júlio andrade dissertacao mamiraua

8/2/2019 Jlio Andrade Dissertacao Mamiraua

1/49

Is Ecotourism a Useful Tool for Sustainable Development?

The Case of the Mamirau Reserve in the Brazilian Amazonia

Julio Cesar Souza de Andrade

Supervised by Professor Michael Redclift

2002

This dissertation is submitted as a part of

the MSc Tourism, Environment and Development.


2/49

2

Abstract

This research project is a study of the ecotourism venture developed in the Mamirau

Sustainable Development Reserve, which is located in the Brazilian Amazonia. The study

takes a diachronic approach, considering all the phases of implementation since 1997.

Issues considered are the following: the participation of local people and how they

benefited from the tourism venture, and how the tourist activities have affectedconservation in the area. For the evaluation, a framework based in indicators of

sustainability is used. It is revealed that tourism activities developed in Mamiraua

contemplates the majority of principles related to ecotourism; however, profitability is

still to be reached.

Key words:

Ecotourism,

Local development,

Sustainability,

Brazilian Amazonia,

Community involvement in tourism.


3/49

3

List of Contents Page

Abstract 2

List of Tables and Figures 4

Abbreviations 5

Acknowledgments 6

1-Introduction 7

2-Literature Review 11

2.1- Amazonia : Development and destruction 11

2.2- Sustainable development paradigm 12

2.3- Tourism and ecotourism 13

2.3.1- Tourism: sustainability 13

2.3.2- Ecotourism debate 14

2.3.3- Tourism and ecotourism in the Brazilian Amazon 16

3- Methodology 18

3.1- Description of fieldwork 18

3.2- Framework for evaluation 19

4- Ecotourism in Mamirau 20

4.1-Evaluative framework 25

4.1.1- Minimization of negative impacts 26

4.1.2- Increase of awareness and understanding 29

4.1.3- Contribution to conservation of protected areas 31

4.1.4- Participation of locals in the decision-making process 32

4.1.5- Generation of economic and other benefits to local people 33

4.1.6- Participation of local people as visitors 36

5- Conclusions 38

6- References 41


4/49

4

List of Tables Page

1 - The Most Included Issues in Ecotourism Definitions 15

2 - International Tourist Arrivals in Brazil and Manaus 173 Ecotourism Development in Mamirau 21

4 Competition among Ecotourism Ventures in the Amazon 24

5 - Summary of Principles and Indicators for Ecotourism 25

6 Income from Handicraft Sales 35

List of Figures

1 - Mamirau Reserve Location 7

2 - Central Amazon Ecological Corridor 8

3 Ecotourism Management in the Mamirau Reserve 20

4 - Ecotourists in Mamirau 22

5 - Information Source for Tourists 22

6 Service Evaluation 23

7 Uacari Lodge 27

8 Income for Local Communities from Ecotourism 33

9 Origin of Ecotourists to Mamirau 37


5/49

5

List of Abbreviations

AAGMAM Guides and Lodge Workers Association of Mamirau

BA Brazilian Amazonia

DFID Department for International Development United Kingdom

EMBRATUR Brazilian Tourism Authority

IBAMA Brazilian Environmental Authority

IDB Inter-American Development Bank

IDSM Instituto de Desenvolvimento Sustentavel Mamiaua

MCT Brazilian Science and Technology Ministry

MMA Brazilian Ministry of the Environment

MSDR Mamirau Sustainable Development ReserveNGO Non-governmental Organisation

PROECOTUR Programme for the Development of Ecotourism

SCM Sociedade Civil Mamirau

UN United Nations

UNEP United Nations Environmental Programme

UNESCO United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization

WCS World Conservation SocietyWTO World Tourism Organization

WWF World Wildlife Fund


6/49

6

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank my family as well as old and new friends that help me during this

course. I would also to thank the Instituto de Desenvolvimento Mamirau and MCT for

their support during the fieldwork. Finally I wish to thank the people of Mamirau, who

were extremely friendly and receptive.


7/49

7

1-Introduction

The Amazonia embraces a total area of around 7.8 million km2, seventy percent of

which is Brazilian territory, representing more than 60% of Brazil. The Brazilian

Amazonia (BA) contains about 40% of the worlds remaining tropical rainforest. It is seen

by the environmental movement as an icon: a great biodiversity, an important carbon

sink, and a regional climate and hydrologic regulator. This region is also home to a

human population of about twenty million people, including an indigenous population of

200,000 people (IBGE, 2000).

Alternatives for conservation and development within the region are highly

debated. Since the 1990s, tourism, especially ecotourism, has been successively presentedas one of the main economic options for the region. Nowadays, tourismis considered the

major industry in the world involving 700 million international trips that generated US$

478 billion in 2000(WTO, 2000).

Even though there is a consensus about some negative impacts that this activity

causes; it has been viewed as an alternative for aiding conservation. Tourist dollars could

convince local people and governments that forests can produce more money in the long

term (Boo, 1990; Dharmaratne, Sang and Walling, 2000). This was one of the reasonswhy the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) declared 2002: The

International Year of Ecotourism.

This investigation will present a case study evaluating an ecotourism venture

developed in the Mamirau Sustainable Development Reserve (MSDR) in the Brazilian

Amazon.

Figure 1- Location of the Mamirau Reserve


8/49

8

Source: Mamirau database

This reserve was created in 1990, by the Amazonas state, comprising 11,240 Km2

of the varzea floodplain - at the confluence of the Solimoes and Japura rivers, in the

BA. The MSDR was recognized in 1993 by the International Ramsar Convention on

Wetlands. Mamirau is the habitat of two endemic monkey species, and has a human

population of 5,829 residents (Mamirau, 2002).

Mamirau and its neighbours, the Amana Sustainable Development Reserve and

the Ja National Park, are part of the Central Amazon Ecological Corridor. This corridor

constitutes an area equivalent to the size of Costa Rica.

Figure 2 - Central Amazon Ecological Corridor

Source: Mamirau Reserve


9/49

9

This reserve is managed by a non-governmental organization (NGO), the Sociedade

Civil Mamirau (SCM), based in Tef. To carry out the studies that resulted in the

management plan, Brazilian Science and Technology Ministry (MCT) and foreign

agencies DFID-UK and European Union funded several researchers; also the World

Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the World Conservation Society (WCS) contributed to thereserve. In 1999 the Instituto de Desenvolvimento Sustentavel Mamirau (IDSM) was

created to channel more public funds to the reserve. Consequently, the Mamirau Reserve

adopted a new style of management for protected areas in Brazil.

Due to compounding efforts from government institutions, NGOs and Brazilian

and foreign organizations, Mamirau became one of the better funded protected areas in

the country. Although there is a persistent mistrust of foreign involvement in the reserve

management by local authorities in Tef, it seems that at the national level, as pointed outby Ans Kolk (1998), the political ecology of conservation in the BA evolved from conflict

to cooperation.

These efforts were recognized by the 2001 UNESCO award presented to the

IDSM for its relevant research in conservation and sustainable use of renewable

resources. In 2002, the IDSM director, Marcio Ayres received the La Roe Award from

the Society for Conservation Biology for his social, economic and political work

developed in Mamirau.

In the Management Plan of the MSDR, alongside areas for strict conservation,

traditional economic activities such as agriculture, forestry and fishing are allowed under

sustainable management practices in certain zones. Besides, ecotourism is presented as a

strategic economic activity to be implemented in order to reduce the exploitation of

natural resources and to provide extra income for local people (SCM, 1996).

The use of case studies has been a leading mode of investigating the relationship

between ecotourism, development, and environmental protection (Boo, 1990; Lindberg,

1991; Wallace and Pearce, 1996). As argued by Hall and Butler (1995), site specific

studies, by reducing the scale of analysis, lack an overview of the phenomenon studied.

Nevertheless, due to the great number of local issues involved in ecotourism, case studies

can be a very useful approach.

There are some case studies about ecotourism in the BA: Wallace and Pierce

(1996), Nelson (2000), Rossi (2001). All of them were developed in areas near Manaus.

They report little involvement of local communities in decision-making and unwanted

cultural change; the only reported benefits were few employment opportunities. None of


10/49

10

these studies focused on protected areas for conservation, one of the main attractions for

ecotourists.

This is the main reason why the ecotourism venture in Mamirau was chosen as

the object of this study. It is the most well-known ecotourism programme planned and

developed in the BA within a protected area. Not surprisingly, it appeared in the LonelyPlanet Brazil (Noble et al. 2002) as the best place to see wildlife in the BA.

