Planeta Forum

[planeta]

Project proposal – Linking parks to tourism resort investment and development

Background
This project is part of an initiative of UNEP/GRID-Arendal and the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), based on the results of a workshop on “LINKING TOURISM AND CONSERVATION: A Finance Initiative for Protected Areas”, organized in May 11-13, 2007, in Arendal, Norway. The overall goal of the initiative is to establish and support mechanisms to secure long term and meaningful funding for the management of the world’s protected area network – consistent with the goals of the CBD– by means of significant support from the tourism sector. This should be in particular relevant to the CBD goal “to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on earth”. As a follow up to the workshops, three projects were developed:
• one focuses on identifying and disseminating best practices on the contribution of the tourism sector to protected areas,
• the second proposes to measure the economic contribution of tourism to protected areas as a means to convince decision makers of the importance of allocating sufficient resources for their protection as assets.
• and the third will work with resort developers, investors, governments and other players to create optimal conditions for win-win situations where sustainable tourism development leads to the creation, establishment and management of new and additional protected areas.
Their objective is to mobilize the industry and governments to set aside tourism revenue streams to finance the implementation of the CBD's Protected Areas Programme of Work (as an asset protection strategy). This paper focuses on the third project, on ways to influence the mechanism and dynamics of resort development to increase benefits to protected areas. Separate concept papers are available for the other two proposals.

Justification
In areas with significant biodiversity, where basic tourism infrastructure is available, and where natural tourism attractions are found, partnerships between the tourism resort industry and public and private protected areas managers can be established in three different phases of the tourism cycle:
- in the design and planning stage,
- during the siting and construction phase, and
- when resorts and tourism facilities become operational.

This project addresses the first two phases of this process. One of the critical moments in defining the footprint of tourism development is conception: the case for biodiversity, and for protected areas in particular, is won or lost on the landscape planner’s, architect’s and builder’s planning sheets, and on the public land-use master plans they work on, as most of the future impacts, negative and positive, of tourism development will already be set. Additional key steps include the choice of building and operational technologies, the decision for specialists and resource persons, and negotiations with financers and banks. There are numerous examples of productive partnerships, as well as of great losses and conflicts, when tourism developers, tourism corporations, investors, financing agencies, landowners, government and NGO representatives are fixing the terms and scope of major resort and destination development plans.

In many tourism destinations (existing and potential) with significant biodiversity resources, a number of partnerships have been established over the past years between tourism developers, park authorities, NGOs, local communities and other stakeholders, resulting in the establishment of new and additional protected areas. These areas, public or private, can exist by themselves or can effectively enlarge existing parks, acting as corridors or buffer zones. Creating parks as part of the land-use planning around tourism resorts can be a win-win situation for all involved:
• Tourism developers and investors win because parks will be major attractions to their tourists, and will ultimately enhance and secure the economic value of their real estate investment (always a major element the decisions involving resort facilities) by safeguarding key landscape assets and avoiding urban sprawl and competing developments in the immediate surroundings. Often, stricter land-use regulations require developers to set aside minimum areas for conservation – turning this potential liability into an asset then becomes a significant motivation, and governments can help developers and landowners through the hurdles of establishing private reserves, and provide additional support through tax shelters and other incentives.
• Conservation agencies, whether in government or in NGOs, will increase the number of protected areas, and guarantee their long-term sustainability by linking them to sustainable businesses which also increase visibility and political support. Through careful planning, impact cab be minimized, and genetic flow of critically endangered species can be achieved through conservation corridors.
• Local communities will be able to enjoy recreation in natural areas, and can benefit from business opportunities and jobs in economic activities around increased visitor interest in the parks, aside from the ecosystem services rendered by parks (soil fertility, pollution control, freshwater, replenishment of biodiversity needed for livelihood in buffer zones, etc).

