P. 1
Evaluation of Canopy Tourism in Brazil

Evaluation of Canopy Tourism in Brazil

4.33

|Views: 592|Likes:

More info:

Published by: Global Canopy Programme on Aug 25, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/15/2011

pdf

text

original

Sections

Brazil

Canopy Ecotourism Study

Ismael Nobre PhD Candidate – Colorado State University

This research was developed for the Global Canopy Programme (GCP), and funded by the Global Opportunities Fund of the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office Brazil, March, 2007

2

Table of Contents
1.Brazil: general, demographic and socio-economic data .............................................. 5 1.1. Environmental macro-analysis: biodiversity and threats...................................... 7 1.2. Highlights on the condition of women in Brazil .................................................... 9 1.3. Tourism: statistics and trends ............................................................................ 11 1.4. Ecotourism: policies, programs, statistics and trends ........................................ 13 1.5. Canopy-related leisure, recreation and tourism ................................................. 16 1.6. Distribution and size of canopy access facilities in Brazil .................................. 19 1.7. Interviews at the national level study ................................................................. 23 1.8. Canopy-access sites in Brazil: Survey Sampling............................................... 27 1.10. Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 30 2. Recommendations for GCP operation in Brazil concerning canopy ecotourism ...... 38 2.1. Whole Forest Observatories (WFO) – Establishing it with a holistic approach.. 39 2.2. Building up demonstrative, effective, canopy ecotourism sites ......................... 43 2.3. Empowering women through Canopy Ecotourism sensitive development ........ 47 Annex 1. Canopy Ecotourism site-to-site analysis – A synoptic view........................... 49 Annex 2. Canopy ecotourism site-to-site analysis – Data tables.................................. 83 Abbreviation List. .......................................................................................................... 99 Photos list ................................................................................................................... 101 Bibliography ................................................................................................................ 102 Acknowledgements..................................................................................................... 103 Credits ........................................................................................................................ 104

3

1

Research and findings

Recreation, conservation and knowledge toward the forest canopy This study’s goal was to gain a better understanding of the value of canopy ecotourism to Brazil with an initial analysis of the actual benefits shared with local communities. This report indicates the potential sustainable benefits generated by canopy-based ecotourism. It includes recommendations on the development of future canopy ecotourism in Brazil and highlights the opportunities available for the involvement of women in canopy ecotourism. This initial part analyzes the canopy ecotourism within the Brazilian reality. From the broad characteristics of tourism at a National scale it narrows down to general ecotourism and then the canopy ecotourism specialty. It pinpoints peculiarities and evaluates the extent the activity has evolved in the Country.

4

1.1

Demographics and socioeconomic

Brazil: general, demographic and socio-economic data

Brazil is a large continental country located in the east part of South America. It occupies an area of 8.514.876 Km2, which corresponds to roughly half of the entire continent size (Map 01). The Country’s main axes, both N-S and E-W, have about 4.000 km and its shoreline, facing the Atlantic Ocean, is 9.198 km long. Terrain elevations in Brazil range from sea level to 3.000 m. The Brazilian territory is divided into climatic strips: 92% of the territory is located between the Equator and the Tropic of Capricorn, yielding to a predominantly tropical climate, with equatorial and subtropical (temperate zones) strips distributed over the remaining 8% of the nation’s territory. The predominance of lower altitudes throughout the country provides more elevated temperatures, with averages exceeding 20°C. The seasons are the exact opposite of those in Europe and the United States, with the exception of the northern region of the country. The average annual temperature is approximately 28ºC in the northern region and 20ºC, in the south. Peak temperatures range from around minus 10ºC to 40ºC. Brazilian territory was first discovered by Europeans in the year 1500, remaining a colony of Portugal until its independence in 1822. The Country’s official denomination is Federative Republic of Brazil and has a political system based on representative
5