Thus, this research paper aims to investigate how ecotourism was planned and

implemented in the MSDR between 1997 and 2002. Its objectives are: first, to evaluate to

what extent the community living within the reserve was consulted and/or participated in

the decision-making process; second, how the local population has benefited from

ecotourism activities; third, how these activities have affected the conservation of the

natural environment; four, could/should the model implemented in the Mamirauecotourism venture be replicated in other areas in the Amazon, or other parts of the

country? It is worth highlighting that the aims of the research are congruent with the

general aims of the reserve itself: conservation of the varzea environment in the Amazon,

and the improvement of the livelihood of the local human population that has not been

relocated after the creation of the reserve (SCM, 1996).

The main limitation of this study is the short duration since the inauguration of the

ecotourism venture. It underwent the planning phase in 1997/8, the building phase in

1999/2000, and the entire infrastructure was completed in the second half of 2001. Thus,

planning and implementation measures will also be considered in the evaluation.

This early evaluation can be justified by the fact that the Brazilian government and

the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) are funding the national programme to

develop ecotourism, Programme for the Development of Ecotourism (PROECOTUR),

with special attention to the Amazonia. Therefore, it is convenient to have an evaluation

of the already existing ecotourism venture within a protected area of the BA.

A limited budget and a time constraint for fieldwork have reduced the scope of

this piece of research. Another factor that has to be taken into account is that the

collection of data was undertaken during the flood season. In the varzea environment, the

water level can rise up to twelve meters, dramatically altering the ambience. A more

accurate evaluation would require observation during both wet and dry seasons.

The next section will present a literature review on issues of development and

conservation in the BA. Another aspect that will be reviewed is tourism: its nature, and

the possible differences between ecotourism and nature-based tourism. This will be

followed by a discussion about the methods used to acquire data during the fieldwork, and


11/49

11

a presentation of the framework to evaluate the ecotourism venture. The ecotourism

venture at Mamirau and the results of the research will then be discussed. Finally I will

conclude with a critical look at tourism in the BA.


12/49

12

2- Literature review

2.1- Amazonia : Development and destruction

In this section a review of the historic development process in the BA will be

presented. Until thirty years ago the BA had only lost 1% of its forests (Padua, 1997),

even though human settlement had begun approximately 10 to 20 thousand years ago

(Meggers, 1971), and European settlers were there for almost five hundred years. Causes

of this phenomenon can be attributed to obstacles of access, endemic diseases, and

especially the availability of timber and agricultural lands in the Brazilian Atlantic forest

and other woodlands in the world.

However, in the last thirty years, the region has undergone a destructive

development pattern, destruction of the natural environment and exploitation of localcommunities. Since the late 1960s, backed by loans from international financial

institutions, the Brazilian government decided to develop the region by opening new

roads, and implementing energy and mining projects. Favoured by highly subsidised

credits and tax breaks, national and multinational corporations, with little considerations

to environmental impacts, were involved in the above government projects, as well as

timber extraction, cattle raising and agricultural projects. In 2000 fourteen percent of the

BA had already been deforested (Laurence et al, 2001).People from all over the country were attracted to this new frontier described by

Goodman and Hall (1990) and Rich (1994). As the majority of the Amazonian soils are

unsuitable for agriculture, most of the new settlements were unsuccessful. This resulted in

the rural population moving to the periphery of the towns, causing what Becker (1995)

called an urbanized forest.

At the same time the natural environment was being disturbed by the pollution of

rivers and the destruction of the forest to establish agricultural mono crops and pastures,

and the indigenous and traditional population (caboclos) had their land confiscated and

their livelihoods severely affected. In response, rubber tapers, people displaced by dams,

and traditional fishermen formed social movements to defend their rights. These

politically and economically disadvantaged groups became safeguards against the

environmental degradation perpetrated by commercial interests. These movements

echoed in theoretical constructions such as the sustainable livelihood thinking by

Chambers (1987), environmentalism of the poor (Guha and Martinez-Alier, 1997) and

grassroots action for productive conservation (Hall, 1997).


13/49

13

2.2- The sustainable development paradigm and the Amazonia

During the 1980s a theoretical construction appeared to reconcile the ideals of

conservation and human development. The World Conservation Strategy (IUCN, 1980)

was the first document to use the term sustainable development; later adopted as thepillar of the thesis defended in Our Common Future (WCED, 1987). In both documents

sustainable development is presented as the tool for maximizing human welfare without

causing significant environmental damage and without jeopardizing economic growth.

However, as pointed out by Redclift (1987) and Adams (1990), if sustainable

development is to be effective, it has to deal with the nature of the political economy and

prioritize the basic needs of the poor. Not only does a responsibility to the environment

and the next human generation have to be taken into account, but an intra-generationbalance is also necessary. Goodman and Redclift (1991) pointed out that any account of

sustainability in Latin America has to consider regional and national politics and

economic factors. The structural linkages with the international economy must also be

reviewed. In their opinion poverty alleviation should be a high priority in a strategy of

sustainable development in countries such as Brazil.

Between 1988 and 1992, the years before the United Nations Conference on

Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio 1992, environmental issues gained

momentum. New federal legislation recognized several pieces of indigenous land and

created the extractive reserves. A new reserve for protection of the Amazonian varzea, the

Mamirau reserve, was also established by state law. These decisions were attempts to

create alternatives for environmental conservation while tackling the issue of social

justice by assuring sustainable livelihood for the traditional population in the Brazilian

Amazon.

However, in the aftermath of the Rio92 UNCED, the struggle between

conservation and economic growth continued in the BA frontier. Becker (2001) points to

the growing lack of integration between conservation and development strategies in this

region.


14/49

14

2.3-Tourism and Ecotourism

2.3.1-Tourism: sustainability

Tourism development raises similar questions to development in general. Traveland tourism comprises the activities of persons travelling to and staying in places outside

their usual environment for less than one year for leisure, business, and other purposes.

On a world scale, in 2000 travel and tourism accounted for around 11% of GDP, and over

10% of all employment (WTO, 2000).

Especially during the 1970s, tourism was heavily promoted by the World Bank

and was presented as apassport for developmentin less developed economies. However,

after several studies, this trend was criticized. De Kadt(1979) and Mathiesson and Wall(1982) revealed that, on the one hand, tourism resulted in employment opportunities and

hard currency earning; but, on the other hand, it caused considerable cultural change,

environmental damage and land speculation.

In response to the criticism of mass tourism the 1980s witnessed the appearance of

a green movement advocating new forms of less destructive tourism, under the label of

alternative tourism (Holden, 1984; Krippendorf, 1987; Smith and Eadington, 1992).

Influenced by the philosophy that small is beautiful, these initiatives prioritised local

employment, small scale development and the conservation of landscape. However,

Butler (1992) questioned the practicality of these ideas, showing how difficult it is to keep

all these variables under control in a market economy. Therefore, defining what

sustainability means is a crucial issue for any economic activity.

After the Rio92 UNCED, debates about sustainability indicators became

increasingly relevant. Mowforth and Munt(1998,116) listed the most frequently used tools

for promoting and assessing sustainability:

area protection, industry regulation, visitor management techniques,

environmental impact assessment, carrying capacity calculations,

consultation/participation, codes of conduct and sustainability indicators.

Nevertheless, writers highlight the difficulty of reaching a consensus for the

evaluation of sustainability in a concrete reality (Mowforth and Munt, 1998; Fennell,

1999). On the one hand, the use of measurement techniques creates parameters towards an

effective analysis of sustainability. On the other hand, discussions about implementing


15/49

15

regulation, governmental or self-regulatory, in order to enforce precautionary procedures

have caused a lot of controversy.

2.3.2- Ecotourism debate

Trips to national parks or other natural areas are not a new phenomenon (Hays,1959). Studies of the effects of tourism activities in natural areas have been done for

more than two decades. They have proven the possibility of opposing impacts. On the one

hand, tourism has been an incentive for the conservation of natural resources in many

parks (Owen, 1969 and Trorsell, 1973); on the other hand, uncontrolled tourist activities

can be detrimental to the natural environment, as exemplified by Cohen (1978, 234):

It is an amusing irony that the National Park System of California has been

forced to limit the number of permits to backpackersafter several years ofenvironmental degradation brought about by masses of eco-freaks trying to get away

from civilization.

The appearance of ecotourism as a new tourist phenomenon has been attributed

to some factors: first, the accessibility to cheaper and faster means of transportation,

which made new destinations more accessible; second, the increase in green

consumerism, that generated a greater demand for the implementation of tourist

infrastructure and new services developed by tour operators(Wight,1994); third, the

appearance of professional associations such as the Ecotourism Society in the USA,

which develop guidelines and promote conferences about ecotourism in many countries.