Financing links can be established for the initial investments (feasibility studies, implementation costs, coordination and incorporation of land tracts into larger protected areas), or for the maintenance and management costs, through payback mechanisms that would be much harder to implement if businesses and parks were already established. Examples of this include:
• In the Brazilian Northeastern coast (State of Bahia), a set of tourism investment projects (PRODETUR I and II), financed by the Inter-American development Bank between 1994 and 2006, ultimately led to the design and establishment of the Conduru State Park (also through pressure from local and international NGOs), as an add-on to the critical Una Biological Reserve, and as part of a system of other categories of protected areas linked through a corridor.
• In the Egyptian resort town on Sharm el-Sheikh, the Egyptian government identified the tourism value of parks soon after the Sinai Peninsula was transferred in 1982. In 1983, Ras Muhammad National Park was established to protect the coral reefs and unique species of marine life that constitute the towns’ major diving and snorkeling attraction, and several comprehensive park development programs financed by the UK, USAID and the European Union have made the park and its associated protected areas an essential feature to the economic development on South Sinai.
• In the Mexican Caribbean, the explosion of tourism in Cancun from a sleepy fishing village to the largest resort destination in Mexico, has spread southward along the Quintana Roo coast, and affects the Sian Ka’an UNESCO Biosphere Reserve, created in 1987. Through negotiations (not always peaceful) between government, NGOs and the tourism industry, the legal protection of over 2 million acres on the Caribbean coast was achieved, including the Arrecifes de Sian Ka’an, a coral reef system with an area of over 86,000 acres. Visibility achieved through its status as a main tourism attraction also allowed the consolidation of the park’s staff and infrastructure, and attracted research, monitoring and environmental education programs. The new Mesoamerican Reef Tourism Initiative led by Conservation International and Amigos de Sian Ka’an, a local NGO, will focus on additional partnerships with hotel developers, the cruise industry and marine recreation service providers that will result in additional protected areas, reduced footprints and payback mechanisms.
• In several cases, individual resort and ecolodge investments have set aside protected areas. Well known “best practice” cases include the Dominican Republic’s Punta Cana (where a 350 room resort complex created and supports a 1,500 acre reserve and two environmental and social Foundations), Cayman Ecological Refuge adjacent to Brazil’s Pantanal region (linked to a private reserve constituting the main attraction of the hotel), and the El Nido Resorts in Palawan, the Philippines (whose establishment led to the creation of the 90,000 ha El Nido-Taytay Managed Resource Protected Area, and that also maintains the El Nido Foundation implementing environmental and social projects in the area). In Costa Rica, a network of over 110 Private Reserves totaling more than 60,000 ha is largely financed through tourism. In the Brazilian Southwestern Amazon, the success of the award-winning Cristalino Jungle Lodge and its scientific program ultimately led to the establishment of the 186,000 ha. Cristalino State Park.

However, there often are difficulties in communication between developers, landowners, investors and financing agents, on one hand, and NGO managers, conservationists, and scientists on the other. The language of investors and entrepreneurs is the language of making things happen, the language of project development, whereas conservationists may tend to resist change and take the precautionary approach. Additionally, there may be critical incompatibilities between the goals of each party, making confrontations unavoidable. Even if the parties can negotiate, very often, tourism development projects fail to identify the full potential benefits of incorporating protected areas into their design. Although the 17-million USD, JBIC-funded Sustainable Environmental Management Plan for Northern Palawan, Philippines (which included a tourism master plan for 5 municipalities) used the Environmentally Critical Areas Network (ECAN) methodology, and ultimately led to the establishment of 2 Municipal Marine Parks, the initiative was largely led by local stakeholders and wasn’t integrated into the project design.

In the case of the megaproject “Escalera Nautica”(Nautical Steps) in Western Mexico, the Mexican state fund for tourism development (FONATUR) proposed 1.7 billion dollars to be invested in the construction of 27 marinas, over 10,000 more hotel rooms and 80,000 new jobs in order to handle the estimated one million tourists who would come each year – all in an area that is 40 percent nature reserves or parks, with 900 untouched islands, and has a coastline longer than the Italian peninsula. If fully developed, the project would affect three national parks and 15 protected areas, and initial versions of the project did not engage the broader conservation community, focusing solely on economic issues and attracting possible investors. After local, national and international players became aware of the serious negative impacts of the initial development plan (also based on the enormous footprint of FONATUR’s previous Cancun and Riviera Maya developments), strong resistance from NGOs and local communities has largely stopped the plan. In 2002, a coalition of environmental NGOs and academia proposed a more sustainable version of the project, with more realistic market forecasts and increased opportunities for conservation. Recent statements from the current Mexican government indicate that the project (part of which has now been renamed “Sea of Cortez” given the negative connotations of the old name) is still considered a priority, and the issues highlighted here will continue to be pertinent to the links between conservation and tourism development.

