Kailash Sacred Landscape Conservation Initiative (KSLCI) Strengthening Project - Nepal: Climate Change and Tourism Stakeholder Workshop Report

Kailash Sacred Landscape Conservation Kailash Sacred Landscape Conservation Kailash Sacred Landscape Conservation Kailash Sacred Landscape Conservation

Initiative (KSLCI) Initiative (KSLCI) Initiative (KSLCI) Initiative (KSLCI) Strengthening Project Strengthening Project Strengthening Project Strengthening Project ---- NepalNepalNepalNepal Climate Change and Tourism Stakeholder Workshop Report Climate Change and Tourism Stakeholder Workshop Report Climate Change and Tourism Stakeholder Workshop Report Climate Change and Tourism Stakeholder Workshop Report

Carolina Roman, Prem Chhetri, and Darryn McEvoy November 2010

Global Cities Research Institute

Climate Change Adaptation Program

Kailash Sacred Landscape (KSL) Nepal Climate Change and Tourism - Stakeholder Workshop Report

Climate Change Adaptation Programme

Document: Climate Change and Tourism - Stakeholder

Workshop Report Author: Carolina Roman Save Date: 09/11/2010

Page 2 of 28

This CCAP document reports on the climate change and tourism stakeholder workshop funded by GTZ and held at ICIMOD headquarters, Kathmandu, on the 24th – 25th of September 2010. CCAP representatives Carolina Roman and Prem Chhetri acted as lead workshop facilitators, with Carolina acting as the primary report writer. Ram Chandra Sedai (national consultant - CEST), Ester Kruk (ICIMOD), and Roman Roehrl (GTZ) provided additional support over the two days. The funding from GTZ in support of this workshop is fully acknowledged.





Page 3 of 28

Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 5

1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 6

1.1 The KSLCI Strengthening Project - Tourism and Climate Change ..............................6

1.2 Workshop Objectives ..................................................................................................7

1.3 Workshop Methodology ..............................................................................................7

2 Workshop Proceedings ..................................................................................................... 10

2.1 DAY 1 - Thursday, 23 September 2010 ....................................................................10

2.1.1 Session 1 - Plenary .................................................................................... 10

2.1.2 Session 2 – Climate Change and Tourism.................................................. 10

2.1.3 Sessions 3 & 4: Break-out Groups – Risks and Opportunities .................... 12

2.2 DAY 2 – Friday, 24 September 2010.........................................................................14

2.2.1 Session 5: Recapping from day 1 and next steps ....................................... 14

2.2.2 Sessions 6 & 7: Break-out – scenarios, case studies & workshop close..... 15

3 Summary of workshop findings ......................................................................................... 17

References .............................................................................................................................. 19

APPENDIX A – Workshop agenda........................................................................................... 20

APPENDIX B - List of workshop participants............................................................................ 22

APPENDIX C – Outcomes of group participatory sessions ...................................................... 23

APPENDIX D – Workshop participant survey results ............................................................... 27





Page 4 of 28

List of Figures, Tables and Plates

Figure 1 – Stakeholder analysis as reflected in rating the dimensions of Power, Capacity and Interest...............................................................................................................9

Table 2 – Summary of the top five RISKS for tourism development in the KSL Nepal region, as identified by the three break-out groups .................................................13

Table 3 – Summary of the top five OPPORTUNITIES for tourism development in the KSL Nepal region, as identified by the three break-out groups .......................................14

Table 4 – Recap of challenges and opportunities for tourism in KSL Nepal (workshop outcomes)...............................................................................................................15

Plate 1 – Workshop banner........................................................................................................... 10

Plate 2 – Workshop participants listing risks and opportunities ..................................................... 12

Plate 3 – Risks and opportunities ranked and debated ................................................................. 12

Plate 4 – Strategies for reducing risks and enhancing opportunities ............................................. 13

Plate 5 – Workshop participants presenting their group’s findings................................................. 13

Abbreviations DDC District Development Committee GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH ICIMOD International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development KSL Kailash Sacred Landscape (the region) KSLCI Kailash Sacred Landscape Conservation Initiative (the initiative) MoTCA Ministry of Tourism and Civil Aviation NGO Non-Government Organisation NTB Nepal Tourism Board UNEP United Nations Environment Program VDC Village Development Committee





Page 5 of 28

Executive Summary A workshop on “Tourism and Climate Change”, herein referred to as the Stakeholder Workshop, took place at the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) head offices, on Thursday 23 and Friday 24 September 2010. The main objective of the workshop was to support the overall KSLCI Nepal Strengthening Project by engaging with local experts and stakeholders for knowledge, experience and guidance in exploring issues pertaining to impacts of climate change and tourism practices in the KSL region of Nepal. The workshop was opened by Mr Murari Bahadur Karki, Joint Secretary for the Ministry of Tourism and Civil Aviation, who highlighted the importance of tourism and climate change, expressing his support for further initiatives with ICIMOD on this topic. The opening was followed by technical presentations on tourism and climate change, with the remaining scheduled time dedicated to interactive working groups to identify and discuss tourism activities; as well as risks and opportunities for tourism development in light of climate change. It was also the intention to highlight ‘workable’ strategies that could assist in minimising risks and maximising latent opportunities. Through presentations, workshop activities, and discussions (as outlined in this report), it was demonstrated that the participants had an appreciative and sophisticated understanding of the socio-economic and environmental issues that the region is currently experiencing. Whilst the focus of the workshop was predominantly on climate change impacts, it was evident from debates that a core risk facing tourism development in the KSL Nepal region centred on the issue of the weak socio-economic base that affects these communities. Most notably, through the lack of infrastructure to service the basic needs of the local population. However, the prospect of tourism development as a means for poverty alleviation was considered as a positive way forward, despite the perception that current numbers of tourists visiting the region are unlikely to make a substantial contribution to the local economy. Results from the participant survey showed a mixed response to the degree to which they think climate change is already occurring in the KSL region, and linking these to the existing vulnerabilities in place, even though the impacts of future climate change scenarios are perceived to be severe. Furthermore, the survey found that organisations having the required capacity, power, and interest to support tourism as an adaptation strategy is likely to prove critical for effective planning and implementation in the KSL region.