This is a classic definition of ecotourism:

travelling to relatively undisturbed or uncontaminated natural areas with the

specific objective of studying, admiring, and enjoying the scenery and its wild plants and

animals, as well as any existing cultural manifestations (Ceballos-Lascurain, 1986,

quoted in Boo, 1990).

However, a consensus about a definition is far from being reached. A content

analysis study of over 85 different definitions of ecotourism was done to shed light on this

phenomenon (Fennel, 2001). The majority of these definitions appeared between 1991

and 1996.


16/49

16

Table 1 -

The most included issues in ecotourism definitions

Subject % Of Appearance

Where ecotourism occurs 62.4

Conservation 61.2

Culture 50.6

Benefits to locals 48.2

Education 41.2

Sustainability 25.9

Impacts 25.0

After: Fennel (2001, 407)

As can be seen from the table above, due to the number and complexity of issues

involved, ecotourism is not a simple observable fact. It involves ethic, environmental,

economic and social-cultural issues.

Some writers are very critical of the benefits of ecotourism. For example, Wheeler(1993, 1994) says that advocates of ecotourism are distressingly nave by not

recognizing the disruptive effects on fragile environments, or disturbingly devious to

exploit them for financial profits. Also Butler (1996a) points out that ecotourism

defenders are short-sighted by not perceiving that even where well-managed ecotourism

ventures can produce limited local benefits, the infrastructure and services required to

reach the visited area create further impacts that outweigh the benefits.

Recognizing that ecotourism is a double-edged sword, some authors havepresented more positive views about ecotourism development: Cater and Lowman (1994)

emphasized the importance of a holistic approach and the use of monitoring tools;

Weaver(1998) highlighted the development of more environmentally friendly tourist

services in less developed countries that can influence the domestic tourism to follow its

lead; Fennel and Malloy (1997) found that tour operators involved in ecotourism were

fairly more ethical than other kinds of operators. These authors, at least, give ecotourism

the benefit of the doubt.

NGOs involved with tourist issues have criticized the shortcomings of ecotourism

and emphasized the need to empower local communities. Tourism Concern dedicated an


17/49

17

issue of its magazine In Focus to evaluate ecotourism. On the one hand, it criticized

ecotourism for being just a label; on the other hand, it presented community-based

ecotourism as an alternative to avoid environmental degradation caused by oil

exploitation in Ecuador (Tourism Concern,2002).

Another NGO long involved with ecotourism is the WWF. The widely quotedstudyEcotourism: Potentials and Pitfalls, was written by Elizabeth Boo(1990), WWFs

Latin America specialist. This study covered advantages and disadvantages of using

ecotourism as a tool for conservation in Latin American national parks. In another paper

WWF(2001) proposed community-based ecotourism where the local community has

considerable control over, and participation in, its development and management, and a

major share of the benefits stay within the community.

However. assuring social sustainability for community-based tourism projects hasnot been easy. Examples from Ecuador(Wood,1998;Drumm,1998), Indonesia (Sproule

and Suhandi, 1998), and Namibia(Ashley,2000) showed that to assure viability of

community-based tourism venture, strong support is required from NGOs, governments

and/or limited partnerships with tourism business. No matter which term is used,

community-based (eco)tourism, pro-poor tourism or fair-trade tourism, it seems that the

survival of these initiatives is dependent on the ability to attract a specific group of

people concerned with conservation and local development and truly interested in

supporting them (DSa,1999).

2.3.3- Tourism and ecotourism in the Brazilian Amazon

Over the last four years, Brazil has gained 14 places in the ranking of the World

Tourism Organization. Being the 29th destination preferred by tourists worldwide and

receiving more than 5,3 million tourists(WTO,2000).

However, tourism in the BA is very limited, with roughly 1% of foreign visitors to

the country travelling to this region (EMBRATUR, 2001). The main reason being that

there are other more accessible areas for seeing wildlife in South America, such as in the

Pantanal or the Amazon forest in other countries.

Manaus is the main gateway for tourists aiming to visit the BA. However, as can

be seen from the table below, the tourist flux has decreased over the years.


18/49

18

Table 2-

Year Brazil *Manaus %

1990 1,091 39 3.6

1993 1,572 33 2.1

1995 1,991 36 1.8

1996 2,668 36 1.3

1997 2,849 NA NA

1998 4,818 NA NA

1999 5,107 28 0.5

2000 5,313 27 0.5

2001 4,773 28 0.6* International tourists registered at classified hotels in Manaus (actual data may be 20-30% higher)

NA- Not Available Source: Amazonas Tourism Office

After Janer, A. (1998)

International Tourist Arrivals( thousands)

Nevertheless, according to international trends of increasing numbers of

ecotourists, the number of jungle lodges around Manaus has jumped from six in 1991 to

sixteen in 1996( Neto, 1999). Visitors to these lodges numbered 36,642 in 2001, with

70% of them being foreigners (Amazonas Tourism Office, 2002).

Studies evaluating the sustainability of these jungle lodges (Wallace and Pierce,

1996; Nelson, 2000; and Rossi, 2001) highlighted the deficiency in adequate

environmental management and community participation. The main shortcomings were:

Lack of participation of local people in the decision-making process;

Lack of institutional support for capacity building programmes;

Little concern for the maintenance of local culture;

Lack of environmental education programmes;

Lack of financial contributions for the conservation of protected areas.

This resulted in a common evaluation that these ventures could be classified as

nature-based tourism, but they fall short in the aims of ecotourism. This can be attributed

to a profit-line approach by entrepreneurs, and a lack of support and regulation by the

government to build an inclusive development strategy.

These features can change in the future due to investments of U$ 225 million for

the development of ecotourism in the BA, announced by the Brazilin government. This

project, named PROECOTUR, aims to improve the sustainability of existing tourist

activities under the ecotourism banner; and further expand them to other areas in all the

nine states of the BA (MMA, 2001).


19/49

19

3- Methodology

As discussed by Alf Waller (1992, 1997), until the 1980s tourism studies gained

recognition from the use of marketing and business quantitative methods. Since it was

necessary to evaluate broader issues such as the nature of the development of tourism, it

was difficult to restrict research methods to surveys and quantitative measures. Qualitative

approaches were used when the empowerment of local people (Ashley and Roe, 1998)

and their perceptions of tourism were studied (Crick-Furman and Prentice, 2000).

This study used qualitative techniques to acquire primary data such as interviews

of key primary and secondary stakeholders and participant observation. Where

quantitative data was necessary, the database of the Mamirau ecotourism management

was used. This was particularly helpful in accessing data about economic benefits for

local communities such as income generated by wages and the sale of products. Data from

surveys carried out among tourists on the evaluation of the venture was also collected.

This approach allowed a triangulation to be attempted, in order to increase the validity of

the case study as referred to by Hoggart, Lees and Davies (2002)

3.1- Description of fieldwork

The fieldwork spanned a six-week period. The first week was spent in the

Mamirau office, in Tef, where documents about the implementation of the ecotourism

venture were browsed. This information was used to identify key informants.

The next three weeks were spent on the reserve. Activities included visiting and

interviewing people: employees on the lodge, craft makers, farmers, fishermen, and

community leaders. Interviewed informants were participants and non-participants intourism in three different communities: Boca do Mamirau and Vila Alencar - the most

visited by the tourists- and Caburini, less involved in tourism.

The following week was spent on the Uacari lodge, where the author participated

in the tourist activities, and interacted with the tourists, lodge workers and guides. It was

an opportunity to evaluate the floating lodges sanitary conditions, eco-efficiency related

issues and possible negative impacts on the environment. The author also participated in

visits to communities with tourists in order to ascertain if the guidelines recommended to

prevent negative social impacts were being followed. The majority of the tourists visiting

the reserve were interviewed at the end of their stay.


20/49

20

The last two weeks were spent interviewing key stakeholders in Tef, who were

local environmental, religious and political authorities. Some of the management staff of

the Mamirau reserve were also interviewed, especially the ones involved in tourism.

3.2- Framework for evaluation

The tourism venture developed in the Mamirau Reserve defines itself as

practicing ecotourism. As has been discussed earlier, ecotourism is neither a simple

concept to define nor a clear-cut phenomenon to evaluate. As pointed out by Geoffrey

Wall (1996) the main difficulty in measuring ecotourisms achievements is the large

number of variables involved.

