Michael V. Flyman, et al. 2018. “More than $1 Billion Needed Annually to Secure Africa’s Protected Areas with Lions.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115 (45): E10788. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1805048115. Lindsey, Peter, James Allan, Peadar Brehony, Amy Dickman, Ashley Robson, Colleen Begg, Hasita Bhammar, et al. 2020. “Conserving Africa’s Wildlife and Wildlands through the COVID-19 Crisis and Beyond.” Nature Ecology & Evolution 4 (10): 1300–1310. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41559-020-1275-6. Mackenzie, Catrina A., and Peter Ahabyona. 2012. “Elephants in the Garden: Financial and Social Costs of Crop Raiding.” Ecological Economics 75 (March): 72–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolecon.2011.12.018. Maekawa, Miko, Annette Lanjouw, Eugène Rutagarama, and Douglas Sharp. 2013. “Mountain Gorilla Tourism Generating Wealth and Peace in Post-Conflict Rwanda.” Natural Resources Forum 37 (2): 127–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-8947.12020. Mascia, Michael B., and Sharon Pailler. 2011. “Protected Area Downgrading, Downsizing, and Degazettement (PADDD) and Its Conservation Implications.” Conservation Letters 4 (1): 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00147.x. Maxwell, S. L., Cazalis, V., Dudley, N., Hoffmann, M., Rodrigues, A. S. L., Stolton, S., Visconti, P., Woodley, S., Kingston, N., Lewis, E., Maron, M., Strassburg, B. B. N., Wenger, A., Jonas, H. D., Venter, O., & Watson, J. E. M. 2020. Area-based conservation in the twenty-first century. Nature, 586 (7828), 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2773-z. McCarthy, Donal P, Paul F Donald, Jörn PW Scharlemann, Graeme M Buchanan, Andrew Balmford, Jonathan MH Green, Leon A Bennun, Neil D Burgess, Lincoln DC Fishpool, and Stephen T Garnett. 2012. “Financial Costs of Meeting Global Biodiversity Conservation Targets: Current Spending and Unmet Needs.” Science 338 (6109): 946–49. Melillo, Jerry M., Xiaoliang Lu, David W. Kicklighter, John M. Reilly, Yongxia Cai, and Andrei P. Sokolov. 2016. “Protected Areas’ Role in Climate-Change Mitigation.” Ambio 45 (2): 133–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015-0693-1. Ministry of Tourism and Arts, Republic of Zambia. 2018. “Zambia Tourism Master Plan 2018-2038.” https://www.mota.gov.zm/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Zambia-Tourism-Master-Plan.pdf. Mitchell, Jonathan, and Caroline Ashley. 2009. “Tourism and Poverty Reduction: Pathways to Prosperity.” Tourism and Poverty Reduction: Pathways to Prosperity, December, 1–157. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849774635. Mtui, Elibariki. 2007. “Towards Initiating and Implementing Incentives for Pro-Poor Tourism in Tanzania.” In Tourism and Development: Agendas for Action, 85–110. Nairobi, Kenya: SNV East & Southern Africa. https://land.igad.int/index.php/documents-1/countries/kenya/ investment-3/669-tourism-and-development/file. Munanura, Ian E., Kenneth F. Backman, Jeffrey C. Hallo, and Robert B. Powell. 2016. “Perceptions of Tourism Revenue Sharing Impacts on Volcanoes National Park, Rwanda: A Sustainable Livelihoods Framework.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 24 (12): 1709–26. https://doi.org/10. 1080/09669582.2016.1145228. Naidoo, R., D. Gerkey, D. Hole, A. Pfaff, A. M. Ellis, C. D. Golden, D. Herrera, et al. 2019. “Evaluating the Impacts of Protected Areas on Human Well-Being across the Developing World.” Science Advances 5 (4): eaav3006. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aav3006. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. 2016. Congestion Management Toolkit. https:// parkplanning.nps.gov/showFile.cfm?projectID=97506&MIMEType=application%252Fpdf&- filename=NPS%5FCMS%5FToolkit%2Epdf&sfid=440147. Newbold, Tim. 2018. “Future Effects of Climate and Land-Use Change on Terrestrial Vertebrate Community Diversity under Different Scenarios.” Proceedings. Biological Sciences 285 (1881). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2018.0792. Newbold, Tim, Lawrence N. Hudson, Helen R. P. Phillips, Samantha L. L. Hill, Sara Contu, Igor Lysenko, Abigayil Blandon, et al. 2014. “A Global Model of the Response of Tropical and Sub-Tropical Forest Biodiversity to Anthropogenic Pressures.