Page 6 of 28

1 Introduction

1.1 The KSLCI Strengthening Project - Tourism and Climate Change The Kailash Sacred Landscape Conservation Initiative (KSLCI) is in the process of developing a transboundary conservation strategy as part of its current ongoing preparatory phase (phase one, 2009-2011). The KSLCI is part of a process leading up to a Regional Cooperation Framework involving China, India and Nepal, with technical support from the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), as well as financial support from the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH. The project “…aims to promote community-based, ecosystem, and sustainable development approaches that empower local communities, promote gender equity, and improve people’s livelihoods...” (ICIMOD / GTZ, 2010, p.4). The KSLCI is characterized as a long-term commitment, one that reflects a strategy based on participatory approaches and an improved regional knowledge base. ICIMOD, with the support of GTZ, is coordinating the implementation of a “Strengthening Project”, an initiative designed to support the overall objectives of the KSLCI during its phase one stage. The overall objective of the Strengthening Project is “…to improve the understanding of environmental change within the KSL, and to identify and develop alternative livelihoods strategies, with enhanced socio-ecological resilience by mountain communities for climate change adaptation…” (ICIMOD / GTZ, 2010, p.2). The Strengthening Project aims towards three major outcomes:

1. Local knowledge on the uses of ecosystem services is documented and

assessed in terms of its applicability for adaptation to climate change. The knowledge gained is processed and ready for integration into the KSL Regional Cooperation Framework.

2. The potential of inclusive eco-tourism as a strategy for adapting to climate change in the Nepalese section of the KSL is analysed. The gained knowledge is ready to be integrated into the Regional Cooperation Framework. A framework for developing eco-tourism in the Kailash landscape is prepared.

3. The necessary infrastructure and capacity for gathering essential environmental and climatic data is in place. Continuous environmental and climatic monitoring is ensured.

(ICIMOD / GTZ, 2010, p. 2-3)

The tourism component of the Strengthening Project (outcome 2, highlighted in bold type) focuses on a study of the potential for tourism as a strategy for livelihood improvement and adaptation to climate change in the KSL. The tourism component consists of three interrelated sub-components, these being:

1. Strategic Tourism Planning; 2. Himalaya Heritage Routes; and 3. Tourism and Climate Change.





Page 7 of 28

This project, of which this workshop activity is an integral part, relates to the third sub-component of the Strengthening Project’s tourism component: Tourism and Climate Change. RMIT was engaged as this sub-component’s International Consultant, working closely with appointed National Consultant, Mr Ram Chandra Sedai from the Centre for Environment and Sustainable Tourism Development Nepal (CEST).

1.2 Workshop Objectives The main objective of the workshop was to identify issues pertaining to impacts of climate change on tourism practices in the KSL region of Nepal. It aims to develop a better understanding of the perceived risks and opportunities under the changing climate. It supports the overall KSLCI Nepal Strengthening Project by engaging with local stakeholders for knowledge, experience and guidance. More specifically, the workshop was designed to achieve the second of three responsibilities assigned to RMIT under the Terms of Reference of this engagement, which seeks:

2. To conduct intense stakeholder consultations, both in Kathmandu and in

the field:

a) To support and provide technical assistance to the national consultant in the design, planning and organization of stakeholder workshop on identifying risks and opportunities facing different tourism products.

b) To lead and facilitate the stakeholder consultation workshop in Kathmandu, in close collaboration with the national consultant.

c) To collect stakeholder feedback and integrate in final report, with details in annex (e.g. minutes of key comments/remarks).

d) To conduct ‘on the ground’ interviews with local communities and other key stakeholders in the field, and collect other relevant data in the field.

(ICIMOD / GTZ, 2010, p. 4)

This document reports on workshop proceedings, specifically to address points a) and b), listed in bold type above. Points c) and d) will be addressed in the final report.

1.3 Workshop Methodology Invitations to participate in this workshop were coordinated between the National Consultant and ICIMOD, relying on existing networks to invite a broad and mixed representation of stakeholders from government, industry, as well as NGOs. A total of 32 participants were present at the workshop, which included the workshop facilitators and KSLCI consultants that are also involved in the Strengthening Project (see Appendix B). The overall workshop approach adopted by the International Consultant, in close collaboration with the National Consultant (the workshop facilitators), was that of a “bottom-up” and consultative sustainable livelihoods approach, which centred on problem-oriented enquiry. A sustainable livelihoods approach entails an understanding of the activities carried out for the subsistence of the community at the centre of the enquiry (Smit and Wandel, 2006, Adger et al., 2003, Bebbington, 1999, Reed et al., 2006, Eriksen and O'Brien, 2007).





Page 8 of 28

This approach focuses on identifying the main factors (positive and negative) that influence these livelihoods and their interrelationships, as expressed by the participating community (Smit and Wandel, 2006). The participatory process adopted for this workshop relied on this bottom-up consultative means for eliciting views, concerns and experiences derived from local knowledge as well as to provide the opportunity for scientists, policy makers, stakeholders, and citizens to meet, exchange information, deliberate, and share values (Salter et al., 2010). In doing so, the views and insights provided by the participants were used to validate and guide on-going project efforts by directing attention to those issues of concern that would warrant further investigation. To that end, the structure of the workshop centred on the following (see also Appendix A): Day 1 – the workshop facilitators presented the rationale and objectives of the workshop to the stakeholders, as well as provided background information related to tourism and climate change generally. The interactive component for Day 1 was to engage with stakeholders through break-out groups, where the potential risks and opportunities for tourism as an adaptation strategy were identified and discussed. Attention was also focused on likely strategies to reduce and manage these risks and harness opportunities, as well as to identify the roles and responsibilities of different public and private actors at different scales. Day 2 – the workshop facilitators presented a synthesis of findings from Day 1, with the aim to integrate this with knowledge on climate change and tourism in the context of Nepal. The interactive component for Day 2 was to engage with stakeholders through an open discussion with a focus on local case studies and experiences on the types of tourism products and activities that would be feasible and/or desirable in the KSL region. Attention focused on perceptions of the impacts of climates change (whether actual or potential) on these activities, and whether other factors of concern also play a role. A one-page short survey was also conducted during the workshop proceedings, in which participants were invited to fill out a short questionnaire, allowing them the opportunity to express any comments or feedback in relation to the theme or proceedings of this workshop. A small sample of these survey responses were received, results of which are presented in Appendix D. The results show that participants have a mixed response to the degree to which they think climate change is already occurring in the KSL region. However, the impacts of these climate change scenarios are perceived to be severe. In addition, the purpose of the survey was also to support stakeholder analysis initiatives so that the perceived role and nature of involvement of each stakeholder to tourism development in the region can be examined. The data were collected on a 7-point Likert scale where 1 represents ‘low capacity’ and 7 ‘very high capacity’, for example. Figure 1 illustrates a graphical configuration of stakeholder analysis as captured through the ‘perceived’ capacity, power and interest of the organisation that the participants’ represent. Most participants agree that their organisations have the ‘interest’ to use tourism as a means to adapt to climate change scenarios; whilst it is reported that only a few have the power and capacity to influence climate change adaptation outcomes. The participation of organisations that have the required capacity, power, and interest to support tourism as an adaptation strategy is critical before the approach can be argued, planned and implemented in the KSL region.