In this case study an assessment framework was prepared based on an adaptationof that presented by Wallace and Pierce (1996) to evaluate ecotourism in some lodges

near Manaus, in the BA. For each principle derived from their definition of ecotourism,

Wallace and Pierce (1996) related some indicators. These were presented as markers of

the condition, aiming to make the evaluation more accurate.

A similar approach was used by Ross and Wall( 1999a, 1999b) to analyse

ecotourism in three Indonesian National Parks. The six objectives they selected could be

related to the same six principles recognized by Wallace and Pearce. The above authors

recommend that the choice of indicators should be selected by involved stakeholders at

the site. Due to the limited time for the fieldwork, it was impossible to build a list of

indicators with a consensus of the stakeholders in this Mamirau case study. However,

some indicators were included based on the fieldwork experience.

For example, it was decided that some issues from the pro-poor tourism (PPT)

framework should be incorporated. As one of the Mamirau tourism venture raison

detre is to improve the livelihood of the local population, some issues raised in the pro-

poor tourism report (Ashley, Boyd and Goodwin,2001) were applicable in this case.


21/49

21

4- Ecotourism in Mamirau:

The area zoned for ecotourism comprises 35 Km2, and represents 0.3 % of the reserve.

Part of the ecotourism area is located within the restricted zone.Figure 3 -


22/49

22

This area was chosen due to its natural beauty, its availability of significant

scientific data about local flora and fauna, its proximity to Tef and its community

support for the development of ecotourism.

The development of ecotourism in Mamirau evolved in the following threephases:

Table 3-

Ecotourism Development in Mamirau

Period Phase Activities Developed *Butlers Phases

1997-1998 Planning

spontaneous demand

no new infrastructure

local communities consultation process

economic feasibility study

scientific research infrastructure

Exploration

1999-2001 Implementation

building of new

infrastructure

soft-opening marketing

Guides and Lodge Workers Association

creation

arrangements of visits to communities

tourist floating lodge construction

capacity building development

opening of new trails

Involvement

2002- future Full Functioning

alliances with tour

operators

appearance in national

and international tourist

guides

profit sharing mechanism

quality improvement of operation

long-term hospitality training program

monitoring of social and environmental

impacts

Development

Source: SCM (1999, 2000, 2001) * Butler (1980) tourist area cycle of evolution.

In order to improve the viability of the Mamirau ecotourism project, its staff

participated in a capacity building programme for community-based ecotourism

developed by the WWF, among seven other initiatives in Brazil.

Another important step for the implementation of the tourism venture was an

economic feasibility study carried out by an independent consultant which affirmed the

viability of the project. The budget was set at US$ 400,000, and was approved by its

funding organisations, the DFID and the Brazilian Ministry for Science and Technology

(MCT). This study also pointed out that in the middle term, relevant benefits to the

community would be generated (Janer, 1998).


23/49

23

The number of visitors to guarantee a profit for the Mamirau ecotourism venture

was predicted to be between 400-500 tourists per year. Even though 316 visitors came to

Mamirau in 2001, only 162 of them were full-fare payers. The rest were discounted fare

payers and official visitors, who were related to funding institutions of the reserve as can

be seen from the chart below:Figure 4-

Visitors per year

77

130145

162

110

277

209

316

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1998 1999 2000 2001

Ecoturists

total

Source: Mamiraua database

However, these numbers are expected to rise by developing a stronger

marketing strategy. As can be seen in the chartbelow, the main source of information for

tourists about Mamirau is communicated by word-of-mouth to tourists.

Figure5-

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1999 2000 2001

Information Source

Tour

operator

Friends

Internet

Media

Other

Source: Mamiraua atabase


24/49

24

An alternative marketing strategy for NGOs is the development of a customer-

friendly internet homepage (Di Prieto, 2000) and its inclusion in travel guides. One of the

tools in the pipeline is a new homepage with Portuguese, English and Spanish versions for

the ecotourism venture. For the travel guides, a significant sign of the acceptance of the

Mamirau ecotourism venture was its appearance in the latest editions of travel guides. Inthe Lonely Planet Brazil and South America 2002, there are positive reviews about

Mamirau:

The [Mamirau] reserve is the last intact area of varzea (floodplain forest) in the

Brazilian Amazonia a beautiful, pristine environment of jungle, rivers and lakes. It also

has a very well-run ecotourism program that provides some of the best wildlife viewing in

Amazonia Mamirau is a pioneer of the sustainable development concept, which aims

to combine nature conservation and scientific research with improved opportunities forthe local population. Lonely Planet Brazil (Noble et al, 2002).

Interviews during fieldwork revealed that 85% of foreign tourists decided to visit

Mamirau mainly due to this Lonely Planet review. Two specialist travel guides about the

Amazonia also provide information about Mamirau: Cadogan, in English, and Philips,

in Portuguese.

Services provided in Mamirau have been well evaluated by tourists as can be

perceived from the chart below:

Figure 6-

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Lodging Catering Guiding

Service Evaluation by Tourists

year 2001

Excelent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

Source: Mamiraua database

If the categories excellent and very good are considered as one, levels of

satisfaction with services offered by the Mamirau ecotourism project is over 90%. This is


25/49

25

a significant achievement especially if it is taken in consideration that the local residents

had never worked for tourism ventures before.

However, other factors are determinants for the continuity of a tourism venture.

How do Mamiraus prices and attractions compare with other famous ecotourism

projects in the Amazonia?Table- 4

Lodge, Region C R CP Wildlife Access(h) Price 4D/3N (US$)

Ariau, Manaus Y N N Tamed 2.5 375

Aldeia dos Lagos, Silves N N Y No data 5 378

Cristalino, Alta Floresta Y Y N > 450 birds ? 450

La Selva, Napo,Ecuador Y Y ? >425 birds,14 prim. 2-3 604

Explorama, Iquitos, Peru Y Y ? >500 birds 2-3 427

Manu Lodge,Manu, Peru Y Y N >450 birds,13 prim >2 675

Mamiraua N Y Y 370 birds, 7 prim 1.5 360

Comparison among ecotourism ventures in the Amazonia

After Janer, A.(1998) Source: Lodges/Internet

C-Canopy viewing, R- Research link, CP-Community Involvement, Y-Yes, N-No

As shown in the table above, Mamirau offers a competitive price in relation to

other ventures. In this sample Mamirau is not considered a primary location for

birdwatchers, and it lacks a canopy viewing platform. Even though it does not present a

record of primates, it does have two endemic monkey species, the charismatic white

uacari and the black squirrel monkey. Research links and community participation arealso special features of the experience in Mamirau.

Arriving at Tef, 450 Km west of Manaus, Mamirau can be reached by boat or

aircraft. Daily flights are available for a cost of U$ 150 from Manaus. A common tourism

package involves pick-up at the Tef airport and round-trip transportation to the floating

lodge at Lake Mamirau, boat and trail visits to selected parts of the ecotourism

management area, overnight accommodation and meals at the lodge(usually for 2-3

nights).

Tef is a regional business center with 65 thousand inhabitants. Besides

commercial activities, fishing and logging are also important sources of income. Even

though Tef has some potential tourist attractions, such as nineteenth century buildings,

river beaches during the dry season, and a burgeoning local market, it is only used as a

stepping stone for Mamirau. As the local administration does not have a tourism policy,

this could be a reason why Tef does not take part in the PROECOTUR. This shrinks the

development linkages that could be produced by the Mamirau tourism venture.

In the next section more details of how tourism in Mamirau fits into an

ecotourism evaluative framework will be discussed.


26/49

26

4.1 - Evaluative Framework

Table- 5 Summary of Principles and Indicators

Principle 1-Minimization of negative impacts on the environment and to local people:

Group size

Mode of transport/Energy useMethods of waste disposal

Architectural style/building, materials/dcor used

Measures of biophysical change: erosion, water quality, wildlife behaviour

Sensitivity of activities

Attitudes of local people

Social organisation and institutional change

Principle 2- Increasing awareness and understanding of an areas natural and cultural systems:Exposure to community

Perceptions of visitors about interpretive activities

Guide training/abilities

Opportunities to contribute

Principle 3- Contribution to conservation and management of legally protected natural areas:

Information about protected areas

Adherence to Reserves Management PlanCollaboration with scientific research and sustainable management

Principle 4- Maximization of the early and long-term participation of local people in the decision- making

process:

Ownership of ecotourism ventures/local committeesIncreased access to information and communication

Principle 5-Generation of economic and other benefits to local people that complement traditional

practices:

Local perceptions of changes caused by tourism

Local employment/level

Purchase of local products: values and variety

Continuance of traditional activities

Access to credit and support for partnershipsServices provided for community

Utilization of natural resources

Training/capacity building

Principle 6- Participation of local people as visitors:

Use for environmental education by local schoolsEvents/special fares for locals/national visitors

Adapted from Wallace and Pierce (1996, 861).


