Case study presentation: The Upper Mustang conservation and development project, Nepal Chandra Gurung 1998 cgurung@go.com.jo Keywords: conservation, development, Mustang, Nepal. INTRODUCTION Upper Mustang, situated on the northern border of Nepal adjoining Tibet, is an isolated, economically impoverished region of Nepal which was recently opened for trekking tourism. Until the political change in Nepal in 1990, Mustang was considered a strategic area from a border security perspective, and was closed to outside visitors, but since 1992, a limited number of trekkers have been allowed to enter the area. In the early 1990s the Nepalese government embarked on an ambitious project to use tourism as a means to foster economic development, nature conservation and cultural heritage in this region. Even though they have made some progress, numerous problems have been reported which threaten the sustainability of the approach and seriously comprise the goals of economic uplift and nature conservation. This case study shows how rapid, poorly planned tourism development in remote mountain areas like mustang can have matters worse, and undermine the chances for long term improvements in social welfare and biodiversity management. BACKGROUND Mustang covers about 2,563 km2 in size and has a total population of 6,123 and 1,189 households, scattered in 32 small hamlets and isolated settlements throughout the region. To reach Lo-Manthang (12,500' AMSL), the ancient walled city and the capital of Mustang, it takes 10 days of hard walking from the nearest road-head, or four days from the nearest seasonal airport. There is no communication linkage between Mustang and outside world. There are geographical, climatic and political factors which have retarded tourism development in upper Mustang until recently. The region is situated in the rain shadow of the Himalaya and receives less than 100 mm rainfall annually. The high altitude and the combined effect of strong sun and wind are responsible for Mustang's cold desert landscape. As a result, there is very little vegetation and growing seasons are very short. Most of Mustang remains under snow for 4 to 5 months a year. Basic necessities such as drinking water, health services, schools, and alternative sources of energy are virtually non-existent. The region is one of the most remotest and underdeveloped regions in Nepal.
The people have adapted to this environment by practicing a form of subsistence agro-pastoralism and seasonal migration. Farming is done wherever irrigation is possible, but only one crop a year can be produced. This barely supports the local population for only 6 months a year, and the region is a severe food deficit area. As a result, during the winter months almost 70 percent of the local people emigrate to the lower part of Mustang, Pokhara, Kathmandu and India, for employment and trading. During this time, the Nepalese Government closes all its offices in Mustang including schools, police and border security offices. Only old people and young children are left in Mustang. In contrast to the small human population, Mustang has large herds of cattle, sheep, goats, yaks and horses, totaling over 41,000. In the past, local people were able to bring their livestock to Tibet for grazing. Since mid-1970s, however, the Chinese government has restricted this practice, which has led to a severe shortage of pasture land and localized grazing problems. A large number of livestock have died as a result. Fuelwood is another scarce resource in Mustang. There are only few patches of forest left, and people are forced to cut or uproot the scattered junipers and other scrub vegetation for heating and cooking. Local people have started using yak dung and goat pellets as a supplementary energy source. This could have the effect of decreased agricultural productivity due to shortage of manure. Even so, this harsh environment supports a rich cultural and natural heritage. Buddhism is very much alive in this region, and there are several monasteries, cave dwellings, festivals and artifacts which reflect this living tradition. The area is equally rich in biodiversity. Endangered species such as Snow leopard, lynx, Tibetan arghali sheep and wild donkeys are found throughout the region. THE UPPER MUSTANG CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (UMCDP) After the restoration of multi-party democracy in Nepal in 1990, the Nepalese Government decided to open up Mustang for trekking tourism and plough back part of revenue for Mustang's development. A limit of 200 visitors a year was set, and a group of high government delegates assured the local people at various public meetings that 60% of the revenue generated from tourism would be made available for mustang's development and heritage conservation. To finance this scheme, trekkers wishing to visit the area were required to be with a registered group organized through an authorized trekking agency. A premium fee of US$ 500 per week (per person) was levied with a maximum of two weeks allowed in the region. Groups had to be self-sufficient in kerosene and all garbage had to be carried out. Furthermore, each trekking group had to be accompanied by an environmental officer (EO) whose remuneration was also paid by the group. The EO's job was to assure that the group followed the
prescribed route and environmental protocols, and that they do not purchase or smuggle any valuable artifacts out of Mustang. In March 1992, the first batch of tourists visited upper Mustang. Realizing the potential profits to be made, the tourism industry started lobbying the government to increase the 200 tourists per year limit and decrease the premium for the second week. Most treks to Mustang required at least ten days, and US$ 1000.00 was seen as too exorbitant. Within a couple of months, the number of visitors authorized to trek to Mustang was increased to 400 for a year and the premium fee was revised to US$ 700 for ten days of trekking. Each additional day beyond 10 days was charged US$ 70 per day. Six months later, the number of tourists was again increased to 1,000 a year. To oversee conservation and development activities in Mustang, the government brought in the King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation (KMTNC), Nepal's leading environmental non-governmental organization. KMTNC had successfully implemented the Annapurna