To address these issues, several organizations have worked on promoting best practices in tourism resort development, and will be involved in the development of this proposal:
• The Convention on Biological Diversity has adopted the Guidelines on Biodiversity and Tourism development, through decision VII/14, focusing on the steps to ensure that development is biodioversity-friendly. The guidelines are available at http://www.cbd.int/tourism/guidelines.shtml and through the Biodiversity and Tourism Network (http://tourism.cbd.int/)
• Several international NGOs, aware of the key role of tourism and protected areas, have extensive track records on the issue. Conservation International has addressed the issue through the Travel and Leisure program of its Center Environmental Leadership in Business, by publishing a manual on siting, design and construction of biodiversity-friendly resorts (see http://www.tourismpartnership.org/downloads/SDC Press Release.pdf) and a practical guide on best practices for on marine recreation (http://www.celb.org/ImageCache/CELB/content/travel_2dleisure/marine_5fguide_2epdf/v1/marine_5fguide.pdf), and by launching projects such as the Mesoamerican Reef Tourism Initiative, MARTI (see http://www.eco-index.org/search/results.cfm?projectID=805), working with developers and governments to promote sustainable resort development in the Mexican Caribbean. CI also established a USD 7 million green investment fund, Verde Ventures (http://www.conservation.org/xp/verdeventures/), which already invested in several tourism facilities. Similarly, The Nature Conservancy has developed several case study collections, training and planning manuals on ecotourism, and has established groundbreaking partnerships between tourism operators and protected areas, notably in World Heritage sites (see http://www.nature.org/aboutus/travel/ecotourism/), and the World Resources Institute has established New Ventures (http://www.new-ventures.org/),a program to support investors and entrepreneurs in green businesses including tourism.
• UNEP’s Division of Technology, Industry and Economics has published, with IUCN and UNWTO, guidelines on tourism in protected areas (http://www.unep.fr/pc/tourism/library/sust_prot_areas.htm), and worked with NGOs and private sector voluntary initiatives to develop guidelines for specific ecosystems (polar region and deserts, see http://www.unep.fr/pc/tourism/library/home.htm).
• A number of green investment facilities and platforms are expanding operations in tourism, such as the International Finance Corporation (IFC, http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/enviro.nsf/Content/SustTourism), with almost 170 tourism projects in 72 countries including the Mekong Delta Private Sector Development Facility (MPDF, http://www.ifc.org/mpdf), HSBC (the first bank to be awarded the Financial Times’ Sustainability Award, by establishing a Sustainable Development Unit at corporate level, click here for more information), and the UNEP Finance Initiative (http://www.unepfi.org/about/index.html).

Goal and outputs
This project proposes to promote positive interactions between resort developers and conservationists, by organizing a regional series of tourism investment promotion symposia and workshops to examine how destination and resort planning and development can support the establishment and financing of protected areas. Four outputs are expected:
• Identification and dissemination of partnerships, opportunities, tools, resources and partners (i.e. prospects for park-friendly tourism investment)
• Identification of critical site-specific projects to be supported (concrete development plans and projects)
• Publication and dissemination of best practice case studies
• Guidelines for investment and development agencies and banks.




Questions addressed
• How can productive partnerships on protected areas be established between tourism players (developers, entrepreneurs, investors, designers and architects) and conservationists in tourism resort destinations, to avoid possible difficulties of communication and potential conflicts of interests?
• Where can the most productive partnerships between developers and conservationists be established and supported (i.e. what are the particular sites were tourism resort development potential and opportunities for protected areas coincide)?
• Which decision makers in resort development are critical for the establishment and financing of protected areas, and how can they be influenced to do more and better?

Approach
Project-oriented symposia and workshops will be preceded by negotiations to allow investors, developers, and financers to jointly design the process from the start, and to set up “negotiating environments” where conservationists (public agencies and NGOs) have a clear investment stake in the successful outcome of development proposals – even as partners. It is critical to identify catalysts in the tourism industry, leading investors, entrepreneurs and developers already familiar with the issue, which can act as liaisons with the tourism investment community to identify the best opportunities for partnership and negotiate outlines of agreements.

One of the goals of the events will be to facilitate green investments, i.e. to assist, as much as possible, investors willing to consider win-win partnerships with protected areas. Aside from the identification of specific partnerships and opportunities for support to protected areas, additional topics to be covered in the symposia include:
• Incentives and support mechanisms for biodiversity-friendly tourism and resort development (land-use and tourism master plans, human resources and institutional capacity building, technical and tax incentives, soft loans, guidelines, one-stop-shop investment promotion and support packages and offices, etc)
• Promotion of the economic value of environmental "brands" and ecolabels such as UNESCO World Heritage or Biosphere Reserve status, sustainable certification systems, and destination marketing support and promotion for green investments
• Technical assistance in sustainable design, siting and construction of resorts, and in green” technology (building, maintenance, energy/water/waste resources, minimum impact guidelines) for the operational phase of tourism facilities.