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 281 (1792): 20141371. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.1371. Newsome, David, and Michael Hughes. 2018. “The Contemporary Conservation Reserve Visitor Phenomenon!” Biodiversity and Conservation 27 (2): 521–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10531-017-1435-4. OECD. 2016. The Ocean Economy in 2030. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264251724-en. Oldekop, J. A., G. Holmes, W. E. Harris, and K. L. Evans. 2016. “A global assessment of the social and conservation outcomes of protected areas.” Conservation Biology 30 (1): 133–41. https://doi. org/10.1111/cobi.12568. Parks Canada Agency, Government of Canada. 2019. “Economic Impact of Parks Canada - Parks Canada Agency.” June 3, 2019. https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/agence-agency/bib-lib/ rapports-reports/econo2011. Pirlea, A.F., U. Serajuddin, D. Wadhwa, M. Welch, and A. Whitby. 2020. “Atlas of the Sustainable Development Goals 2020: From World Development Indicators.” 2020. https://datatopics. worldbank.org/sdgatlas/. Raven, Peter H., Roy E. Gereau, Peter B. Phillipson, Cyrille Chatelain, Clinton N. Jenkins, and Carmen Ulloa Ulloa. 2020. “The Distribution of Biodiversity Richness in the Tropics.” Science Advances 6 (37): eabc6228. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abc6228. Reaser, Jamie, Brooklin E. Hunt, Manuel Ruiz-Aravena, Gary M. Tabor, Jonathan A. Patz, Daniel Becker, Harvey Locke, Peter Hudson, and Raina Plowright. 2020. “Reducing Land Use- Induced Spillover Risk by Fostering Landscape Immunity: Policy Priorities for Conservation Practitioners.” EcoEvoRxiv. https://doi.org/10.32942/osf.io/7gd6a. Reaser, Jamie, Gary M. Tabor, Daniel J. Becker, Philip Muruthi, Arne Witt, Stephen J. Woodley, Manuel Ruiz-Aravena, Jonathan Alan Patz, Valerie Hickey, and Peter J. Hudson. 2020. “Land Use- Induced Spillover: Priority Actions for Protected and Conserved Area Managers.” Roberts, Callum M., Bethan C. O’Leary, Douglas J. McCauley, Philippe Maurice Cury, Carlos M. Duarte, Jane Lubchenco, Daniel Pauly, et al. 2017. “Marine Reserves Can Mitigate and Promote Adaptation to Climate Change.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114 (24): 6167–75. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1701262114. Rylance, Andrew, and Anna Spenceley. 2017. “Reducing Economic Leakages from Tourism: A Value Chain Assessment of the Tourism Industry in Kasane, Botswana.” Development Southern Africa 34 (3): 295–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2017.1308855. Sandbrook, Chris G. 2010. “Putting Leakage in Its Place: The Significance of Retained Tourism Revenue in the Local Context in Rural Uganda.” Journal of International Development 22 (1): 124–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.1507. Scholes, Robert, and Reinette Biggs. 2004. “Ecosystem Services in Southern Africa: A Regional Assessment,” January. Singh, Inderjit, Lyn Squire, and John Strauss. 1986. Agricultural Household Models : Extensions, Applications, and Policy. World Bank. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/ pt/621291468739297175/pdf/multi-page.pdf Snyman, Susan, and Kelly S. Bricker. 2019. “Living on the Edge: Benefit-Sharing from Protected Area Tourism.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 27 (6): 705–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582. 2019.1615496. Snyman, Susan, Daudi Sumba, Francis Vorhies, Elizabeth Gitari, Christina Ender, Albert Ahenkan, Aurelie Flore Koumba Pambo, and N Bengone. 2021. “The State of the Wildlife Economy in Africa.” Kigali, Rwanda: African Leadership University School of Wildlife Conservation. https://sowc.alueducation.com/ state-wildlife-economy-africa-report-south-africa-country-case-study-published-2/. Spalding, Mark, Lauretta Burke, Spencer A. Wood, Joscelyne Ashpole, James Hutchison, and Philine zu Ermgassen. 2017. “Mapping the Global Value and Distribution of Coral Reef Tourism.” Marine Policy 82 (August): 104–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.05.014. Spenceley, Anna, Susan Snyman, and Paul Eagles. 2017. Guidelines for Tourism Partnerships and Concessions for Protected Areas: Generating Sustainable Revenues for Conservation and Development. Report to the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity and IUCN. https://www.cbd.int/tourism/doc/tourism-partnerships-protected-areas-web.pdf. Spenceley, Anna, Susan Snyman, and Andrew Rylance. 