Page 9 of 28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

56

7

8

9

Percieved Capacity Percieved Power Percieved Interest

Figure 1 – Stakeholder analysis as reflected in rating the dimensions of Power, Capacity and Interest





Page 10 of 28

2 Workshop Proceedings

2.1 DAY 1 - Thursday, 23 September 2010

2.1.1 Session 1 - Plenary

The plenary session, Session 1 of this workshop, was opened by ICIMOD Director, Dr Eklabya Sharma. Dr Sharma’s presentation focused on the significance of the cultural value of KSL, particularly in the context of climate change in order to ascertain the extent to which the region has the capacity to deal with actual and projected impacts. Dr Sharma also provided some background information on the broader scope of the KSLCI, pointing at its long-term commitment spanning over 8-10 years. Documenting the process and gathering knowledge on the region’s social capital was highlighted as a crucial aspect of the KSLCI. He highlighted current challenges such as lack of information and evidence based research to inform this initiative and therefore making a case for ongoing project efforts.

During this plenary session, welcome remarks were also expressed by the Joint Secretary from the Ministry of Tourism and Civil Aviation, Mr Murari Bahadur Karki. Mr. Karki set the tourism context for Nepal in general, highlighting the natural assets that Nepal offers tourists such as the Himalaya and the beauty of its landscape. Mr Karki also posed the question on how climate change affects tourism livelihoods in Nepal, noting melting glaciers and recent drought conditions in the Humla district on north-west Nepal. He also voiced his commitment and support for the greater KSLCI.

Plate 1 – Workshop banner Dr Krishna Prashad Oli, of ICIMOD, gave the final plenary presentation with an introduction to the KSLCI project and the region. Dr Oli’s presentation highlighted the meaning behind the ‘sacredness’ of the region, pointing to its source of spiritual enlightenment for many pilgrims for millennia. The region was depicted as a significant place for endemic plants and species, varied landscapes and its cultural heritage. However, poverty – and associated problems - was identified as one of the most widespread problems in this region. Adding to this situation is the yet unfulfilled potential of tourism development as a means to alleviate poverty and diversify livelihood options. Dr Oli’s presentation also set the context and objectives of the workshop, by pointing to its important role in knowledge brokering and information gathering to explore the role of tourism in the sacred region of Kailash.

2.1.2 Session 2 – Climate Change and Tourism

Session 2 of the workshop, focused on climate change and tourism. Three presentations were given by the Tourism and Climate Change sub-component team, namely: Prospects of tourism development in KSL Nepal (Mr Ram Chandra Sedai); climate change scenarios for Nepal (Dr Prem Chhetri, RMIT University); and the linkages between climate change and tourism in mountain regions (Dr Carolina Roman, Climate Change Adaptation Program, RMIT University).





Page 11 of 28

Mr Sedai gave a pictorial presentation, allowing participants to get a sense of the context and feeling of ‘place’. He also provided an overview of current existing trails used by pilgrims, and prospects for development of new trekking routes by highlighting the unique sacred landscape character. In his opinion, the development and expansion of existing tourism products is key, as well as creating more ancillary products to encourage overnight stays. Prospects for tourism opportunities included:

• Focus and commitment from government to promote tourism, with the 2011 Nepal Tourism Year campaign;

• Development of improved road networks;

• Potential for transboundary tourism;

• Great Himalayan Trail – a high profile brand, and one that be capitalized and relied upon for promoting the Humla district in the northern KSL Nepal region;

• Potential for domestic tourism;

• Opportunity for a greater Kailash circuit trail, and linkage opportunities; A major issue raised centered on the challenges to preserve the cultural integrity of the region in the face of poverty and other external factors such as modernization and globlalisation. Introducing scientific models, Dr Chhetri presented a range of climate change scenarios at both the global scale as well as the national Nepal context. Discussion covered the role of climate change scenarios and climate models in informing decision making, though stressing the caveat that model outputs are but an approximation of reality and therefore relative to the input data and its quality. The vulnerability of Nepal to climate change due to its volatile physiographical characteristics and socio-economic conditions was also highlighted. The final presentation in this session was delivered by Dr Roman, who presented on the linkages between climate change and tourism as it specifically relates to mountain regions. This presentation stressed the importance of focusing on tangible experiences with past extreme weather events and hydro-meteorological disasters as a means for understanding contextual vulnerability. Her presentation also highlighted the importance of seasonal variability in weather and climatic patterns in the context of how the tourism industry operates. During the discussion, questions and comments from the floor were invited. A summary of the main issues and comments raised include:

• Question on “restricted areas” and the issue of transport and access to the region, which is currently very difficult (with reference to Humla). Addressing the accessibility issue should be part of any future strategy for tourism development;

• Question on future climate change scenario model outputs and their inherent uncertainties for future planning with respect to policy making;

• Access to data – Nepal referred to as a data “black spot”. Need to acknowledge, legitimize and complement data with local knowledge;

• Questions and comments pertaining to infrastructure and facilities available (or likely to be made available) for trekking and tourism development. Question of what policy makers should do was debated;

• From a conservation perspective, a comment was made on the need to account and plan for buffer zones areas;

• Sikh culture and its presence in KSL – how prevalent/important is it in KSL, when the majority are Hindus and Buddhists;

• Comment on the extensive use of firewood in mountain regions, Humla being no exception. Need to investigate and promote other sources of energy and more sustainable forms of ‘fuel’ in the KSL – potential to partner with other NGOs and work together with ICIMOD;

• Comment made that mountain people are not really (or necessarily) aware of climate change impacts into the future, but raising awareness of current issues have shown that





Page 12 of 28

Humla people have been very receptive and quick to implement new ideas and means to complement their livelihoods – indications therefore that the Humla communities are very resilient in adapting to new ways of subsistence, a point that warranted further exploration on the actual social traits that lead to this adaptability;

• Comment and concern raised with respect to the feasible and desirable number of tourists visiting KSL Nepal, particularly Humla - question of carrying capacity in this mountain environment, how to quantify and/or characterise.

