• Tourism

Tourism

Indigenous ecotourism promotes conservation alongside development for indigenous communities. But is it financially viable? In 1997, two communities in the Peruvian Amazon received funding to set up an ecotourism lodge. However, eight years later and despite being in a popular tourist destination, the lodge has still not made an overall profit.

Research by the University of East Anglia, in the UK, studies the Casa Matsiguenka, a community-based ecotourism lodge in Peru’s Manu National Park. The lodge was built and staffed by two communities of Matsigenka people, with start-up money from German aid agencies. Over an eight-year period, however, they have failed to cover their infrastructure costs and generated a loss.

This poor performance was mainly due to a flawed business plan. Its business plan was based on being the only operator able to offer lodging during the rainy season. Until 2006, however, the lodge did not have full tour operator status and could only sell accommodation to established ecotourism tour operators – who were its direct competitors. Other tour operators used their lobbying power to create a cartel in Manu, building larger year-round campsites from 2002 and cutting the Casa Matsiguenka lodge’s sales by more than 50 percent. In 2003, the lodge’s city-based administrator began to exploit a loophole which allowed sales to experimental groups, and tourist numbers increased in the following years.

The research shows:

• There was little communal income from the lodge, for example to pay for community infrastructure, health care or education.
• Wages and income from selling handicrafts to tourists were significant, covering about a third of individual cash needs in the two participating communities.
• These benefits were also widely distributed, reaching over two-thirds of households.
• Other benefits included improved Spanish for the Matsigenka communities, management skills, and an improved ability to interact and negotiate with outsiders.
• The lodge encouraged dialogue between the Park administration and the Matsigenka people after almost 30 years of mutual distrust and poor communication.

Despite these benefits, the lodge itself was unprofitable. In fact, direct payments to the Matsigenka people in exchange for conservation activities might have been a more efficient way of achieving conservation goals. The overall return on the initial investment was approximately one third of the amount that could have been achieved by investing the start-up money in a bank account.

However, the individual benefits and social changes that the lodge has brought could not have achieved by direct payments. Most important is the good relations between the Matsigenka communities and the Manu Park administration. The researchers conclude:

• The long-term future of the Manu Park requires a co-management approach to ensure the Matsigenka communities become active partners in the protection of the Park, alongside the park administration.
• Hosting educational or research programmes for field schools and resident naturalists during the off-season could boost income; it would also fill a business niche in Manu, as it has no competitors.

• Full text of document
• Publisher details
• Send to a friend