Conservation Area Project (ACAP) since 1986, and was the logical choice given its expertise as well as its geographical proximity to Mustang. ACAP's northern border adjoins the southern part of Mustang. The government decided to handover the management responsibilities of Mustang to KMTNC, and in July 1992, the Nepalese Government gazetted the ACA and included upper Mustang within its jurisdiction. The KMTNC sent a team of experts in August 1992 to carry out the feasibility study and identify needs and priorities of Mustang. In November 1992, 9 months after Mustang was opened for trekking tourism, the KMTNC commenced its activities by establishing the "Upper Mustang Conservation and Development Project (UMCDP)" project office in Lo-Manthang. For the first time, local communities had seen outsiders residing in Mustang during winter season. The UMCDP staff began its work by gathering basic information of the village and spends a great deal of time developing rapport with the local people and on environmental awareness activities. Cleaning campaigns were launched and rubbish pits were dug. Biodegradable and non-biodegradable items were separated as far as possible and burnt or buried as required. Even the local Buddhist monks were happy to participate. For the first time, the local communities received medical support as one of the UMCDP staff was a health worker. These activities built up strong feelings of mutual trust between the project and the local community, which created a positive work environment for future initiatives. Together, the staff of the UMCDP and members of the local community developed a work plan to guide their activities during the upcoming years. UMCDP focused broadly on five key programmes: 1) Sustainable Tourism Development,
2) Natural Resources Conservation, 3) Cultural Heritage Conservation, 4) Alternative Energy Development, and 5) Community Development These programs were carried out via numerous trainings, study tours, awareness campaigns. Training on lodge management, food preparation, sanitation and hygiene, and handicraft production were provided. Representatives of the local community were brought to ACAP's field sites to see how other communities manage tourism, and to learn from communities facing similar issues. In order to raise awareness among the visitors, informational brochures and codes of conduct were developed and distributed with trekking permits and through UMCDP's information office at Kagbeni, the gateway village to Mustang. Since all tourists were required to register at the police check-post there, the UMCDP staff worked closely with the police to assure that tourists and guides followed the guidelines. UMCDP also carried out surveys for various alternative sources of energy, such as micro-hydro and solar electricity energy. A kerosene depot was established at Kagbeni to fulfill the immediate energy needs, and UMCDP helped to rehabilitate some of the existing micro-hydro facilities that were not working. In order to meet fodder and fuel wood needs, reforestation programmes were launched by adopting the local plantation techniques. The UMCDP also helped the local communities in irrigation and agriculture. Conservation education and extension programmes were launched to raise environmental awareness among school children and adults alike. Basic infrastructure works were also undertaken, such as the construction of a health post, schools, bridges and trails. The UMCDP also provided support for monasteries and historical renovations. In order to manage and sustain these efforts, local-level conservation and development committees (CDCs), lodge management committees (LMC) and mothers' group or "Ama Samuha" (AS) were formed. These are grass-roots level management committees who are empowered and given responsibilities of managing and utilizing their natural resources and tourism industry. CONSTRAINTS TO SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION While UMCDP has had demonstrated success, several problems plague both the day to day operations as well as the sustainability of the project as a whole. One of the biggest problems has been financial sustainability. For a variety of reasons, the Nepalese Government never provided 60% of the tourism revenue for Mustang's development. In 1992, approximately US$ 303,000 was collected,
out of which approximately US$ 126,000 (41%) was given to KMTNC for UMCDP. The following year, there was an increase in revenue amounting to US$ 534,000 whereas the contribution received by KMTNC from the government was only about 25%. There has been a considerable decrease in the amount received by KMTNC from the government ever since. In 1997, for example, the KMTNC received only US$ 25,000 (4.5%) whereas the revenue collected from Mustang trekking fee amounted to US$ 548,000. Now, in order to continue the on-going programmes of UMCDP in Mustang, the financial burden is on the shoulders of KMTNC/ACAP. Another obstacle to UMCDP's success is the lack of coordination among international donors. Once Mustang was opened, many outside organizations showed their interest to work in Mustang. In addition, several foreign ambassadors who were resident in Nepal visited the area and promised or provided direct support to the local communities. Currently, there are at least five international organizations with multi-year projects, aside from UMCDP: CARE International, Mustang Development Service Association-Japan, American Himalayan Foundation, and National Centre for Scientific Research (CRNS)- France, and United Nations International Labour Organization (ILO). Some of these projects are working in close collaborations with UMCDP whereas others are conducted in an independent fashion, and there have been several problems with duplication, contrary methods, and even competition for community support. The KMTNC / ACAP organized coordination meetings with government and INGOs for a better coordination in development programmes for Mustang which has helped a little bit in coordination. Another factor is the rapid pace at which tourism was brought to Mustang, without time for proactive community planning and basic infrastructure development. Visitation has been steadily growing, from 433 tourists in 1992 to over 800 in 1996. Total number of tourists so far number 4,312. Because mustang is so remote and underdeveloped, without any basic tourist