Overall, the comments made, and the discussion that ensued, demonstrated that these participants have an appreciative and sophisticated understanding of the socio-economic and environmental issues that the region is currently experiencing. This knowledge should be explicitly considered when planning for tourism development.

2.1.3 Sessions 3 & 4: Break-out Groups – Risks and Opportunities

The first of the interactive sessions involved break-out group exercises to identify, discuss and rank risks and opportunities for tourism as well as to explore tourism as a development and climate change adaptation strategy in KSL Nepal. Participants were split into three groups based on the organisation and/or institution they represented, namely: government, private sector (industry), and NGOs. The rationale for this division was to maintain an environment of “peers” in which issues of concern relating to risks and opportunities can be raised, debated, and a level of consensus reached.

Plate 2 – Workshop participants listing risks and opportunities

Plate 3 – Risks and opportunities ranked and debated

Further to identifying and ranking these risks and opportunities on a scale (from most important or relevant to least), participants were also asked to identify strategies that could reduce these risks as well as enhance opportunities. In addition to this, participants were asked to suggest the likely agencies or organisations that would be most suitable to carry out their implementation. The main criterion for these strategies was to keep in mind the feasibility of implementation in the context of tourism development in the KSL Nepal region.





Page 13 of 28

Plate 4 – Strategies for reducing risks and enhancing opportunities

Plate 5 – Workshop participants presenting their group’s findings

Although each of the break-out groups identified a range of different risks and opportunities (see Appendix C), there was general agreement on the overall themes that each group was able to discern. On the question of risks for tourism development in the KSL Nepal region, a common theme emerged across all three groups centred on the issue of the weak socio-economic base that affects these communities. Most notably through the lack of infrastructure to service the basic needs of the local population, let alone support tourism at a sustainable level (see Table 1). From a government perspective, the carrying capacities of the region and conservation threats were identified as key risks. These risk factors require government agencies to restrict and control tourism visits to less vulnerable areas through a permit system. This was seen by the industry representatives as a factor that restricts the scope and expansion of tourism in the region as it more likely to inflate costs of goods and services and travel operation. It also limits ‘economies of scale’ as well as deterring infrastructure investment (noted by NGO groups), leading to the entanglement of the region in a ‘vicious circle of poverty’.

Table 2 – Summary of the top five RISKS for tourism development in the KSL Nepal region, as identified by the three break-out groups

Rank Government Industry NGOs

1 Carrying Capacity Social Capacity (Localized Issues) Extreme floods (Limi valley, Humla)

2 Conservation threats (Cultural, natural)

No motivation for people (on a personal basis)

Lack of infrastructure

3 High cost of goods and services

Lack of capacity Weak social-economic base

4 High cost of travel operation Unequal distribution of opportunities amongst mountain people

Lack of energy resources / reliance on wood-fired stoves

5 Restricted vs. Non-restricted areas for tourist

Issues: lack of awareness on the benefits of tourism. To address poverty as a means of livelihood. In the far west, people are still not involved in tourism. Labour issues are important

Food insecurity

On the question of opportunities for tourism development in the KSL Nepal region, a common theme across all three groups centred on the prospect of tourism development as a means for poverty alleviation through the diversification of livelihood options for the local community (see Table 2).





Page 14 of 28

Given that participants voiced a general approval for tourism as a potential means for uplifting the weak socio-economic base that affects this region, meant that tourism development has general traction and local support as a policy option. However, concerns were raised on the types and scale of tourism development in the region with the argument that the number of tourists currently visiting the region is unlikely to make a substantial contribution to the local economy despite the fact that tourism has the potential to create employment, additional income for local businesses, and an overall improvement in livelihoods. Although this outlook provided some level of confidence for the project team going forward, perceptions and opinions of tourism were flagged for further exploration as part of field interviews and discussions with the local community situated in place and context.

Table 3 – Summary of the top five OPPORTUNITIES for tourism development in the KSL Nepal region, as identified by the three break-out groups

Rank Government Industry NGOs

1 Market opportunity for local goods and products

Building of infrastructure Poverty alleviation (enhance social economic base)

2 Increasing opportunity for stakeholder networks

Employment generation Revenue generation (for government at all scales)

3 Opportunity for infrastructure development

Capacity building of locals Showcasing the rich local cultural heritage

4 Increase in number of tourism products/services

Entire Karnali corridor with huge biodiversity and tremendous opportunity

Offer new experiences to repeat tourists (e.g. niche/cultural, and adventure tourism)

5 Improvement of livelihoods (income, employment)

Pilgrimage sites increases demands dramatically

Development (social capital, capacity, and Infrastructure) e.g. health and education for locals.

With respect to strategies put forward to both reduce risks and enhance opportunities, these generally centred on addressing the socio-economic issues that afflict this region (see Appendix C). The rationale behind this is the common goal of reducing vulnerabilities of what is valued, whilst also enhancing resilience and adaptability. As for identifying responsibilities for the design and implementation of these strategies and initiatives, a general consensus emerged on the opportunity for pooling resources and common goals and objectives through the formation of partnerships (whether public / private sector and / or in conjunction with the active NGO community already involved in KSL Nepal) and social networking. However, from a government perspective, a greater emphasis was placed on capacity building through investment in research and development, and technology (e.g. destination management and spatial information systems). Interestingly, the general opinion held by industry on strategies for promoting tourism in the region is through lobbying, promotion, and training subsidies. The diversified opinions held across different types of stakeholders however seem to converge to positively support tourism-related development and initiatives in the region.

2.2 DAY 2 – Friday, 24 September 2010

2.2.1 Session 5: Recapping from day 1 and next steps

During Session 5 of this workshop, participants were given the opportunity to carry on with presentations from the previous day, as well as engage in dialogue to discuss issues raised earlier. Dr Roman provided a recap on some of these with a short presentation on the challenges and opportunities for tourism as an adaptation strategy (see Table 3).