27/49

27

4.1.1-Principle 1 Minimization of negative impacts on the environment and to local

people:

Group size

In Mamirau Butlers (1996b) approach to carrying capacity is used, limitingvisitors to one thousand per year. Tourist activities have a maximum of thirty tourists at

a time, and groups of four per trail are the limit when visiting the forest. This is a measure

to minimize negative impacts as well as to enhance wildlife sighting. Even though the

current number of visitors is around one third of the maximum established, respect for this

limit can be expected in the future, because the venture is run by a non-profit

organisation.

Mode of transport/Energy use

Motorised boats and canoes with oars are the chief means of transport. The main

possible impacts are: noise, riparian disturbance and low levels of hydrocarbon pollution.

These negative impacts were considered low and localizedby an environmental impact

assessment carried out in the reserve (Hughes and Botelho, 2000, 12). Main precautionary

measures include motorboat speed limits, the use of less powerful and less polluting

engines, and careful measures to avoid petrol spills.

As concerning energy supply, the Uacari lodge is equipped with roof-mounted

solar panels to provide electrical energy. In case of over-consumption, a diesel generator

is activated, hence guests are asked to switch off lights when leaving the rooms. It is the

philosophy of the Mamirau reserve to offer only the basic comforts. So far, it can be

claimed that the eco-efficiency of the project is high, and it handles the issue with great

concern.

Methods of waste disposal

Solid waste: when visitors go on the trails, they are discouraged from carrying

non-biodegradable wrappings. They are informed of these rules on arrival. No tourists or

guides were seen throwing litter during fieldwork. Biodegradable material is disposed

directly into the aquatic system, while non-biodegradable rubbish is burnt on site or taken

back to Tef, where unfortunately it is dumped in a simple landfill site.


28/49

28

Liquid Effluent: due to annual floods of up to 12 meters, sanitation is a big challenge in

this environment. At the moment there are only two liquid effluent treatment plants

consisting of filtration beds of layers of gravel, sand and coal. So far they have the

capacity to treat 20% of the sewage. By the end of 2002 it is envisaged that all sewage

will be treated with additional treatment plants. Potential negative impacts are a localizedincrease of biological oxygen demand, and visual impact of sewage dumping especially

during the low water season.

For a tourism venture that aims to be a benchmark, it is below expectations in

this specific item, since neither the treatment system is yet completely installed, nor has

its efficiency has been fully proved.

Architectural style/building materials/dcor used

Figure 7 - The Uacari Lodge

Source: Mamirau database

The Uacari lodge is built mainly in local wood. It was designed by a Brazilian

architect specialized in Amazonian style. It is a set of floating lodges linked by

footbridges. The dcor consists of locally produced handicraft. It is a comfortable, rustic

construction well-integrated into the landscape and built by local builders.


29/49

29

Measures of biophysical change: erosion, water quality, wildlife behaviour

Currently eleven trails are in use. Erosion is not a considerable threat as the trails

are underwater for about five months. With regard to water quality, the ecotourism

programme has made some tests about the quality of the water in 2000; however, so far it

does not have a consistent monitoring programme for evaluation of the efficiency of thetreatment of sewage.

Establishing monitoring procedures and the development of sound sanitation

technology for the varzea environment could have an indirect benefit for the local

communities. Due to the low level of sanitation in the BA, tourist concerns, revealed in

interviews, can be an incentive to push for public policies to improve the quality of life of

the local population

The special zone for ecotourism is only 0.3 % of the reserves total area, thusimpacts on wildlife behaviour could include a reduction of the sight of animals due to

their migration to other areas. Since the middle of 1999, a monitoring programme was

carried out. After an evaluation of the data available, some caveats were revealed that

resulted in changes in the methodology. New measures which started in 2002 will be used

as the baseline.

Sensitivity of activities

Besides maximum numbers of tourists, management techniques are also used to

reduce possible negative impacts caused by the tourism venture in Mamirau. Guiding is

mandatory on trails and on visits to communities. These visits are pre-arranged by radio in

order to minimise disruption of community life. Tourists also receive a folder with the

following rules: to respect privacy in the houses, not to enter schools during classes, and

to ask permission before taking pictures. Animal feeding and disturbing them are also

prohibited in the reserve.

Attitudes of local people

Attitudes were perceived ranging from a scale of curiosity, pragmatism to a slight

animosity against the taking of pictures manifested by some locals. Most locals are very

curious about tourist habits and motives. One community leader interviewed, in Vila

Alencar, viewed tourists with a pragmatic approach. For him, at the beginning visitors

were somewhat amusing, but now that tourism has become an economic alternative,


30/49

30

people are more interested as they begin to reap some benefits. This attitude can be

contrasted with a potentially more controversial one. A resident farmer insisted on being

paid for his picture being taken since local guides were benefiting from tourism. Apart

from the latter, interviews revealed that there was no significant resistance to the

ecotourism venture.

Social organisation and institutional change

The ecotourism venture has fostered the creation of a local Association of Guides

and Lodge Workers (AAGMAM). It is an opportunity for cooperation among people in

neighbouring communities.

Tourism often is a great source of employment for women (de Kadt, 1979). InMamirau, cooks and chambermaids are all women; there are also female guides. Besides,

these ecotourism activities have fostered two womens associations for the production and

sale of handicrafts. Hence, employment opportunities for women help to empower them

in these communities.

The issue of tips is a sensitive one. Just as the promise of tips can boost the quality

of services; it may also encourage guides to bring tourists into restricted zones. Besides,

exceptionally high tips can undermine the determined basic pay and confuse the local

value system. The current active rule is for tourists to deposit tips in a box for it to be

shared by the group as a whole; however, individual tipping is freely practised.

In short, although risks are present, organisational and institutional changes have

improved the links among communities involved in the tourism venture.

4.1.2-Principle 2 Increasing awareness and understanding of an areas natural and

cultural systems:

Exposure to community

A visit to a local community is offered as part of the stay in Mamirau. They have

the opportunity to talk to local residents, as well as take a tour of the community to see

plantations, livestock, the roasting process of manioc flour, and other activities developed

in the communities. These tours are guided by local residents to ensure meaningful

contact and respect for local concerns. The visit lasts about two hours which may be

considered short. However, as tourists have contact with local guides and helpers in the

lodge during the outings, they can continually interact with local people.


31/49

31

Perceptions of visitors about interpretive activities

Probably the best example of interpretive material available is the Mamirau Natural

History Guide (Bannerman and Marigo, 2001). This guide explains about the geology,biologic evolution, geographic data, fauna and flora species, and the human adaptation to

the varzea ecosystem. Moreover, visitors have videos, books, lectures, maps and folders

about the ecosystem in Mamirau, as well as about the whole Amazonia. Furthermore,

visitors can count on a trained team of native guides and a bilingual biologist. Sometimes

it is possible to visit researchers working in the reserve.

Nevertheless, it was perceived that the amount of information about the native

peoples social and cultural systems is far less than the amount of information about

animals in the reserve. In interviews with tourists, some pointed out that visits to

communities were more focused on the selling of handicrafts than learning about the local

life style.

As a result, the Mamirau conservation model risks not being well understood.

The majority of the visitors interviewed at the end of the visit had not grasped that in the

reserve there is a productive management approach linked with conservation, which

permits people living within the reserve to fish and log for sale in order to enhance their

livelihoods.

Guide training/abilities

Local guides have their own knowledge about the rainforest; all of them were born

in the reserve, and their culture is embedded in strategies of surviving in the varzea

environment. The ecotourism venture organized three formal training programmes for

guides. This includes notions of evolutionary theory, ecosystems, taxonomy, ecotourism,

environmental education, environmental impact monitoring, interpreting maps, safety,

first-aid, and Basic English commands (SCM, 2001).

The local guides main limitation is the difficulty in communicating with non-Portuguese

speakers. Learning a second language is not an easy task as many of them have only

completed elementary school.

Opportunities to contribute


32/49

32

The willingness to contribute to local conservation and development projects is

one of the alleged features of ecotourism practitioners (Wallace and Pierce, 1996). This

trend was positively assessed from interviews, where the majority of foreign tourists and a

minority of Brazilians said they would contribute to support conservation if a scheme

were presented.The Mamirau homepage offers information for collecting contributions through a

Brazilian bank account. However, this current method involves a bank transfer which was

considered time-consuming by foreign tourists. Thus, providing an easier option for

contributions can be an extra source of income that has not been explored yet.

