Courtesy : www.ippapublicpolicy.org

Eco-tour white paper

The attainment of sustainable tourism development requires well-crafted guidelines
and management practices applicable to all forms of tourism in all types of destinations
and the various niche tourism segments (Krstić, Jovanović, and Milić, 2008).
Sustainability principles refer to the environmental, economic and socio-cultural
aspects of tourism development (UNEP, 2005).
In the Philippines, various policies have been adopted by major ecotourism destinations
to maintain regular flow of tourists in the country. Legislation and policies provide
guidance for visitor and tourism management (Eagles, Coburn, and Swartman, 2014).
However, more policy considerations are needed to sustainably maintain the tourist
attractions and capture significant revenues from tourism-based activities, which can
then be directed toward supporting the monitoring, regulatory and conservation
activities. To accomplish this, managers of natural areas must know the current status
and condition of both natural and social resources and understanding current
conditions (D’ Antonio, et. al., 2016).
One of the ecotourism destinations that have become very popular in the country is the
Cagayan de Oro River White Water Rafting. Based on the daily data gathered from April
2012 to April 2015, the total estimated number of tourists served for the basic course
on a regular basis amounts to 16,397 while for the advance course was estimated to be
at 9,682 annually. This translates to a total of 26,079 tourists annually. The data
gathered also showed the trend in the number of tourists has been increasing annually.
This has adverse impact in maintaining on-site sanitation and waste disposal which has
increasingly become a major challenge and a threat to the preservation of
environmental integrity at the drop off sites.
During the course of the research, the researcher found out that there is deficiency in
ecotourism amenities and absence of regulatory mechanisms through the
implementation of environmental fees or environmental permit for white water rafting
operators. Tourists’ activities remain unregulated at the drop off points for the Basic
Course and for the Advance Course. Pursuant of Republic Act 9593, otherwise known as
the Philippine Tourism Act Of 2009, Rule 1 Section 3, defined Sustainable Tourism
Development as the management of all resources that meet the needs of tourists and
host regions while protecting the opportunities for the future, in such a way that
economic, social and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled while maintaining cultural
integrity, essential ecological processes, biological diversity and life support systems.
The attainment of sustainable tourism development necessitates implementation of
Ecotourism policy for its regulation at the same time the maintenance of sanitation and
waste disposal management at the sites. This is important in maintaining the quality of
the Cagayan De Oro River White Water Rafting as a major tourists’ destination in the
country. This will also require personnel assignment to monitor and regulate tourists’
activities at the drop off points. As such, collection of regulatory fees from tourists will
also be imperative. Nationwide, this policy has been adopted by major ecotourism
destinations in the country. The tourists’ contributions will be of help to sustainably
maintain this tourist attraction and may capture significant revenues from tourism-
2
based activities, which can then be directed toward provision of amenities for tourists
and supporting the monitoring and regulatory activities and other conservation efforts.
The aim of this paper is to determine the policy options for the regulation of the
Cagayan de Oro River white water rafting ecotourism and the most important criteria
for achieving sustainable tourism. The existing ecotourism regulatory system in the
country is discussed and the description of the current challenges and a call for more
effective regulatory mechanism is presented.
Comparative Analysis on Ecotourism Policy Options
There are numerous studies analys ing the application of user fees for ecotourism
regulation (Lindberg and Enriquez 1994; Lindberg, Enriquez and Sproule 1996; Mak
and Moncur 1995; Laarman and Gregersen 1996; Tisdell 1996). These authors noted
three major considerations in the application of appropriate user fees. First, the fee
system must be aligned with the objectives of the ecotourism promotion such that if the
objective is to generate revenue, fees should be relatively high. On the other hand, if the
goal is to maximize the number of visitors to provide livelihood and to develop local
businesses, then the fees should be relatively low. Second, charging user fees must be
based on rational economic conditions. In other words, it should include into the
consideration that ecotourism generates costs that would otherwise be financed by
non-users (Lindberg, Enriquez and Sproule 1996; Yong 1996). Third, current fee levels
should ensure continued patronage with little or no impact on the number of visitors.
This implies that as fee increases would reduce the number of visitors, such increases
should remain appropriate as a means to maximize total revenue or reduce negative
environmental, experiential, or social impacts. Fourth, often, there are several options
for increasing non-fee revenues that may be sourced from donation programs or
through souvenir sales .
Linberg (1991) suggests that an appropriate policy framework for ecotourism
development should include policies in three areas. These are 1) national support and
advance planning which means developing national policy and support for a particular
type of nature-based tourism program, generally with a specific theme including
framework of laws and infrastructure that safe-guard the nation’s natural treasures and
the interests of its people; 2) pricing and revenue policies that have explicit objectives,
procedures for setting fees, and reinvestment of revenues; and policy for local
participation and benefits for local people in and around the ecotourism sites. They
should also include local people in sharing control of project planning and
implementation. This is supported by Petrova and Hristov (2014) and Hjalager (2012)
contending that collaboration between the key public bodies involved is important in
driving new initiatives.
Several broad categories of user fees are delineated below.
User/Entrance Fees and Charges
This is a fee charged to visitors in order to enter a PA or other ecotourism site. There
are a number of ways entrance fees can be collected. This can be collected at the
entrance to the site. It can be charged directly to the visitor or, alternatively, the tour
3
operators may include the fee in the total cost of their tour package. Differential fees are
also common especially in developing countries, wherein domestic citizens are typically
charged considerably less than foreign visitors (Linberg, 1997).