democracy with a directly-elected president. Brazil is comprised of 27 states (Map 02) divided into 5 administrative regions: North, North-eastern, Central-western, Southeastern and South. Brazil presents rather severe regional socio-economic inequalities. In most cases the coastal zones and the states located in the South and Southeastern regions are the most developed areas in opposition to those in the North and Northeastern states. Portuguese is the only official language and is spoken country-wide. The country is mainly Christian, with a majority of Catholics, followed by many Protestant denominations. Brazil has an estimated population of 184.4 million inhabitants, 84.2% of which living in urban areas. The average demographic density is 22 inhabitants per Km2 with a population growth rate of 1.39%. Demographic density varies from around 7,000 inhabitants per Km2 in the 19.7 million inhabitant’s metropolis of São Paulo to 0.97 inhabitants per Km2 in the Amazon. Brazilian money is the Real (BRL/R$), a currency relatively stable with inflation rates below 5%. Typical exchange rates are R$ 2.20 per Dollar and R$ 2.80 per Euro. Brazilian economy is supported mainly by agriculture with emphasis on the agroindustry sector, manufacturing industry and services. According to the World Bank and IBGE, Brazil is the 10th world’s largest economy with a total Gross Domestic Product GDP (2005) of 879 billion Dollars (2007 estimation revision), and a per person GDP of 4,298 Dollars. However, this average hides the world’s second worst wealth distribution among all countries. Despite the governmental and non-governmental efforts to fight poverty, Brazil was only ahead of the African county Sierra Leona in the 2005’s Gini ranking. In Brazil, a mere 1% of the population, in the upper layer of the social pyramid (1.7 million people), detain a wealth that equals the amount held by 50% of the population in the poorer end (86.5 million people). A third of the population is classified as poor, living with less than 2 Dollars per day. Brazil’s GDP growth rate has been only 2.6% (2005) and 2.9% (2006), contributing to the aggravation of socio-economic problems such as: higher Map 01 – South America and Brazil unemployment, public security issues, socio-environmental problems like water pollution, deforestation caused by slashing and burning agriculture, poaching, rural exodus, thriving of the shantytown neighborhoods (favelas), among others. The overall socio-economic conjuncture has led the country to a Human Development Index (HDI) of 1.98 (2003).

6

1.2

Biodiversity and threats

Environmental macro-analysis: biodiversity and threats

The position Brazil occupies on the globe, coupled with its large territory and favorable climate and soils, generated a very rich and diversified environment for evolving life. International Conservation (CI) considers Brazil one of the world’s Megadiversity countries. According to CI, Brazil belongs to the G17, the group of 17 countries which concentrate the wealth of biodiversity. Brazilian ecosystems hold almost 12% of all Earth’s natural life. It concentrates 55 thousand species of higher plants (22% of world’s total), plenty of them endemic; 524 mammal species; more than 3,000 fresh water fish species; between 10 and 15 million insects and more than 70 Psittaciformes species: macaws, parrots and parakeets. This impressive life burst makes Brazil the place with the highest terrestrial biodiversity in the planet. Among the Earth’s richest Biomes, four are in Brazil. They are the Atlantic Forest, the savannah-type Cerrado, the Amazon and the wetland plains Pantanal. Since Brazil was a colony, its economy has been heavily supported by exploration of natural resources. Successive cycles of development have left marks on the integrity of natural habitats. The most emblematic loss took place over the Atlantic Forest. Because the highest developed areas in the nation are located on its domains, including the city of São Paulo, only about 7% of its original coverage is still standing. This condition poses
7