4.1.3-Principle 3 Contribution to conservation and management of legally protected

natural areas:

Information about protected areas

Mamirau is the unique floodplain natural reserve in the BA. A great amount of

information about research in the reserve can be found in the small library in the Uacari

lodge. Also available is information about the situation of the Brazilian protected area

system.

Adherence to the Reserves management plan

Part of the area where the ecotourists activities are developed is within the

restricted zone (figure 3, pg- 21). There are rules exists prohibiting trespass of the

restricted areas. Used as buoys for the floating lodge, wood was bought from the

sustainable forest management programme, therefore adhering to the management plan.

Even though the lodge is located in an area rich in fish stock, fish are always bought from

areas where fishing is allowed. Another indicator of the adherence to the management

plan is the hiring of local people; only specialists are from outside.

Collaboration with scientific research and sustainable management

The activities for collaboration between ecotourism and researchers are scientific

tourism and lectures. Although this potential is far from being developed, some groups of

foreign students visited the reserve to participate in research and forest management


33/49

33

programmes. Other initiatives reported are lectures about primates and river dolphins. In

these cases tourist groups pay an extra fee.

4.1.4- Principle 4 Maximization of the early and long-term participation of localpeople in the decision making process:

Ownership of ecotourism venture/ Local committees

The ecotourism venture belongs to the SCM, the NGO that manages the reserve. There

are drafts, from as early as 1999, about creating local committees to participate in the

management of the ecotourism venture (SCM, 1999, 2000); nevertheless, none were

implemented. This decision has been postponed to a time when the ecotourism venture

achieves the profitability line. This issue was not perceived as an urgent demand by

locals.

Increased access to information and communication

In 1997, when the implementation of the ecotourism programme started, some

meetings were held between the ecotourism coordinator and the communities located in

the zoning area destined for ecotourism activities. A local resident reported that at that

point he had no idea about ecotourism. This fact illustrates the limits and difficulties of

building a participatory process in community-based ecotourism, especially where the

local population has little previous experience with tourism activities. To achieve

empowerment of the communities, a continuous process of consultation and re-evaluation

is required (Ashley and Roe, 1998; Wood, 1998).

In an effort to reach this goal, tourist activities are continuously evaluated in

community meetings. Another way to improve the process of decision-making by the

locals is to provide opportunities to participate in forums and congresses where tourism is

discussed. Last year the president of the Guides and Lodge Workers Association

(AAGMAM) participated in the International Symposium on Ecotourism in the Amazon,

where he discussed community involvement in ecotourism. This is an illustration of good

practice by the Mamirau ecotourism management.


34/49

34

4.1.5- Principle 5 Generation of economic and other benefits to local people that

complement traditional practices:

Local perceptions of changes caused by tourism

On the one hand, two factors were positively highlighted by locals: first, theycould earn some money based on abilities they already had, such as knowledge of their

local environment; second, extra income was generated during the flood season by

tourism activities, when agriculture is not possible and fishing is less profitable. On the

other hand, two concerns were also mentioned: first, the loss of autonomy in tourism jobs;

second, complaints about the obligation to work on patron saints days.

Nevertheless, during a meeting to evaluate the tourism activities in 2001, local

workers voiced their hopes for more tourist visits and higher wages (SCM, 2001). During

fieldwork a competition was perceived between the two communities where tourist visits

occur, in order to sell their handicraft. Thus, local guides, lodge workers, artisans and

farmers are interested in the increase of tourist activities

Local employment/level

Fifteen guides and twelve lodge workers are currently working for the ecotourism

venture. This represents 10% of the population of the four communities in this sector of

the reserve, where ecotourism activities are already one of the main sources of income.

Figure 8-

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002*

Income for local communities from ecotourism

BrR$

Products

Services

*estimated based in data from Jan/June.

Source: Mamiraua Database

*


35/49

35

As can be seen from the chart above, considering the BrR$ 200 minimum

Brazilian wage in 2002, income generated by ecotourism activities for the communities

involved is enough to employ ten full-time employees. However, as the majority of guides

and lodge workers are only part-time, there are three times more people working for theecotourism venture. In the future the workers pay is expected increase with the growth in

the number of tourists.

Another way of increasing benefits for communities is the filling of managerial

positions by locals. As in most ecotourism ventures, it is often difficult to fill managerial

positions from amongst the locals, due to low educational levels. Nevertheless, a local

guide will be trained in the near future to be manager at the Uacari lodge.

Purchase of local products: values and variety

Purchase of local produce is one of the trumpeted advantages of ecotourism.

Except for industrial equipment, all the other materials are acquired from the city of Tef,

thus reducing leakage of tourism profits.

With regard to buying produce within the reserve, some factors have to be

considered. Two aspects are conducive to local buying: first, as ecotourism in Mamirau

is not treated as a luxury programme, it does not require imported products; second,

emphasis on fresh ingredients and Amazonian food served in the lodge also leads to a

greater consumption of local produce. Nevertheless, some aspects hinder this: first, it is

necessary to convince local farmers to sell in small quantities, due to the small storage

capacity and infrequent demand; second, transportation costs do not make it cost

effective.

As can be seen from Figure-8, income generated by the purchase of local products

increased seven fold in 1999, compared to the previous year. However, in 2000 and 2001

this value was substantially reduced. This discrepancy was the purpose of a meeting

during which the ecotourism team and local communities decided to implement a

different strategy (SCM, 2001).

The successful approach now in practice involves mediation by the local guides

between the manager and the foodstuff producers. This is a way of sharing responsibility

between the manager and employees in order to benefit a greater number of people.


36/49

36

Table 6-

Income from handicraft sales

Year Value (BrR$)

1999 500

2000 1277

2001 3997Source: Mamiraua database

Another source of income linked to tourism activities is the sale of handicrafts.

Traditional production of everyday utensils was adapted to the taste of visitors and are

sold as souvenirs. Thirty families are involved in this production. In the years 2000 and

2001 income generated by handicraft sales was greater than for any other products sold by

the communities for the ecotourism venture.

Continuance of traditional activities

So far ecotourism has not become a sufficient source of revenue to displace other

activities, as the great majority of locals are part-time employees. During the days when

they are not working within tourism, locals follow their traditional activities e.g.

agriculture, fishing and keeping house. The Mamirau database shows that only 30% of

the local produce was sold by employees; therefore, benefits are also reaped by those

families not working in the tourism venture.

Access to credit and support for partnerships

Micro-credit is an economic development tool commonly used in Mamirau. The

use of this scheme also involves a learning process, as the ribeirinhos (varzea dwellers)

are not used to having access to credit, and basic accounting controls. This process

certainly develops a sense of empowerment, as in the past they were overexploited bybarter systems dominated by middlemen.

Services provided to community

In Mamirau an integrated management approach has been developed, thus it is

difficult to distinguish benefits only attributed to ecotourism. However, improved

transport and communication are some of the services that can be used by local

communities. These improvements have highly increased the sense of security in the

communities. Sanitation is another aspect that is being positively affected by the


37/49

37

ecotourism venture, as new technologies are being tested and could be implemented in

other areas of the reserve.

Utilization of natural resources

The special zone for ecotourism is within the restricted zone, thus restrictions were

already set before the ecotourism venture existed. The approach in the Mamirau Reserve

is conservation allied to sustainable management of natural resources, therefore there is

no clear conflict between ecotourism activities and local people. Sustainable management

is also advertised as one of the tourist attractions, with some student groups coming to

participate in forestry management and ecotourism activities as a special programme.

Training/ Capacity building

As tourism is a relatively new activity for the region, all capacity building

activities had to be developed by the SCM. Guides, cooks, chambermaids and speed-boat

drivers have a number of training courses. As an institution supported by the Brazilian

Ministry for Science and Technology (MCT), the Mamirau Institute is also evaluated by

the amount of training delivered (IDSM/MCT, 2002). Besides the investment in local

capacity building, managers also benefit from training, although they are not locals. As a

result of this experience, some of the ex-managers and biologists have moved to other

regions in Brazil to start up ecotourism programmes or to become consultants. These facts

make Mamirau a kind of practical school for ecotourism professionals.

4.1.6 -Principle 6 Participation of local people as visitors:

Use for environmental education by local schools

The SCM carries out an environmental education programme with activities

addressed to people living within the reserve and in the towns around it. Some of these

activities involve visiting the ecotourism management area and the Uacari lodge, where

they can take part in lectures about the reserve and go on the trails. These visits have two

objectives: environmental awareness-raising and marketing of the Mamirau reserve.