2019. “Revenue Sharing from Tourism in Terrestrial African Protected Areas.” Journal of Sustainable Tourism 27 (6): 720–34. https:// doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1401632. Taylor, J. Edward, and Mateusz J. Filipski. 2014. Beyond Experiments in Development Economics: Local Economy-Wide Impact Evaluation. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Taylor, J. Edward, Jared Hardner, and Micki Stewart. 2009. “Ecotourism and Economic Growth in the Galapagos: An Island Economy-Wide Analysis*.” Environment and Development Economics 14 (2): 139–62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X08004646. Tesfaw, Anteneh T., Alexander Pfaff, Rachel E. Golden Kroner, Siyu Qin, Rodrigo Medeiros, and Michael B. Mascia. 2018. “Land-Use and Land-Cover Change Shape the Sustainability and Impacts of Protected Areas.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115 (9): 2084–89. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1716462115. The White House. 2021. “FACT SHEET: President Biden Takes Executive Actions to Tackle the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, Create Jobs, and Restore Scientific Integrity Across Federal Government.” The White House. January 27, 2021. https://www.whitehouse.gov/ briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/01/27/fact-sheet-president-biden-takes-executive- actions-to-tackle-the-climate-crisis-at-home-and-abroad-create-jobs-and-restore-scientific- integrity-across-federal-government/. Thirgood, Simon, Rosie Woodroffe, and Alan Rabinowitz. 2005. “The Impact of Human–Wildlife Conflict on Human Lives and Livelihoods.” In People and Wildlife, Conflict or Co- Existence?, edited by Alan Rabinowitz, Rosie Woodroffe, and Simon Thirgood, 13–26. Conservation Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511614774.003. Tourism Industry Association of Canada, Canadian Tourism Commission and Parks Canada. 2008. Green your Business: Toolkit for Tourism Operators. https://tiac-aitc.ca/_Library/documents/ green_your_business_toolkit.pdf. Thompson, A., P.J. Massyn, J. Pendry, and J. Pastorelli. 2014. “Tourism Concessions in Protected Natural Areas: Guidelines for Managers.” United Nations Development Programme. Twining-Ward, Louise, Wendy Li, Hasita Bhammar, and Elisson Wright. 2018. Supporting Sustainable Livelihoods through Wildlife Tourism. World Bank, Washington, DC. https://doi. org/10.1596/29417. UNDP. n.d. “Goal 14: Life below Water.” UNDP. Accessed June 9, 2021. https://www1.undp.org/ content/singapore-global-centre/en/home/sustainable-development-goals/goal-14-life-be- low-water.html. UNEP-WCMC and IUCN. 2020. “Protected Planet: The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA).” Protected Planet Digital Report. 2020. www.protectedplanet.net. UNODC. 2020. “World Wildlife Crime Report 2020: Trafficking in Protected Species.” Verdugo, Dominique. 2007. “An Analysis of Government Incentives for Increasing the Local Economic Impacts of Tourism in Rwanda.” In Tourism and Development: Agendas for Action, 57–84. Nairobi, Kenya: SNV East & Southern Africa. https://land.igad.int/index.php/ documents-1/countries/kenya/investment-3/669-tourism-and-development/file. Wake, David B., and Vance T. Vredenburg. 2008. “Are We in the Midst of the Sixth Mass Extinction? A View from the World of Amphibians.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (Supplement 1): 11466–73. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0801921105. Waldron, Anthony, Vanessa Adams, James Allan, Andy Arnell, Juliano Palacios Abrantes, Scott Atkinson, A. Baccini, et al. 2020. “Protecting 30 Percent of the Planet: Costs, Benefits and Economic Implications.” https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.19950.64327. Waldron, Anthony, Daniel C Miller, Dave Redding, Arne Mooers, Tyler S Kuhn, Nate Nibbelink, J Timmons Roberts, Joseph A Tobias, and John L Gittleman. 2017. “Reductions in Global Biodiversity Loss Predicted from Conservation Spending.” Nature 551 (7680): 364–67. Waldron, Anthony, Arne O Mooers, Daniel C Miller, Nate Nibbelink, David Redding, Tyler S Kuhn, J Timmons Roberts, and John L Gittleman. 2013. “Targeting Global Conservation Funding to Limit Immediate Biodiversity Declines.