Page 15 of 28

The limits of acceptable change (LAC) was given greater preference over the carrying capacity approach due to its ability to identify what change is acceptable to various tourist or/and community groups in contrast to how much an area can tolerate. In addition, the challenge for tourism development is also maintaining a balance between what is desirable against what is feasible in the KSL region.

Table 4 – Recap of challenges and opportunities for tourism in KSL Nepal (workshop outcomes)

Challenges Opportunities

• Limits of acceptable change and carrying capacity – how do we (or can we) know on the limits to development?

• Balancing action and implementation based on what is desirable and what is feasible in the KSL Nepal context

• Impacts of climate change as a tangible conditioning factor to already unresolved problems on the ground – serves as a catalyst for action

• Tourism offers an opportunity to enable the local socio-economic base (including poverty alleviation) to be improved through the enhancement of networks / value chain

Time was also allocated in this session to raise any additional comments and discuss questions and answers pertaining to the three presentations given. A significant point of discussion centred on the issue of access to (by local governments and communities) and distribution of tourism-related revenue such as trekking permit fees, that are collected at higher and/or more centralised tiers of government. Comments were made that there are rules, regulations, and clauses in Nepali legislation that allow for this transfer and access to revenue streams, however there are institutional and/or political barriers with its distribution as well as a systemic lack of awareness and/or capacity at local government levels (DDCs and VDCs) to enact on these provisions and lobby for their access. Other issues of concern that were raised:

• Funding and budgets for tourism development are also subject to the 5-year plans (fiscal cycles) that operate in Nepal, however problems arise when these are effectively stalled due to the uncertain political landscape that is current in Nepal (at the time of the workshops, voting was still being carried out amongst the major Nepali political parties in order to appoint a Prime Minister and therefore a ruling government). Likewise, issues were raised that funding and budget rules under these 5-year plans do not apply in regions gazetted as “restricted areas” (such as Mustang and Humla – the latter being in the KSL Nepal region). This issue was flagged by the project team for further exploration and clarification;

• Comment and concern raised that the KSLCI may well need to assess and appraise lessons learnt from funding, tourism development and implementation models applied elsewhere (e.g. Sagarmatha National Park, Annapurna region), as well as initiatives under Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICADPs). A comprehensive evaluation on these lessons learnt would prove highly beneficial in the KSL Nepal context for strategic purposes.

2.2.2 Sessions 6 & 7: Break-out – scenarios, case studies & workshop close

The second interactive session of this workshop was carried out later in Day 2 to identify the types of tourism activities and/or products that are or would be feasible and desirable in the KSL Nepal context. In addition the actual or potential effects of climate change and other factors of global change on tourism were also discussed. Despite a much lower participant attendance rate on Day 2, this allowed for a much more integrative, informal and open forum setting for discussion.





Page 16 of 28

The format for Session 6 and its activity was the projection on-screen of a blank spread sheet table, listing columns that included (see Appendix C):

• Tourism-related activity;

• Question on HOW this activity is affected by climate change / weather extremes?

• Is this a potential or actual risk (observed);

• Opinion as to what degree participants think that other factors are either more / equal / or less important than climate change for each activity.

The table was then subsequently completed, based on an open forum discussion of opinions expressed by participants present at this session. In order to understand the impacts of climate change, it is important to know what choices that tourists make about recreation activities in which to engage, settings in which to recreate and kinds of experiences to seek. A split was created to separate those activities that are known to take place in the KSL Nepal region, versus those that may have a potential for development. In the region, recreational opportunities that are listed range on a spectrum from a setting that provides more subtle tourism activities (e.g. bird watching, meditation) to another where more physically challenging and demanding recreation (e.g. horse riding, rafting) can be experienced. Among those activities, three were regarded as being affected by the impacts of climate change based on experiences of these impacts in the past. These activities included: pilgrimage, trekking, and rafting/kayaking (along the Karnali River). For the purpose of clarification, pilgrimage and trekking activities were separated to reflect the distinct motivation factors that separate the two, where pilgrimage is characterised by spiritual and religious motivations versus trekking which was deemed to be motivated by nature-based and recreational objectives. The most important climatic factor to note is the issue of seasonality and seasonally-reliant activities as well as the tangible effects of extreme or adverse weather events which have a direct influence on the remote access to this region (particularly in Humla). Two activities that were regarded as being more vulnerable to factors OTHER than climate or weather related, were cultural/heritage and volunteer/educational tourism. These factors were characterised as being of socio-political and economic in nature, as well as concerns for the cultural integrity and preservation of culture and identity. Shifts in social values, partly as a result of exposure and influence of modernisation and globalisation, were noted as needing further attention and consideration with tourism development strategies going forward. A recap on the workshop outcomes was outlined in Session 7, together with a description of the proposed fieldwork schedule and activities. Particular attention was given to suggestions from the floor regarding networks and contacts to approach, as well as issues to raise and investigate. The workshop was closed with a vote of thanks by ICIMOD’s tourism specialist, Mrs Ester Kruk.





Page 17 of 28

3 Summary of workshop findings The main objective of the workshop was to identify issues pertaining to the impacts of climate change on tourism practices in the KSL region of Nepal, particularly on risks and opportunities facing the sector. Through the presentations, workshop activities, and discussions outlined in this report, some key outcomes can be summarised as follows:

• Whilst climate change was perceived as a serious problem, it needs to be considered in the context of multiple stressors affecting the region.

• On the question of risks for tourism development in the KSL Nepal region, a common theme emerged across all three groups centred on the issue of weak socio-economic base that affects these communities. Most notably through the lack of infrastructure to service the basic needs of the local population, let alone support tourism at a sustainable level.

• From a government perspective, the carrying capacities of the region and conservation threats were identified as key risks. These risk factors require the government agencies to restrict and control tourism visits to less vulnerable areas through a permit system. This was seen by the industry representatives as a factor that restricts the scope and expansion of tourism in the region as it more likely to inflate costs of goods and services and travel operation. It also limits the ‘economy of scale’ as well as deters infrastructure investment noted by NGO groups.

• On the question of opportunities for tourism development in the KSL Nepal region, a common theme across all three groups centred on the prospect of tourism development as a means for poverty alleviation through the diversification of livelihood options for the local community.

• Given that participants voiced a general approval and consensus for tourism as a potential means for uplifting the weak socio-economic base that affects this region, meant that tourism development has a level of traction and support as a policy option. However, concerns were raised on the types and scale of tourism development in the region with the argument that the number of tourists currently visiting the region is unlikely to make a substantial contribution to the local economy despite the fact that tourism has the potential to create employment, additional income for local businesses and an overall improvement in livelihoods.