For the great majority it is their first time visiting the area. These visits have occasionallyinvolved students already living within the reserve. This is an opportunity for the children


38/49

38

of lodge workers and guides to visit their parents work place, as well as the restricted

zone for conservation.

Special fares for locals/national visitors

Figure 9-

Origin of ecotourists to Mamiraua

Brazil

38%

Asia

2%Europe

34%

South America

1%

North America

23%

Australia

2%

Prices for ecotourism packages in Mamirau are two-tiered: national tourists have

a 20% discount in prices as an incentive for Brazilians to visit the reserve. A subsidized

price for a one-day visit is also available for the local residents in Tef in an effort to

attract support for the reserve.


39/49

39

5- Conclusions:

This report investigated the implementation of an ecotourism venture in the

Mamirau Reserve in the BA within a region of wetland forest. In this reserve a newapproach to conservation has been implemented whose focus is to integrate conservation

ideals with the improvement of the livelihood of the local population. The reserve was

created in 1990, and ecotourism activities began in 1997 reaching full implementation in

2002. Although the number of tourists visiting Mamirau is still small, new investments

earmarked for ecotourism in the BA justifies what could be considered an early

evaluation.

This research involved six weeks of fieldwork with the acquisition of quantitativedata from the SCM database, which was enriched and contrasted with primary data

attained by a number of qualitative techniques. Following the steps of similar previous

evaluations (Wallace and Pierce, 1996; Ross and Wall, 1999a) of the controversial

concept, ecotourism (Wheeler, 1993; Fennell, 2001), the findings were used within a

framework with indicators to reveal to what extent the tourism venture in Mamirau

achieved local development and environmental conservation.

The first aspect discussed was the participation of local communities in the

decision-making process. The implementation of the tourism venture in Mamirau was

done under a participatory approach. As pointed out by Wilson and Bryant (1997),

environmental management has gradually evolved to be a multi-layered process. In the

Mamirau tourism venture stakeholders included the SCM, local people, funding

institutions, environmental authorities and consultants. Local people participated in an

early and long-term consultative process to decide about the development of the new

economic activity; thus, they had access to a flux of information that allowed them to

make decisions concerning their participation in the implementation process.

However, the decision-making process was also marked by the disparity of

knowledge and power between local communities and other stakeholders, especially the

SCM personnel. Although a great number of meetings were held suggesting a bottom-up

management approach, the main budgetary and administrative decisions were made by

SCM personnel and external consultants. Thus, on the whole, a mix of top-down and

bottom-up approaches better describe this process.

Building a community-based initiative is a great challenge especially where levels

of illiteracy are high, markets distant, and other demands on time are high(Ashley and


40/49

40

Roe,1998). Hopes of enhancing the local communities capacity to make decisions are

based on the increasing role of local associations that were fostered during this process. In

the future it is possible that local people can participate in local committees where they

can influence the management of the tourism venture and decide about the distribution of

profits more directly.A second important aspect was the extent to which the local population has

benefited from the ecotourism activities. They received economic benefits in the form of

employment opportunities as well as market access for selling local produce and

handicrafts. These could be considered limited benefits, but they were highly valued by

the local population as a source of secure income, especially during the flood season. This

is a phenomenon also reported in pro-poor tourism experiences elsewhere (Ashley, Roe,

Goodwin, 2001). They also benefited from access to micro-credit, training programmesand the development of organisational abilities. However, some disadvantages related to

tourism were pointed out by locals such as the loss of autonomy and the obligation to

work during public holydays, which have interfered in their social life.

In the long-term, the greatest gain provided by tourism activities in Mamirau is

the reduction of the local populations dependency on natural resources for their

livelihood, and the discovery that they can make a living using their knowledge of the

rainforest environment.

A third facet investigated was the effects of the tourism venture on environmental

conservation. So far the tourism venture has not been able to generate a profit to invest in

conservation activities. However, during its implementation a precautionary approach to

minimize negative impacts on the natural environment was pursued. Carrying capacity

issues were taken into consideration by the adoption of maximum numbers (Butler,

1996b) even though tourist activities are reduced to a small section of the reserve,

representing only 0.3% of the total reserves area. Choices involving architectural design,

building materials, energy use, transport means and waste disposal were made aiming to

reduce negative impacts. Yet, low levels of negative localised impacts are inevitable:

noise, hydrocarbon pollution, waste generation, and some disturbances to wildlife.

Monitoring and evaluating these negative impacts can be vital for the continuance

of the attraction of the tourism venture itself. Monitoring tools are included in the

management process required to run an ecotourism venture (Payne, 1999). At Mamirau,

since 1999 monitoring systems have been used for examining changes in wildlife

behaviour and water quality; however, the collection and analysis of data has not been


41/49

41

consistent. The continuity and consistence of the monitoring systems is required to

demonstrate care of the environment.

A fourth issue pertinent to this research was the extent to which the tourism model

implemented in Mamirau could/should be implemented in the BA and elsewhere. Even

though it presents some flaws, a superior result was reached in Mamirau when comparedwith commercial tourism ventures located in the rainforest around Manaus (Wallace and

Pierce, 1996; Nelson, 2000 and Rossi, 2001) especially in the following aspects:

participation of the local population, benefits generated for the communities,

environmental care and increase of awareness of the Amazonian environmental and

cultural aspects by locals and tourists.

However, so far the Mamirau ecotourism venture has not reached a sufficient

amount of tourists to generate profitability. At the moment the continuity of the projectstill depends on external grants to finance the project. Thus, an immediate

recommendation for replication is premature.

This case-study demonstrates that ecotourism is not a panacea for development

and conservation in the Brazilian Amazon, as previously alerted by other writers (Rocha,

1997 and Figueiredo, 1999). However, based on the evaluation of the initial development

of the venture in Mamirau, ecotourism continues to be a valuable option for

development especially in regions near protected areas rich in wildlife and beautiful

landscape. Nevertheless, this will only be possible if the traditional local population is

integrated as an important stakeholder in the development process.


42/49

42

6- References:

Adams, W. (1990) Green Development: Environment and Sustainability in the Third

World. London, Routledge.

Amazonas Tourism Office. (2002) Turismo Manaus. [On line] Available from:

www.visitamazonas.com.br [Accessed 18 June 2002].

Ashley, C. (2000) the impacts of tourism on rural livelihoods: Namibias experience.

Sustainable Livelihoods, Working Paper No. 128. London, ODI.

________ and Roe, D. (1998) Enhancing community involvement in wildlife tourism:

issues and challenges. IIED Wildlife and Development Series, No 11. London, IIED.

_________, Roe, D and Goodwin, H. (2001) Pro-Poor Tourism Strategies: Making

Tourism Work for the Poor. London, ODI/IIED, CRT.

Bannerman, M. and Marigo, L. (2001) Mamirau, A Guide to the Natural History of the

Amazon Flooded Forest. Tef, IDSM.

Becker, B. (1995) Undoing myths: the Amazon- an urbanized forest. In: Clusener-Godt,

M. and Sachs, I. (eds.)Brazilian Perspectives on Sustainable Development of the Amazon

Region. Paris, UNESCO/ Parthenon Publishing Group.

__________ (2001) Reviso das polticas de ocupao da Amaznia: possvel

identificar modelos para projetar cenrios? Parcerias Estratgicas, No 12, Setembro.

Boo, E. (1990)Ecotourism: The Potentials and Pitfalls. Washington D.C.,WWF/USAID.

Butler, R. (1980) The concept of tourist area cycle of evolution: implications for

management of resources. The Canadian Geographer, Vol. 24: 5-12.


43/49

43

Butler, R. (1992) Alternative Tourism: The thin edge of the wedge. In Smith, V. and

Eadington, W. (eds.) Tourism Alternatives. Chichester, John Willey & Sons.

________ (1996a) Ecotourism: has it achieved maturity or has the bubble burst? Keynote

address, Pacific Rim Tourism 2000. Rotorua, New Zealand.

_________(1996b) The concept of carrying capacity for tourism destinations: dead or

merely buried? Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 2, 283-293.

Cater, E and Lowman, G. (eds.) (1994). Ecotourism : A Sustainable Option? Chichester,

John Wiley and Sons.

Ceballos-Lascurain, H.( 1986) Tourism, Ecotourism in Protected Areas. Gland, World

Conservation Union.

Chambers, R. (1987) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Key Strategy for People,

Environment and Development. Sussex: IDS: University of Sussex.