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (29): 12144–48. Wang, Sonam, and David Macdonald. 2006. “Livestock Predation by Carnivores in Jigme Singye Wangchuck National Park, Bhutan.” Biological Conservation 129 (May): 558–65. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.11.024. Watson, James E. M., Nigel Dudley, Daniel B. Segan, and Marc Hockings. 2014. “The Performance and Potential of Protected Areas.” Nature 515 (7525): 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1038/ nature13947. WEF. 2019a. “Country Profiles.” Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index 2019 edition. https://wef. ch/30jMj2Q. ———. 2019b. “The Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report 2019.” https://www.weforum.org/ reports/the-travel-tourism-competitiveness-report-2019. Weru, James. 2007. “Government Incentives for Boosting Impacts on Pro-Poor Tourism in Kenya.” In Tourism and Development: Agendas for Action, 15–32. Nairobi, Kenya: SNV East & Southern Africa. https://land.igad.int/index.php/documents-1/countries/kenya/ investment-3/669-tourism-and-development/file. Withers, Oliver, and Tenke Zoltani. 2020. “Chapter 37 - Leveraging Support for Pangolin Conservation and the Potential of Innovative Finance.” In Pangolins, edited by Daniel W. S. Challender, Helen C. Nash, and Carly Waterman, 579–95. Biodiversity of World: Conservation from Genes to Landscapes. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/ B978-0-12-815507-3.00037-X. Woodroffe, Rosie, Peter Lindsey, Stephanie Romañach, Andrew Stein, and Symon M. K. ole Ranah. 2005. “Livestock Predation by Endangered African Wild Dogs (Lycaon Pictus) in Northern Kenya.” Biological Conservation 124 (2): 225–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. biocon.2005.01.028. World Bank. 2007. “Zambia: Economic and Poverty Impact of Nature-Based Tourism.” Washington, D.C.: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/7553. ———. 2016a. “Analysis of International Funding to Tackle Illegal Wildlife Trade.” 2016. http://appso- lutelydigital.com/WildLife/chapter3.html. ———. 2016b. “Why Forests Are Key to Climate, Water, Health, and Livelihoods.” Text/ HTML. World Bank. 2016. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2016/03/18/ why-forests-are-key-to-climate-water-health-and-livelihoods. ———. 2018. “Poverty Data.” 2018. https://data.worldbank.org/topic/11. ———. 2019a. “Illegal Logging, Fishing, and Wildlife Trade : The Costs and How to Combat It.” Washington D.C.: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/han- dle/10986/32806#:~:text=Illegal%20wildlife%20trade%20directly%20causes,the%20 deterioration%20of%20ecosystem%20functions.&text=The%20national%20risk%20 assessment%20tools,and%20other%20natural%20resources%20crimes. ———. 2019b. “Statistical and Economic Analysis of Uganda’s Tourism Expenditure and Motivation Survey 2019.” Washington D.C.: World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/ handle/10986/34754. ———. 2020a. “Mobilizing Private Finance for Nature.” Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. http://pub- docs.worldbank.org/en/916781601304630850/Finance-for-Nature-28-Sep-web-version.pdf. ———. 2020b. “Sustainable Tourism Development in Nepal.” Washington D.C.: World Bank. ———. 2020c. “Tools and Resources for Nature-Based Tourism.” Report. World Bank, Washington, DC. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/34433. ———. forthcoming. “The Changing Wealth of Nations 2021: Managing Assets for the Future.” Washington D.C.: World Bank. WTTC. 2019a. “The Economic Impact of Global Wildlife Tourism.” https://wttc.org/Portals/0/ Documents/Reports/2019/Sustainable%20Growth-Economic%20Impact%20of%20 Global%20Wildlife%20Tourism-Aug%202019.pdf?ver=2021-02-25-182802-167. ———. 2019b. “Travel and Tourism Performance, 2019.” 2019. https://wttc.org/Research/ Economic-Impact. ———. 2020. “Fiji 2020 Annual Research: Key Highlights.” London: World Travel & Tourism Council. https://wttc.org/Research/Economic-Impact. WWF. 2018. Living Planet Report - 2018: Aiming Higher. Edited by M. Grooten and R.E.A. Almond. Gland, Switzerland: WWF. WWF. 2020. “Living Planet Report 2020- Bending the Curve of Biodiversity Loss.” WWF. https://liv- ingplanet.panda.org/en-us/. 86 BA NKI NG ON PROTE C TE D A RE A S Re fe r en c e s