a threat to a Biome that surpasses the Amazon Forest regarding biological diversity, in proportion to its size and endemism rate. To name just a few examples, 75% of all bromelias, the kind of epiphyte British artist Margaret Mee specialized in illustrating, are endemic. A recent research carried out by both the New York Botanical Garden and the Brazilian institution Cocoa Research Center found 450 tree species within an area of 1 hectare in the south of Bahia. No other place is known to support such diversity. A modern federal legislation aimed at protecting the remnants of the Atlantic Forest has been finally approved by lawmakers in November, 2006 after a struggle of conflicting interests that lasted 14 years since it was initially proposed. The Atlantic Forest deforestation pace has fallen in recent years, mainly because there is almost nothing left of the protected areas. Aside from protecting its last patches, the Atlantic Forest needs action on restoring sensitive ecosystem sectors, mosaicing fragmented areas and creating a net of viable genetic corridors within and among neighboring Biomes. Along with restrictive land use legislation, effective law enforcement and environmental education, the survival of the Atlantic Forest depends on alternative, non-consumptive ways of development. A study converging economic data and satellite imagery showed nature-based tourism as the supporting factor for native forest recovery. The correlation has been detected in municipalities of São Paulo state where, between 1990 and 2000, ecotourism and adventure tourism became significant economic activities (Ehlers, 2003). Many of the studied places have canopy-driven tourism activities in their portfolio, reinforcing the importance of Canopy Ecotourism at the level of Biomes. Amazon superlative qualities such as biodiversity and fresh water wealth are dispensable to state. However, the loss this Earth’s natural treasury has been subjected to is worth to indicate. According to WWF and National Institute of Space Research (INPE), from the Amazon Tropical Rainforest original area of 4,100,000 km2, it still remains 3,403,000 km2 (2005). This loss represents 17.1% of the total area. Another 13,100 km2 (2006) or more has been clear cut every year. Around 60-70 percent of deforestation in the Amazon results from cattle ranches while the rest mostly results from small-scale subsistence agriculture. Logging results in forest degradation but rarely direct deforestation. However, studies have showed a close correlation between logging and future clearing for settlement and farming.

8

1.3

Condition of women

Highlights on the condition of women in Brazil

The Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics - IBGE, presented a 2006 sociodemographic study which included the most updated indicators about the condition of women in Brazil. According to this report, the Nation’s gender proportion is of 95 men for each 100 women. Women have conquered significant advancements in many socio-economic and socio-cultural aspects in the last 10 years. There has been a 35% increase in number of women-headed families. Women have actively participated in the national economy, although not yet in equal proportion to male. The economically active population with age 15 or above was of 67% (2005), with a fall to 56% when considering only women. Within this 10-year period the population with 12 or more years of study two-folded and the attendance to higher education schools three-folded. This increase has happened mainly among the women population which currently is the majority within the universities. They represent 56.1% of the population with 12 or more years of study. Nonetheless it is within this group that the greatest income gender unequally occurs. It has been observed a trend indicating men’s jobs homogeneously divided among industry, commerce, health, education and social services, while women jobs are 45% concentrated in education, health and social services, which is interpreted as being an
9

extension of family or home attributions. This selectivity explains why women earn less than men. It is important to highlight that there has been an increase of 0.4% in women occupying direction positions. Another characteristic of these socio-cultural changes is the increase in the number of families that opted to postpone children or even avoided them at all, decreasing fecundity rates. The average offspring per woman is descendent year after year but in North and Northeastern states it is highly elevated: around 47% of women gave birth to 3. The number of adolescent pregnancy has increased: women age 15-17 with children rose from 6.8 % in 2004 to 7.1% in 2005. Fecundity rate is inversely proportional to family income: about 74% of women whose family income is half minimum-wage (US$ 2.50 / day) has at least one child whilst this percentage decreases to 49% for women with family income equal or greater than two minimum-wages. In the economy, the women participation has significantly increased in the last 10 years. The number of working women rose from 45.8% to 52% between 1996 and 2005, whilst the number of working males diminished 0.9% over the same period. These mainly positive changes toward genre equality, however, hide the urban/rural demographic contrast within is averages. Because 82.8% of the population resides in urban areas, which favors the woman condition improvement, the real condition of rural women is very much worse than depicted by these figures. This becomes an especially concerning issue for ecotourism planning because protected areas and wild lands are often surrounded by rural communities. A large number of rural women lack basic documents such as born certificate, identification card, and work card, among others. They also work a daily average of six hours more than male, taking care of animals which are used for family subsistence, what is misinterpreted as being home care activities. When women work in the plantations with their husbands, they have a status of husband’s helpers, not workers themselves, preventing them from having direct access to the resulting income. Women represent 36% of the economically active rural population and 80% of the income-less population. The demographic census carried out by IBGE in 2000 revealed that 90% of rural women begin working in the plantations when they are children or adolescent, implicating in high illiteracy.