Clusener-Godt, M. and Sachs, I. (eds.) (1995) Brazilian Perspectives on Sustainable

Development of the Amazon Region. Paris, UNESCO/ Parthenon Publishing Group.

Cohen, E.(1978) The impact of tourism on the physical environment. Annals of Tourism

Research, April/June.

Crick- Furman, D. and Prentice, R. (2000) Modelling tourists multiple values.Annals of

Tourism Research, Vol. 27(1) 69-92.

Dharmaratne, G., Sang, F. Walling, L. (2000) Tourism potentials for financing protected

areas.Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 27(3) pp.590-610.

Di Prieto, G. (2000) NGOs and the internet: use and repercussions. The IPTS Report, No.

48: 23-27.


44/49


45/49

45

Hall, A. (1997). Sustaining Amazonia: grassroots action for productive conservation.

Manchester, Univ. Press. Manchester.

Hall, C. and Butler, R. (1995) In search of common ground: reflections on sustainability,

complexity and process in the tourism system. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 3(2)99-105.

Hays, S. P. (1959) Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency: 1890-1920. Cambridge,

Massachusetts, Harvard University Press.

Hecht, S. and Cockburn, A. (1989) The Fate of the Forest: Developers, Destroyers and

Defenders of the Amazon .London, Verso.

Hoggart, K., Lees, L. and Davies, A. (2002) Researching Human Geography. London,

Arnold.

Holden, P. (ed.) (1984) Alternative Tourism: Report on the Workshop on Alternative

Tourism with a Focus on Asia. Bangkok, Ecumenical Coalition on Third World Tourism.

Hughes, R. and Botelho, E. (2000) Environmental Impacts of Support for Phase 2 of the

Mamirau Sustainable Development Reserve: a Scoping Study. Tef, SCM/DFID.

IBAMA. (2001). Plano de Acao para Ecoturismo e uso Publico em Unidades de

Conservacao. Brasilia, IBAMA/MMA.

IBGE (2000) Censo 2000. [On line] Available from: www.ibge.gov.br/popul-brasil.xls

[Accessed 12 December 2001]

IDSM/MCT (2002) Primeiro Relatorio do Contrato de Gestao MCT-IDSM, Ano-2001.

Tef, IDSM/MCT.

IUCN (1980) World Conservation Strategy: Living Resource Conservation for

Sustainable Development. Gland, IUCN/UNEP/WWF.


46/49

46

Janer, A. (1998) Ecotourism in the Mamirau Sustainable Development Reserve-

Economic Feasibility Study. Tef, SCM.

de Kadt, E. (ed.) (1979) Tourism- Passport to Development? New York, Oxford

University Press/ World Bank/UNESCO

Kolk, A. (1998) From conflict to cooperation: international policies to protect the

Brazilian Amazon. World Development, Vol. 26(8) 1481-1493.

Krippendorf, J. (1987) The Holiday Makers. London, Heinemann.

Laurence, W. et all (2001) The future of the Brazilian Amazon. Science, Vol. 291(5503)438.

Lee, D. and Snepenger, D. (1992) An ecotourism assessment of Torturego, Costa Rica.

Annals of Tourism Research, Vol-19(2), 366-371.

Lima-Ayres, D. (1992) The Social Category Caboclo. PhD Thesis, Kings College,

Cambridge University.

Lindberg, K. (1991) Policies for Maximizing Nature Tourisms Ecological and Economic

Benefits. World Resources Institute, New York

McNeely, J. (1992) Contributions of protected areas to sustaining society. In IV

Congresso Mundial de Parques Nacionais e Areas Protegidas. IUCN, 1992.

Meggers, B. (1971) Amazonia: Man and Culture in a Counterfeit Paradise. Smithsonian

Institute. New York.

Mathieson, A. and Wall, G. (1982) Tourism: Economic, Physical and Social Impacts.

London, Longman.

MMA (2001). Program for the Development of Ecotourism in the Legal Amazon Brazil

PROECOTUR. [On line] Available from:


47/49

47

www.uneptie.org/pc/tourism/ecotourism/wes_portfolio/statements.pdf [Accessed 28 May

2002].

Mowforth, M. and Munt, I. (1998) Tourism and Sustainability: New Tourism in the Third

World. London, Routledge.

Neto, O.(1999) Ecoturismo o exemplo do Amazonas. In Figueiredo, S. (ed.) O

Ecoturismo e a Questao Ambiental na Amazonia. Belem, UFPA/NAEA.

Nelson, S. (2000) The Interrelationship Between Nature-based Tourism in a Communityand Nearby Lodges in the Brazilian Amazon. [On line] Available from www.kiskeya-alternative.org/publica/diversos/amazon.html [Accessed 15 February 2002]

Noble, J. et al. (2002)Lonely Planet Brazil. 5th edition. London, Lonely Planet

Publications.

Owen, J. (1969) Development and consolidation of Tanzanian national parks. Biological

Conservation, Vol-1,156-8.

Padua, J. (1997) Biosphere, history and conjuncture in the analysis of the Amazon

problem. In Redclift, M. and Woodgate, G. (eds.). The International Handbook of

Environmental Sociology. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.

Payne, R. (1999) Sustainable tourism: suggested indicators and monitoring techniques.In

Nelson, J., Butler, R. and Wall, G. (eds.). Tourism and Sustainable Development.

Monitoring, Planning, Managing, Decision Making. 2nd edition. Waterloo, Canada,

University of Waterloo.

Redclift, M. (1987) Sustainable Development: Exploring the Contradictions. London,

Routledge.

Rich, B. (1994)Mortgaging the earth. London, Earthscan.

Rocha, G. (1997). Ecoturismo na Amazonia: uma analise das politicas publicas planejadas

pela Sudam. Rodrigues, A. (ed.) Turismo e Ambiente, Reflexoes e Propostas. Hucitec. Sao

Paulo.


48/49

48

Ross, S. and Wall, G. (1999a) Ecotourism: towards congruence between theory and

practice. Tourism Management, Vol-20, 123-132.

____________________ (1999b) Evaluating ecotourism: the case of North Sulawesi,

Indonesia. Tourism Management, Vol-20, 673-682.

Rossi, A. (2001). Culture Conservation and Ecotourism in Manacaparu Lake-Amazonas

/Brazil. Master Dissertation. London, North London University.

SCM (1996).Mamirau Management Plan. Brasilia, SCM/CNPq/MCT.

_____ (1999)MamirauEcotourism Annual Report. Tef, SCM

_____ (2000)MamirauEcotourism Annual Report. Tef, SCM

_____ (2001) Mamirau Ecotourism Annual Report. Tef, SCM

Smith, V. and Eadington, W. (eds.) (1992) Tourism Alternatives: Potentials and Problems

in the Development of Tourism. Chichester, John Willey & Sons.

Sproule, K and Suhandi, A. (1998) Guidelines for community-based ecotourism

programs. .In Lindberg, K., Wood, M. and Engeldrum, D. (eds.) Ecotourism: A Guide for

Planners and Managers. North Bennington, Vermont, The Ecotourism Society.

Thorsell, J. (1973) National parks in developing countries. Agricultural and Forestry

Bulletin, Vol. 2, 17-19.

Tourism Concern (2002) Ecotourism: just another label?In Focus, N. 42.

Wall, G. (1996) Is ecotourism sustainable? Environmental Management, Vol-21(4), 483-

464.

Wallace, G e Pierce, S. (1996). An evaluation of ecotourism in Amazonas, Brazil.Annals

of Tourism Research, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp-843-73.


49/49

Walle, A. (1992) Tourism and traditional people: forging equitable strategies. Journal of

Travel Research, Vol. 19: 14-19.

________ (1997) Quantitative versus qualitative research. Annals of Tourism Research,

Vol.24 (3) 524-536.

Weaver, D. (1998)Ecotourism in Less Developed World. New York, CABI.

Wheeler, B. (1993) Sustaining the ego. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol. 1(2), 129-

39.

__________ (1994) Ecotourism: a ruse by any other name. In Cooper, C. andLoockwood, A. (eds.) Progress in Tourism, Recreation and Hospitality Management,

Vol. 6, 3-11. Chichester, John Wiley and Sons.

WCED (1987) Our Common Future. Oxford, Oxford University Press/World

Commission on Environment and Development.

Wight, P. (1994) Environmentally responsible marketing of tourism. In Cater, E and

Lowman, G. (eds.) Ecotourism: A Sustainable Option? Chichester, John Wiley and

Sons.

W

júlio andrade dissertacao mamiraua

Documents