infrastructure such as hotels and lodges, appropriate energy sources, waste management system and drinking water facilities, the KMTNC felt that it was too early to open the area to tourism. They felt that doing so could potentially be much more destructive and actually undermine the long term sustainable development of the region. The KMTNC lobbied very hard not to open Mustang for three years in order to develop basic infrastructure, train the local people to manage lodges and camp sites, and establish alternative energy sources and waste management systems. The government did not agree with this proposal and the opening up of Mustang continued. As a result of high donor interest, international publicity, and rapid tourism development, the expectations of local people have been raised far beyond realistic levels. This had had several unintended effects which has compromised the potential for both nature conservation and sustainable economic development. Within the first year many international television
companies and photo journalists visited Mustang. At times, helicopters were flying back and forth from Kathmandu every day, carrying dignitaries from many parts of the world. The Rt. Honourable Raja of Mustang, Jigme Parbal Bista, and his son traveled to America, Europe and Japan as guests of foreign INGOs to raise funds for both Mustang and the INGOs. The local people responded to this hoopla by charging exorbitant prices for renting horses, camping places and some of their valuable arts and crafts in an effort to make a quick buck. In some cases they even captured wild animals to sell to the tourists. In many cases, the EO, who was supposed to enforce the regulations, never went along with the group, preferring to take his salary and stay in more comfortable accommodations in the low altitudes. The situation has gotten out of control: community cohesiveness is breaking down, short-term gain is overriding long-term development, and the environment continues to suffer. CONCLUSION - LESSONS LEARNED What lessons can we learned from Mustang, even though the UMCDP began with a clear set of objectives and an operational framework that linked tourism with community development and nature conservation. Since the inception of UMCDP in Mustang in 1992, a considerable number of infrastructure facilities such as trails, bridges, health posts, schools, micro-hydro electricity rehabilitation, and development of solar energy, irrigation, and drinking water projects have been established. Important monasteries have been helped to renovate and a lamasery school has been opened. Forest plantations have been carried out in order to supplement fodder and fuelwood needs. Local people have been given training lodge management, food preparation, sanitation and hygiene. In order to manage and sustain conservation and development efforts, local level conservation and development committees (CDCs), lodge management committees (LMCs) and mothers' group or "Ama Samuha (AS) have been formed. Satisfactory progress has been made by UMCDP since its establishment. However, several factors impinged upon its success. 1) Poor Planning, Preparation and Changing Government Policies: Tourism is a very dynamic industry. It is a goose that lays golden eggs if it is properly managed. Otherwise it also fouls its own nest. Tourism started in Mustang without any proper planning and development of tourism infrastructure. People were not trained about managing tourism. Government policies changed very often. Private tourism industry also lacked long-term vision. They gave pressure to the government to change its policies. The EO who was supposed to be the enforcer of the rules laid down by the Ministry of Tourism, a lot of them use this as a way of making extra-money rather than fulfilling their duties. 2) While the Government decided to limit the number of tourists and enforce kerosene only policy, there was no rule for the support staff particularly for
porters and guides who accompanied the tourists. In average, 4 support staff was brought in by one tourist. Thus, almost 4,000 porters, guides and support staff used the same scarce resources as a source of energy. Similarly, the MOT rule did not apply to the porters on carrying out their waste. Thus, pollution and litter also became problem in Mustang. 3) The role and responsibilities of KMTNC / ACAP was not well defined in Mustang. When a protected area is managed by the Government, the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC), has full authority within the protected area. Everybody, both public and private sector, have to receive authorization from the Department in the use of the resources. In contrast to the Department, KMTNC being an NGO was not fully authorized to strictly enforce rules and regulations within the protected area. Development projects and licenses were issued by various organs of the Government without the knowledge of KMTNC. Therefore, the question arose who is the main responsible organization to coordinate all the development activities within Mustang? 4) In order to achieve a sustainable tourism development, all the stakeholders: the local communities, the private sectors, the government and the visitors, have roles to play in conserving and protecting the natural and cultural heritage of Mustang. Neither the Government's representative, the EO fulfill his duty properly nor the private sector. Private sectors also lacked long-term vision and were into making a quick buck. Similarly, the local people also went for a quick money as they were not trained how to derive a long-term benefit from tourism. All of these factors have affected the environment of Mustang and tourism industry as well. The most disturbing trend I have observed now in Mustang is the creation of economic disparity by tourism which has brought social disharmony in the community. Therefore, what we can learn from Mustang's case is that even if there is a possibility of generating revenue from mountain tourism and plough back for the community development and conservation activities, the tourism may bring more negative impacts into the community unless the tourism plan is properly developed and executed. Notes to readers This paper is a case study on The Upper Mustang Conservation and Development Project, (UMCDP), Nepal. A Mountain Forum email conference on community-based mountain tourism.