10

1.4

Tourism: statistics and trends
Tourism: statistics and trends

The most representative indicator of the Brazilian travel & tourism market size is the airport’s passenger arrivals. Arrivals from national flights increased from 19.5 million in 1996 to 43.1 million in 2005. In the same period, the international tourists’ arrivals in Brazil doubled, increasing from 2.7 million to 5.4 million tourists. The Ministry of Tourism forecasts this number will grow to 8.4 million in 2007 and 12.2 million by 2010. The 2004 report of Tourism Demand Study (Embratur / Fipe) shows that 48.5% of all international tourists arrived in Brazil were motivated by leisure; this group spent an average of US$ 57.99 per day; and had a permanence of 11.9 days in average. The most visited places were Rio de Janeiro (33.9%), Foz do Iguaçu (21,7%), and São Paulo (13,6%). Argentina was the country which sent more tourists to Brazil (922 thousand) followed by the United States (706 thousand) and Portugal (337 thousand). According to the 2007 report from Travel & Tourism Economic Research (WTTC / Accenture), Brazil's travel & tourism industry is expected to contribute 2.6% to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2007 (R$ 58.8 billion or US$ 25.3 billion), rising in nominal terms to R$ 119.6 billion or US$33.1 billion (2.5% of total) by 2017. The travel & tourism economy contribution (percent of total) should rise from 6.8% (R$ 151.4 billion or US$65.1 billion) to 7.2% (R$ 342.6 billion or US$95.0 billion) in this same period. The trend indicates that Brazil’s travel & tourism industry GDP contribution to total GDP
11

is generally increasing, and travel & tourism economy GDP contribution to total GDP is generally increasing. Brazil travel & tourism economy employment is estimated at 5,876,000 jobs in 2007, 6.4% of total employment, or 1 in every 15.5 jobs. By 2017, this should total 7,773,000 jobs, 6.8% of total employment or 1 in every 14.8 jobs. The 2,333,000 travel & tourism industry jobs account for 2.6% of total employment in 2007 and are forecast to total 2,839,000 jobs or 2.5% of the total by 2017. The trend indicates that Brazil’s relative travel & tourism industry employment contribution to total employment is generally decreasing, and relative Travel & Tourism Economy Employment contribution to total employment is generally decreasing. Brazil travel & tourism is expected to generate R$ 184.5 billion (US$79.3 billion) of economic activity (total demand) in 2007, growing (nominal terms) to R$ 443.7 billion (US$123.0 billion) by 2017. Total demand is expected to grow by 7.2% in 2007 and by 5.3% per annum, in real terms, between 2008 and 2017. 2007. Total demand represents 1.1% of world market share. Brazil travel & tourism market share of worldwide total demand is generally decreasing. In the travel & tourism world ranking of 176 Countries, Brazil occupies the 18th position in absolute size, 136th in relative contribution to national economy and 56th in growth forecast. Brazil is a very large, least intensive, and fast growing travel & tourism economy.