Overall, comments made and discussion that ensued demonstrated that workshop participants have an appreciative and sophisticated understanding of the socio-economic and environmental issues that the region is currently experiencing. However, results from the participant survey showed that participants have a mixed response to the degree to which they think climate change is already occurring in the KSL region and linking these to the existing vulnerabilities in place, even though impacts of climate change scenarios are perceived to be severe. Most participants agree that their organisations have the ‘interest’ to use tourism as a means to adapt to climate change scenarios; whilst it is reported that only a few have the power and capacity to influence climate change adaptation outcomes. The participation of organisations that have the required capacity, power, and interest to support tourism as an adaptation strategy is critical before the approach can be planned and implemented in the KSL region. Of interest and relevance for on-going project initiatives, including the Strengthening Project fieldwork component, is to note and consider the number of issues of concern raised by workshop participants, which provide a strong foundation for further enquiry and guidance that is context-specific. These issues of concern are summarised as follows:

• “Restricted areas” and the issue of transport and access to the region (particularly in Humla);





Page 18 of 28

• Access to reliable data and the need to acknowledge, legitimize and complement existing data with local knowledge;

• The role of policy makers in mobilizing and facilitating development of infrastructure and facilities for trekking and tourism development;

• From a conservation perspective, prioritise on the need to account and plan for buffer zones areas;

• Issue of extensive use of firewood in mountain regions, highlighting the need to investigate and promote other sources of energy and more sustainable forms of ‘fuel’ in the KSL;

• Defining what is a feasible and desirable number of tourists visiting KSL Nepal;

• Clarification and appraisal of rules and regulation pertaining to funding and budgets available for tourism development, including the capacity for local authorities to access these resources from the central government;

• Need to assess and appraise lessons learnt from funding, tourism development and implementation models applied elsewhere in Nepal (e.g. Sagarmatha National Park, Annapurna region), as well as initiatives under Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICADPs). A comprehensive evaluation on these lessons learnt would prove highly beneficial in the KSL Nepal context for strategic purposes.

These issues of concern were incorporated as part of the semi-structured interview design for the fieldwork component, serving as a ‘ground-truthing’ means in which to ascertain levels of acceptance for tourism development, including perceptions, values and opinions from the local community situated in place and context. These results are reported in the final report to be prepared and issued by the Tourism and Climate Change research team, and made available to local communities through ICIMOD.





Page 19 of 28

References ADGER, W. N., HUQ, S., BROWN, K., CONWAY, D. & HULME, M. 2003. Adaptation to climate

change in the developing world. Progress in Development Studies, 3, 179-195. BEBBINGTON, A. 1999. Capitals and capabilities: a framework for analysing peasant viability,

rural livelihoods and poverty. World Development, 27, 2021-2044. ERIKSEN, S. H. & O'BRIEN, K. 2007. Vulnerability, poverty and the need for sustainable

adaptation measures. Climate Policy, 7, 337-352. ICIMOD / GTZ 2010. Terms of Reference - Tourism and Climate Change (September 2010).

Kathmandu: International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) and the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH.

REED, M. S., FRASER, E. D. G. & DOUGILL, A. J. 2006. An adaptive learning process for developing and applying sustainability indicators with local communities. Ecological Economics, 59, 406-418.

SALTER, J., ROBINSON, J. & WIEK, A. 2010. Participatory methods of integrated assessment—a review. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1, 697-717.

SMIT, B. & WANDEL, J. 2006. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16, 282-292.





Page 20 of 28

APPENDIX A – Workshop agenda

The Kailash Sacred Landscape Conservation Initiative (KSLCI)

Strengthening Project

Tourism and Climate Change

Stakeholder Workshop

Thursday 23rd and Friday 24th of September 2010 ICIMOD Headquarter, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Venue: ICIMOD Training Hall, 3rd Floor

DAY 1 - Thursday 23rd September 2010

09.00 - 09.30 Coffee / tea and Registration

09.30 – 10.30 SESSION 1: Opening plenary session

09.30-09.40 � Welcome remarks - ICIMOD (Eklabya Sharma)

09.40-09.50 � Welcome remarks Ministry of Tourism and Civil Aviation (Murari Bahadur Karki)

09.50-10.10 � Introduction to the Kaliash Sacred Landscape Conservation

Initiative project (Krishna Prashad Oli)

10.10-10.30 � Overview of the workshop - ICIMOD (Ester Kruk)

10.30-10.50 Coffee / tea break

10.50 – 12.15 SESSION 2: Climate Change and Tourism

10.50-11.20 � Prospects of tourism development in the KSL/Nepal (Ram Chandra Sedai)

11.20-11.40 � Climate change scenarios for Nepal (Prem Chhetri)

11.40-12.00 � Climate change and tourism in mountain regions (Carolina Roman)

12.00-12.15 � Discussion, questions from the floor

12.15 – 13.00 Lunch

13.00 – 16.00 SESSION 3: Break-out Groups – Risks and Opportunities

13.00-13.15 � Introduction: purpose and structure of break-out groups (Prem Chhetri)

13.15-16.00 � Break out groups – risks and adaptation, including tea/coffee (Prem Chhetri.

Ram Chandra Sedai, Carolina Roman)

16.00 – 17.00 SESSION 4: Report back, discussion, and preparation for Day 2

16.00-16.45 � Reporting back: brief break-out group presentations (Carolina Roman)

16.45-17.00 � Discussion, and preparation for Day 2 (Prem Chhetri)

DAY 2 - Friday 24th September 2010





Page 21 of 28

09.00 - 09.30 Coffee / tea

09.30 – 10:30 SESSION 5: Recapping from Day 1 and Next Steps

09.30-10:00 � Continue with group presentations from Day 1 (including questions and discussions)

(Prem Chhetri)

10:00-10:30 � Group discussion - The potential for tourism as an adaptation strategy – challenges and opportunities

(Carolina Roman)

10.30 – 10.45 Coffee / tea break

10.45 – 12.30 SESSION 6: Break-out Groups – Scenarios and case studies

10.45-10.50 � Introduction to scenarios and case study break-out session (Carolina Roman)

10.50-12.15 � Group discussion/workshop – what ‘types’ of tourism are feasible under global change conditions?