User fees are an excellent opportunity to benefit conservation, because they can be
applied to control visitation to sensitive natural areas, assist in financing nature
conservation, and may also support community projects. According to the user-paysprinciple, user fees are considered as a fair way to collect revenues for protecting
biodiversity (compared to taxes, for example). There is generally a high acceptance of
user fees if they are allocated for necessary costs at the site where charges are collected,
and not directed back into national government budgets to be used for other purposes.
Environmental charges can however backfire in the tourism sector. Problems include
whether the collecting agency has a legal mandate that is accepted by all, and whether it
has the capacity to manage the resources in a transparent manner that leads to
improvements in tourists’ experiences of the destination (Secretariat of the Convention
on Biological Diversity, World Tourism Organization and the United Nations
Environment Programme, 2009).
Licenses and Permits
Licenses and permits are typically fees charged to allow the individual visitor or tour
operators to carry out a specific activity that requires special supervision because it is
infrequently participated in; demand for the activity must be managed; and controlling
the activities is necessary to minimize resource damage. They normally influence the
management plans of ecotourism sites (Mickwitz, 2006).
Management plans in turn direct policy development in three important areas:
resource and cultural management of park resources; visitor and tourism
management; and general management policies on environment, finance, and
staffing (Eagles, 2002). These plans provide a written statement outlining government
policy intentions in regard to park management activities that will be carried out
(Eagles, Coburn, and Swartman, 2014).
It is common for most of the ecotourism sites for activities to be rationed in order to
reduce human impact and provide tourist’s experience a high level of satisfaction. It is
also an effective mechanism for monitoring the volume of visitors that carry out certain
activities. Guides and tour operators may also need special permits to work within the
site, for which a fee is usually charged (Linberg, 1991).
Other Tourism-related Fees and Taxes
A wide range of other tourism related fees and taxes exist, such as taxes on consumer
items sold within the ecotourism sites. In many cases, third parties may sell souvenirs,
food and other products to visitors within the site. A fixed or percentage-based tax on
such sales presents another potential source of income for conservation.
In summary, ecotourism activities may generate revenue (Lindberg, Enriquez, and
Sproule 1996). Fees have been commonly instituted in many parts of the Asia-Pacific
4
and Latin America and Africa. Collection of fees not only increases available funding, but
may also increase support for ecotourism amongst natural area managers. Many
agencies responsible for natural areas have had strong conservation ethics. Retention of
fees at the local level increase managerial support for ecotourism .
Criteria for Policy Evaluation
Determination of criteria for policy evaluation has progressively been studied by
researchers and policy makers in recent years. Various lists of criteria were developed
potentially applicable to environmental evaluation (Dovers 2005; Gunningham &
Sinclair 2005). Many of these criteria can be categorized under environmental,
economic efficiency, social, and political goals (Montalvo, 2000). Local policy
knowledge, perceptions and experiences of representatives of enterprises are also
important in determining policy goals (Janis, 2012). The pursuit of sustainable
ecotourism essentially involves the consideration of these goals. It also entails three
main relevant issues: the interpretation of the meaning of sustainability stakeholders’
participation, and a strategic planning that calls for long-term view and action (Simao
and Partidario, 2010). Table 2 summarizes some of the prominent studies applying the
various criteria under these goals.
Table 2 Summary of Criteria for Policy Evaluation
Evaluators Criteria
Governmental Departments of Cost effectiveness, equity, flexibility, transparency
the Netherlands (Bonney 2000)
Hoerner and Muller (1996) Effectiveness, environmental incentive, administrability,
fairness (actual and perceived) and revenue loss
Pearce and Howarth (2000) Causal, efficiency, equity, macro-economic jurisdiction
Perrels (2000) Social cost, used potential, compliance risks, distribution
effects and public/administrative cost
Government of New Zealand
(2001)
Economic efficiency, equity, feasibility, environmental
effectiveness
Kete and Petkova (2001) Environmental outcomes, economic/social outcomes,
technical outcomes, institution building potential, project
sustainability,
Philibert and Pershing Environmental effectiveness, cost effectiveness,
contribution to economic growth and sustainable
development, and equity
Sorrell (2001) Environmental effectiveness, static economic efficiency,
dynamic economic efficiency, administrative simplicity,
equity, transparency, political acceptability
VROM and Johannsen in
Netherlands (2002)
Cost effectiveness, efficiency, Static concerns, dynamic
concerns, institutional demands on the regulator, and
regulatee, political dimensions, risk.
Kautto and Simila (2005) Equity-related criteria, transparency and public
acceptability
Garnaut (2008) Administrative simplicity, equity, transparency
Aldy, et.al. (2009) Environmental effectiveness, equity, feasibility,
environmental effectiveness
Zografos and Oglethorpe (2010) Equity, transparency and political acceptability
5
Methodology
The study employed secondary data obtained from various Philippine government agencies
local and regional offices such as the City Tourism Office and the Department of Tourism
Region 10 to gather data on the white water rafting in Cagayan de Oro River and the
distribution of tourists served by the active white water rafting companies. Document review
on existing policies on ecotourism in the country was also conducted. Lastly, it employed
the Delphi Method through a survey among selected government officials involved in
policy making to determine the criteria for evaluation of most effective ecotourism
policy for the White Water Rafting in Cagayan de Oro River. Specifically, the Delphi
Method was applied to determine which option the policy experts would support: 1)
annual permit to white water rafting operators or 2) visitor fees/entrance fees at jumpoff sites for all tourists or 3) combination of 1 and 2. In addition, it analyzed the criteria
the experts would consider necessary for evaluation of the ecotourism regulation
options and their opinions about the relative importance of the various criteria.