12

1.5

Ecotourism facts

Ecotourism: policies, programs, statistics and trends

Ecotourism started in Brazil in the beginning of the 80’s with the name of Ecological Tourism, aggregating national nature lovers and a few international tourists prone to experience the real wild backcountry environments. The sector evolved on its own, with little support from government or tourism class associations. In 1985 Embratur (the official tourism fomenting agency) initiated an ecological tourism project, but a lack of public and private funding have often placed theory and reality in disagreement; thus, many good projects have never gotten off the ground. However, throughout the 1990s, ecotourism in Brazil gathered strength as both environmental groups and the government recognized the importance of harnessing ecotourism's economic potential in order to nurture the country's land and culture, as well as to provide jobs and income. Much of Brazilian ecotourism potential lays in its pool of conservation units - federal, state, non-governmental, and private that protects around 5% of Brazil's territory. Despite their ecological importance a challenging problem is adequately funding them. IBAMA, the federal government's environmental agency, suffers from a tiny budget and a complicated bureaucracy. As a result, much "protected" land has fallen prey to poaching and to illegal settlement, ranching, and logging

13

In August 1994 a joint task force from the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Industry, Commerce, and Tourism met in Goiás Velho to establish national ecotourism policy directives. The document characterizes ecotourism, evaluates its current stage and proposes its further developments. It has set the guidelines for the desired ecotourism evolving in Brazil since then. The Brazilian definition for ecotourism is “a section of the tourism industry, that uses, in a sustainable way, the natural and cultural heritage, fosters its conservation and aims the building of an environmental awareness through environmental interpretation, promoting the welfare of the communities involved”. It sets the stage for a win-win scenario for all interest groups: if the resource base is protected, the economic benefits associated with the use of those resources will be sustainable. Therefore, the host populations will be able to benefit as long as the resources are protected, and tourists visiting the area will be able to enjoy the “natural experience” associated with a well-managed environment. The directives consider Brazil's biodiversity could best be served not only by educating tourists, but also by making sure they enjoyed themselves. Moreover, communities inhabiting heavily visited areas needed to benefit from ecotourism, that is, to gain jobs and better living conditions. To develop ecotourism projects in an orderly way, the government would give priority to infrastructure arrangements. And above all, ecology and economy had to converge in order to promote both conservation and development. This study adopted the ecotourism concepts formulated by Colorado State University professor Dr. George Wallace, which proposed a principled ecotourism framework to maximize the positive impacts of nature-based tourism and minimize its negative potential impacts. Wallace (1996) defined ecotourism as travel to relatively undisturbed natural areas for study, enjoyment, or volunteer assistance. It is travel that concerns itself with the flora, fauna, geology, and ecosystem of an area, as well as the people (caretakers) who live nearby, their needs, their culture, and their relationship to the land. It views natural areas both as “home of all of us” in a global sense (“eco” meaning home) but “home to nearby residents” specifically. It is envisioned as a tool for both conservation and sustainable development – especially in areas where local people are asked to forgo the consumptive use of resource for others. Such tourism may said to be true ecotourism when it features six principals: (1) Entails a type of use that minimizes negative impacts to the environment and local people; (2) Increases the awareness and understanding of an area’s natural and cultural systems and subsequent involvement of visitors in issues affecting those systems; (3) Contributes to the conservation and management of legally protected and other cultural areas; (4) Maximizes the early and long-term participation of local people in the decision-making process that determines the kind and amount of tourism that should occur; (5) Directs economic and other benefits to local people that complement rather than overwhelm or replace traditional practices (farming, fishing, social systems, etc.); (6) Provides special opportunities for local people and nature tourism employees to utilize and visit natural areas and learn more about the wonders that other visitors come to see. There is an important long-term planning program in progress in Brazil called PROECOTUR. The program’s goal is to undertake sustainable ecotourism development in the Brazilian Amazon region. The purpose is to establish the appropriate framework and to implement the necessary conditions, including required public investments, which will allow the nine Brazilian Amazonian States (Acre, Amapá, Amazonas, Maranhão, Mato Grosso, Pará, Rondônia, Roraima, and Tocantins) prepare themselves to responsibly and soundly manage selected ecotourism areas. The specific goals are: protect and develop ecotourism products; implement basic
14