Potential partners
• Conservation International (CELB/Travel and Leisure, Verde Ventures, Ecotourism): Jamie Sweeting, Jennifer Morris, Neel Inamdar
• Counterpart International: Lelei LeLaulu
• UNEP/GRID-Arendal: Peter Prokosch
• UNEP/DTIE: Stefanos Fotiou
• UNWTO: Eugenio Yunis
• UNEP/UNWTO/UNESCO Tour Operator Initiative: Cristina Civili
• IFC/MPDF: Kate Lloyds-Williams
• WTTC: Ufi Abraham
• WRI/New ventures
• HVS/Brazil: Diogo Canteras
• HBSC/Sustainability Leader’s Fund/CSR

Phases and components:

Organizers will manage the following project steps:

• Institutional partners define content of symposia, identify most strategic venues and regions, and mobilize key developers, investors, NGOs and government agents.
• Organizers establish partnerships with local players for each workshop and produce materials
• Workshops/Symposia are organized
• Case studies/opportunities/guidelines are collected and published, project proposals are prepared and supported for implementation.

Six key regions (Caribbean, Brazil, Southeast Asia, Pacific Islands, Indian Ocean and Mediterranean) have been initially selected due to their rich biodiversity and tourism value. In each site, it is proposed to hold workshops/symposia in cooperation with national tourism boards, business and trade chambers, and private sector partners, as well as key NGOs and government agencies (in tourism and environment). Preliminary sites include:

• Mexican Caribbean or Sea of Cortez area, through the Mesoamerican Reef Tourism Initiative and local governments;
• Brazil’s Northeastern coast, in cooperation with the Brazilian Tourism Promotion agency EMBRATUR;
• Southeast Asia, through the IFC’s Mekong Delta Private Sector Development Facility, and other local specialists and partners.
• Pacific Island Countries, in cooperation with the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) and the Global Island Partnership (GLISPA), a coalition of over 20 Parties to the CBD and major non-governmental and multilateral organizations, to assist islands in the protection and sustainable use of islands.
• Indian Ocean – Madagascar and/or Seychelles, also with GLISPA
• Mediterranean – Turkey/Egypt/Croatia

Budget/Resources:
To be determined.

Your opinion

We would appreciate receiving your feedback through our on line SURVEY at: http://tinyurl.com/2vdt7w

Join our forum and send us your comments/suggestions by using the 'Post reply' button below.

[oliver]

Hello,

I wanted to post some interesting follow-up discussions that have been happening outside of this forum. This project is basically an effort to identify win-win cases where the design, planning and construction of resorts (individually or as part of a destination development master plan and implementation) can be linked to the establishment of additional protected areas (public or private), or to setting up mutually beneficial relations with existing parks. More and more, protected areas are becoming a real estate and facility development "insurance" and value-added strategy.

The concept hinges on the fact that there is real estate valuation by establishing protected areas: through creating value in landscapes and "insurance" against degradation by more impacting developments. This is the idea used very profitably by Land Development Trusts like in Eastern Maryland (http://eslc.org/index,html) and the Chesapeake Bay (http://www.cbtrust.org/) in the US. If well planned, and proactively designed with private investors, parks actually make money in real estate - and any tourism investment at the level of a resort is, invariably, also a real estate investment (often, in fact, it is the main reason for investors - the hotel aspect of it, for many investors, is simply a way of covering maintenance costs and a lever to sell condos and housing/commercial property around the hotel while waiting for the land to value enough to sell it off: the famous BOT, build-operate-transfer, strategy).

We are betting on a kind of tourism investment/conservation easements - the site http://www.eslc.org/cefaq.html has some interesting data. Investors want the valuation, and protection from the degradation of their assets, and protection from competition. Establishing a park and managing it well can do all of them. Win-win, simple as that.

[zoltkun]

Hello,
coming from mid Europe, I missed one area where the tourism potential and biodiversity values are high: the Carpathians. I know WWF running a project called Carpathian Opportunity, which supposed to have a strong tourism element as well (in case of real interest I can provide contacts).
I liked the proposal, but suggest to include a quick assessment of existing good and bad case studies. An area where property development went quite bad and against conservation interest is the Pirin National Park of Bulgaria. Therefore such cases must be studies well, and lessons learned adopted in new projects.

[chantal.robichaud]

Dear Zoltan,

Thank you for valuable insights here too.

The WWF project seems interesting and if indeed it entails a tourism element, we would appreciate receiving contact information about the Carpathian Opportunity.

As for the “bad” case studies or lessons learnt, we also think they are of great importance and we will definitely add such examples to the “GRID-Arendal framework application” and “Economic Significance of Park Tourism” projects. However, in the case of the “Linking parks to tourism resort investment and development” proposal, we want to market to ‘champions’ and make the project highly sellable and so we prefer to focus on best practices and successful case studies. Again, if you have any specific examples that you want to share, they are more than welcome.

We greatly appreciate your time and contribution and look forward to further exchanges and comments!