Sustainability now: The National Park dilemma

With a new year starting it seems hopes and frustrations are balancing out. I would like to dedicate another column to the broader subject of sustainable tourism, not only because this sector is so important for Sri Lanka, but also because there are so many challenges and controversial activities taking place exactly in that sector.

When reflecting on the past news coverage one can find recommendations of leading hotel experts explaining that Sri Lanka needs to invest more into suitable marketing plans to attract the envisioned four million tourists in 2020. Then we have the President of Sri Lanka’s message to facilitate an expansion of Wilpattu National Park and increase investigations about those who deforest and establish housing within the park: “President Sirisena further instructed officials to enforce the law against the persons who are responsible for the destruction of the forests, irrespective of their social status.” (Daily FT, 2 January 2017)

At the same time pictures like that on this page are shared on social media reflecting how visitors of Yala National Park have experienced their holidays, opposite to their expectations.

It is the peak of the tourist season during the Christmas and New Year holidays. 2015 Forbes has ranked Sri Lanka among the 10 ‘coolest places’ to visit. In 2016 Sri Lanka was ranked second among the ‘top 16 places’ recommended by the famous travel and lifestyle magazine ‘Condé Nast Traveller’. When having a look at the official Sri Lanka Tourism website, a comprehensive summary of what we offer to the tourist can be found (http://www.srilanka.travel) – beach, heritage, sports, wildlife, spas, scenery and culture!

 

Is tourism as important as we say it is?

We do not sell environmental destruction or political controversies; when it comes to tourism we sell natural, cultural and societal heritage, therefore if we want to not only continue with this sector but increase arrivals and reach four million a year we need to ask one question: Is tourism as important as we say it is? Is it really a priority sector? If yes, then decisions in public and private sector have to reflect this priority. If we want to build a successful tourism industry we have to 1. Understand what we really sell and 2. Sustain that! 

National Parks are on the top priority list of the majority of tourists. Bookings.com lists 229 hotels around Yala. Rough guides list the parks as worthy to visit for a tourist: Hikkaduwa and Pigeon Island, Yala, Udawalawe, Horton Plains, Bundala, Minneriya and Kaudulla, Maduru Oya, Gal Oya, Wilpattu and Kumana.

“There are numerous other protected areas dotted across the island that are run under Government supervision. These are categorised variously as nature reserves, strict nature reserves (entry prohibited) and sanctuaries. In general these places possess important botanical significance but lack the wildlife found in the national parks, as at (to name just one example) the unique, World Heritage-listed Sinharaja Forest Reserve, Sri Lanka’s last undisturbed pocket of tropical rainforest.” In addition, Sri Lanka’s ecotourism website describes Yala as an eco-tourism destination.

Currently, the reality is that the national parks are facing various challenges in Sri Lanka. This includes allowing too many jeeps, cars and buses into the parks, to use National Parks for resettlement projects and other politically or religiously motivated activities on the back of the national parks. There is no doubt that there are various reasons for these activities, however assuming that those decision makers who are responsible for these challenges do not necessarily see the inherit benefits of natural habitats for a country, at least awareness has to increase that with a well-regulated and protected national park, there is more money to be made in the long term than with an “exploited and destroyed” national park. 

 

National parks are controversial

When looking at the base of it, national parks by themselves are controversial. The World Travel and Tourism Council depicts this dilemma the following “National parks are most often formed when the government identifies an area of land rich in national history, rich in biodiversity, and environmentally important.  The parks therefore represent the indigenous fauna, flora, landscapes and associated cultural heritage of the country… Detractors claim that national parks attract tourists who then prey on the very environments that are supposed to be protected. Tourism causes development, cities, and trash to encroach on wilderness areas. Other claims center on the systematic nature of national parks prioritising wildlife over human beings. A good example of this is in East Africa, where the Maasai people were moved, without consultation or compensation, to ensure that Kenya and Tanzania’s national parks were ‘people-free’.” 

It is difficult to balance the human cost against the positive impact of government protection; land rights are always a difficult topic. Are we protecting animals and humans do not have a place to live? This is one of the most common arguments of infrastructure development supporters, and those who believe a country can only show development by building concrete structures. Clearly housing is important as well as agriculture – I am convinced no one will disagree on that. The question is about how to balance the development of infrastructure and the examples we have in Sri Lanka show that there is choice and there is room for improved decision making.

Again, we do not need to re-invent the wheel; we can just see what other countries are doing – we always look at our neighbors and at those countries which we perceive as wealthy … why not also looking at countries which show how to organise and sustain national parks. 

Well-managed national parks

A national park which is often mentioned as a great example is South Africa’s iSimangaliso Wetland Park: “iSimangaliso manages to strike the delicate balance between fantastic tourism and impeccable care of the environment it encompasses.” Another park which is highlighted is Austria’s Neusiedler See-Seewinkel & Fertö-Hanság, which is located between Austria and Hungary. The park has a diversity of habitats as well as important breeding areas for birds. 

Finally, another example of national parks is the Cairngorms National Park of Scotland, where the National Park is not owned by the state but brings together hundreds of independent landowners. They work with partners, business, landowners and communities to develop long term plans for the Park, in order to achieve our collective aims. In this case, the public has created a national park and is sustaining it for their benefit as well as the country’s benefit. 

Similarly the Swiss Parks Network has created 10 parks since 2008 which was not part of government planning. The parks protect some of the country’s best landscapes and promote sustainable tourism within, and were the initiative by local residents working together. They also developed a mobile APP highlighting offers, discounts and itineraries. 

Learning from the others, Sri Lanka can for example:

• execute strict regulation of vehicles entering the parks 
• use ICT to oversee the park visits such as a central online booking system 
• use low emission vehicles for the national parks as well as other means of transport
• set up an awareness raising system for all visitors including behavior rules
• impose fines onto tourists who do not comply with behavioral rules (it is unacceptable that tourists break branches and poke sharks on Pigeon Island for example, without being fined; let’s just imagine for a moment, the news coverage if one of these tourists got bitten by the shark?)
• solve the infrastructure challenges related to the parks
• register the trees in the parks as carbon sink

Start thinking projects through

My wish for those in decision making: first of all, please understand, if there is no national park, it can also not bring revenue. Put yourself into the shoes of a tourist, you have to understand the consumers’ point of view – local and international. Have a look at respective websites and best practice examples from other countries and try to adapt it to our local context. Do not only look at tourist arrival numbers – look at which countries have managed to sustain their natural and cultural heritage as well as developed their tourism industry sustainably. 

We have to start thinking projects through, and not glorify arrival numbers – if it is in planes or ships. As a country, Sri Lanka also has to digest that number of tourists without ending up like other countries which are literally destroyed by tourism.

I wish in the New Year that Sri Lanka prospers in its development by understanding the increased benefits of wisely balancing out society, nature and economy.