(Prem Chhetri, Ram Chandra Sedai &

Carolina Roman)

12.15-12.45 � Case studies, stories and reflections (Carolina Roman)

12.45 – 13.45 Lunch

13.45 – 14.30 SESSION 7: Conclusion and Next Steps

13.45-14.00 � Conclusion of workshop and discussion on next steps (fieldwork and integration into broader KSLCI project)

(Carolina Roman)

14.00-14.15 � Discussion, questions and answers (Carolina Roman)

14.15-14.20 � Vote of Thanks (Ester Kruk)

14.20-14.45 Coffee/tea break and informal interaction – CLOSE.





Page 22 of 28

APPENDIX B - List of workshop participants

Name Position Organisation

Organisation type / role

1 Mr. Murari Bahadur Karki Joint Secretary Ministry of Tourism and Civil Aviation Government

2 Mr. Rabi Shah Project Manager Tourism Infrastructure Development

Ministry of Tourism and Civil Aviation Government

3 Mr. Barna Bahadur Thapa Undersecretary Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC)

Government

4 Mr. Sunil Sharma Manager- Research, planning and monitoring; Nepal Tourism Board (NTB)

Government

5 Ms. Indira Kadel Meteorologist Department of Hydrology and Meteorology Government

6 Ms. Ranu Shah Officer-STDU Tourism products & Resources Development Department; Nepal Tourism Board (NTB)

Government

7 Dr. Govinda Basnet Academic Environmental Anthropology NGO

8 Mr. Kiran K.C. Programme Officer National Trust for Nature Conservation (NTNC)

NGO

9 Mr. Jigme Lama Programme Manager Nepal Trust NGO

10 Mr. Mim Hamal Tourism Advisor SNV Nepal NGO

11 Mr. Rinjin Angdu Lama Representative Adventure Karnali Business

12 Mr. Rajender Rawat Director Rudra Treks Business

13 Ms. Yankila Sherpa MD Snow Leopard Trek Business

14 Mr. Vishwaraj Gyawali Founder Director Social tours Business

15 Mr. Dhiraj Pradhanang President The Small Earth Nepal NGO

16 Ms. Krity Shrestha Respresentative Dreams Nepal Travel and Tours Business

17 Mr. Utsav Shakya Editor Travel Times Magazine Business

18 Mr. Jeevan Thapa President Youth network for Social and Environmental Development (YONSED)

NGO

19 Dr. Anita Manandhar Team leader Humla Developkent Initiative NGO

20 Mr. Tsewang Lama KSLCI consultant

21 Mr. Guy Schneider KSLCI consultant ViaStoria – Zentrum für Verkehrsgeschichte

22 Mr. Werner Meyer KSLCI consultant

23 Mr. Fritz Berger KSLCI consultant Transhumana - Fotografien und Publikationen

24 Mrs. Birgit LIenhart-Gyawali KSLCI consultant Freelance Strategic Tourism Planning

25 Dr. Carolina Roman KSLCI consultant CCAP, RMIT University

26 Dr. Prem Chhetri KSLCI consultant RMIT University

27 Mr. Ram Chandra Sedai KSLCI consultant Centre for Environment and Sustainable Tourism Development Nepal (CEST)

28 Mr. Roman Roehrl Junior Expert GTZ

29 Mrs. Ester Kruk Tourism Expert ICIMOD

30 Mr. Michael Kollmair Programme manager SLPR

ICIMOD

31 Mr. Eklabya Sharma Programme manager ECES

ICIMOD

32 Mr. Krishna Prasad Oli Regional Coordinator, KSLCI Project

ICIMOD





Page 23 of 28

APPENDIX C – Outcomes of group participatory sessions DAY 1, Session 3: Risks and Opportunities Identify and discuss Risks and Opportunities for tourism as a development and climate change adaptation strategy in KSL Nepal

Group work- NGOs Group (Facilitator: Carolina Roman)

Rank Risks Recommended Strategies

(Responsibility for implementation)

Rank Opportunities

Recommended Strategies

(Responsibility for implementation)

1 Extreme floods (Limi valley, Humla)

Suit of mitigation / engineering options. (Government)

1 Poverty alleviation (enhance social economic base)

Equitable sharing/distribution of benefits.

(Partnership between government and industry)

2 Lack of infrastructure

Access to resources - financial, skills, and labour.

(Government)

3 Weak social economic base

Diversify livelihood options.

(Partnership between government, industry and NGOs)

2 Revenue generation (for government at all scales)

Promoting the area to maximize tourist numbers.

(Partnership between industry and government)

4 Lack of energy resources / reliance on wood fired stoves

Introduction of renewable sources. (e.g. biogas, solar, hydro) and knowledge sharing.

(Partnership between government and NGOs)

3 Showcasing the rich local cultural heritage

5 Food insecurity Diversification of crops and better access (e.g. roads) to high value crops, evaluate policies using a value chain approach.


6 Loss of cultural identity

Raising awareness - development of cultural hubs, museums.

(Partnership between industry and NGOs)

4 Offer new experiences to repeat tourists (e.g. niche/cultural, and adventure tourism)

Inform and educate on intrinsic values / cultural uniqueness of the region.

(Partnership between industry and government, with support from NGOs)

7 Governance issues (Policy and Politics)

Decentralized decision making, and the sharing and redistribution of benefits (e.g. revenue).


5 Development (social capital, capacity, and Infrastructure) e.g. health, education.

Education and enhance/sustain networks

(Partnership between industry, NGOs and locals / community)

8 Waste management

Responsible trekking practices; provide incentives, facilities and services to recycle.

(Partnership between government and industry, with support from NGOs)

6 Addressing safety measures (e.g. trek along the pilgrimage route to minimise altitude sickness - acclimatisation strategy)

Education and awareness for tourists and training for operators.

(Partnership between industry and government)

9 Drought conditions

Monitoring water shortage conditions and reduce losses.

(NGOs)





Page 24 of 28

Group work- Government Team/Group (Facilitator: Ram Chandra Sedai)

Rank Risks Rank Opportunities Recommended Strategies (common)

1 Carrying Capacity 1 Market opportunity for local goods and products

2 Conservation threats (Cultural, natural)

2 Increases opportunity for stakeholders network

3 High cost of goods and services

3 Opportunity for infrastructure development

4 High cost of travel operation

4 Increase in no. of tourism products/services

5 Restricted vs. Non-restricted area for tourist

5 Upliftment of livelihood (income, employment)

6 Possible threats of hunting and poaching

6 Cultural exchange and promotion

7 Increased fire hazards 7 Exchange/transfer of knowledge

8 Threats for adventurous tourism products (e.g. mountaineering, rafting)

8 Extension of tourism seasonality

9 Spreading disease (SAARC, Vector borne diseases etc.)

9 Diversification in vegetation growth

• Capacity strengthening at local level (on tourism and climate change)

• Incentive for technology based knowledge and ideas community based tourism development (focus on bottom up approach)

• Investment in research and development

• Strengthening database system

• Spatial development of tourism infrastructure (accessibility)

• Enhance capacity of locals in producing goods and services for tourist

• Enhance capacity of private sectors (tour operators, guides) on climate change vulnerability, mitigation and adaptation

10 Transboundary cooperation

10 Minimize out migration

11 Unavailability of long range weather forecasting system

11 Food security Organisations and agencies responsible for implementation (common)

12 Natural calamities (Clouds burst, landslides, flash floods)

12 Invention of specialized tourism products (like “Great Himalayan Trail”)

Ministry of Tourism and Civil Aviation, Nepal Tourism Board, NATHM, NGOs





Page 25 of 28

Group work - Private Sector (Facilitator: Prem Chhetri)

Rank Risks Rank Opportunities (Responsibility for implementation)

Recommended Strategies (common)

1 Social Capacity (Localized Issues) 1 Building of infrastructure (Gov)

2 No motivation for people (on personal basis)

2 Employment generation (Gov, NGOs, Ind.)

3 Lack of capacity 3 Capacity building of locals

4 Unequal distribution of opportunities amongst mountain people

4 Entire Karnali corridor with huge biodiversity and tremendous opportunity

5 Issues: lack of awareness on the benefits of tourism. To address poverty as a means of livelihood. In far west, people are still not involved in tourism. We have labour issues

5 Pilgrimage sites increases demands dramatically

6 Lack of skill, capacity amongst the local people

6 Linkages of Humla with other destinations to promote Humla

• Lobbying

• Promotion

• Training

• Subsidies (from Govt.) Packages (combining pilgrimage with city tour)-pricing strategy

7 Operational/Supply 7 Adventure sports (Rafting)

8 Costly (comparative) 8 Market opportunities

9 Unaggressive marketing 9 Research opportunities for scholars

10 Climate change reduce seasons for adventure sports such as rafting

10 Chinese tourists

11 Government Regulations and Incentives

12 Lack of regulation for flights, (Flight diversion)

13 Permit fee is high (in Humla)

14 Lack of infrastructure

15 Government attitude towards private sector

16 Access point problems

17 Environmental hazards

18 Uncertain weather condition (flights delayed)

19 Landslide, weather, constraints

20 Unpredictable weather condition

21 Climate change impacts (not so significants)

22 Camping rubbish deposition

23 Demand Issues

24 Critical mass of tourist required

25 Attraction factor -Advantage to Humla

26 Tourists (Indian) are focused on Mansarobar, Humla is their least interest

27 Over-crowding especially from China side





Page 26 of 28

DAY 2, Session 6: Scenarios and Case Studies Interactive group discussion – what ‘types’ of tourism activities are feasible and/or desirable in the KSL Nepal region, and how are these affected (or likely to be affected) under global change conditions such as climate change?

Tourism activity

HOW is this activity affected by

climate change / weather extremes?

Potential or current

risk?

To what degree do you think other factors are more / equal /or less important than climate

change for this activity?

NOTES

Cultural and heritage (e.g. shaman festivals)

Access, postponement, loss

of heritage sites

Current MORE – insufficient research /study on geographical knowledge, political instability, infrastructure, high costs, access restricted by transport infrastructure

(e.g. planes), impacts of modernisation and shifting cultural values

Volunteer / educational tourism

Potential to increase but not affected

Current MORE – funding and project development/lack of offer, lack of information on sites, potential projects,

and coordination

Actual activities regarded as being

more affected

by OTHER factors

Pilgrimage Access, travel route Current EQUAL – to political instability (transboundary issues, government policy, access restrictions,

political strikes)

Trekking Access, travel route, views

Current EQUAL – to political instability, insufficient research/study on geographical knowledge, lack of

infrastructure, high costs, access restricted by transport infrastructure (e.g. planes)

Rafting / kayaking

Flooding, water levels, seasonality

Current LESS – While flooding and fluctuating water levels are evident, there is insufficient information regarding this activity’s potential and promotion in this region,

cost of operations, hydropower infrastructure impacts

Actual activities regarded as being mostly

affected by

climate change

Bird watching Change or loss of species

Potential MORE – access, insufficient information (marketing potential), government policy

Meditation / spiritual retreat

Less affected Potential MORE – lack of availability (spiritual masters/teachers/gurus/lamas), lack of information

(monasteries)

Horse riding Access, route finding, natural

hazards

Potential MORE – lack of information on its potential trainers, horses (commercial capacity, seasonal constraints,

pasture availability), land use, shift in transport types constraints

Honey hunting Access, route finding, natural

hazards

Potential MORE – lack of information (potential to develop in KSL Nepal), safety/security issues,

availability/potential for commercial capacity, access (confined/exclusive knowledge to locals

Potential activities regarded as being

more affected

by OTHER factors

Cross-country / back-country skiing

Access, route finding, natural hazards, snow

levels

Potential EQUAL – insufficient research/study geographical knowledge, political instability, infrastructure. High costs, access restricted by transport infrastructure

(e.g. planes), lack of training/skills/capacity

Wildlife Change or loss of species

Potential EQUAL - Poaching activity and ineffective policies (regulation/policing), insufficient research/knowledge

on species (marketing potential)

Mountain biking Access, route finding, natural

hazards

Potential EQUAL – access, infrastructure (service centres), availability of heath and emergency facilities

Mountaineering / rockclimbing

Access, visibility, natural hazards

Potential LESS – Insufficient information regarding this activity’s potential in this region, government policy (permits), availability of health emergency facilities

Potential activities regarded as being mostly

affected by

climate change





Page 27 of 28

APPENDIX D – Workshop participant survey results





Page 28 of 28

Documents

Kailash Sacred Landscape Conservation Initiative (KSLCI) Strengthening Project - Nepal: Climate Change and Tourism Stakeholder Workshop Report