services infrastructure; create positive conditions for investments; survey national and international markets; propose a legal framework for the activity; train human resources; foster the use of appropriate technologies; value local culture; and help financing the biodiversity conservation The program has been structured into three main components. The first component is essentially the preparation of studies that have the purpose of planning ecotourism activities at different levels, as well as studies for the establishment of new protected areas. The second component includes the financing of small yet key public infrastructure works, mostly to better preserve existing utilized natural products, improve tourist reception areas and the pre-feasibility and feasibility studies for future public investments. The third component includes training activities that are aimed at increasing the low-awareness level that exists today in the Amazon region with regard to conservation of natural resources, and technical advisory services to existing ecotourism businesses with the purpose of developing an “eco” operation in accordance with a widely agreed upon set of best management practices. The PROECOTUR first phase (pre-investment stage) is being financed with the help of an US$11 million IDB loan approved in 1999, and the investment stage is set to US$ 200 million. A national and international marketing study has been done under the PROECOTUR. The 2007 results show Brazil participating with only 0.7% of world international arrivals. The Amazon was destination of mere 0.05% of the 800 million world international arrivals. It has been detected a large potential for international demand over the Amazon but a limited marketing interest among nationals. The gross Amazon tourism potential is estimated in 2.9 million visitors.

15

1.6

Canopy recreation and tourism

Canopy-related leisure, recreation and tourism

When it comes to analyzing canopy ecotourism in Brazil the first question to answer is whether canopy ecotourism can be compared, or put together, with an increasingly popular leisure activity known as “arborism” (arvorismo or arborismo). The so called “arborism” consists of crossing a type of circuit formed by a sequence of challenging aerial pathways. It includes many types of hanging bridges, cables, ropes and similar devices, starting at ground level and elevating to over 20 meters atop. It is an adventurous aerial walkway usually hanging on the trees or sustained by wood poles around trees, hence the name which evocates them. To reach the end, visitors must make use of all their balance and concentration. They are protected from falling down through a safety system that includes the use of a body harness tied to a piece of rope and a pulley which travels along a topping steel cable. Despite being in safety, the human perception of heights and the apparent danger of walking over precarious, risky supports provoke adrenaline bursts on most users of such facilities. That synthesizes most of what “arborism” is all about: to provide an exciting, safe, yet challenging experience with plenty of strong physical sensations and psychological outcomes of meeting the challenge, surpassing the fear and proving one’s courage.

16

That having been said, the question still remains: is “arborism” a nitro form of canopy ecotourism? Taking into account that the ecotourism part of canopy ecotourism brings along the whole sustainable principles which characterizes it, including respect toward nature and the local cultures, the even distribution of benefits for local communities interacting with it and the growing of the environmental awareness, one may answer that it is not ecotourism in essence. On second thought however, one could call it ecotourism if, besides the focus on giving users an overdose of adrenaline, it also fulfilled the ecotourism requisites, even if only as a side effect. There are no technical issues preventing “arborism” from being a spiced form of canopy ecotourism. It actually has a place in preserved forests and around the canopy, providing a rare opportunity for humans to be right within the canopy ecosystem. It seems the question’s answer depends on how the canopyaccess facility is built and, especially, operated. Therefore, regardless of flavoring it as ecotourism or not, the whole universe of “arborism” was included in this ecotourism analysis as a type of “pending” case being further considered for its potentials to perform as ecotourism sites. If they are found or can become ecotourism-driven sites, maintaining its adventure soul, a win-win solution could be established. “Arborism”, which uses trees as support and the forest as scenario, could also give sound contribution to conserving ecosystems at a larger-thansite scale, incorporating the spirit of proactive conservation. “Arborism” facilities and associated entrepreneurships could be said to be in the right place at the right time. Aside from how far “arborism” may be from ecotourism nowadays, their origins are in common. In the early times of Brazilian ecotourism, once called ecological tourism, back in the 80’s, the real challenge was getting people to enjoy and interact with Nature, even on hard to get spots of exquisite beauty and significance. In those times most guides were also mountaineers and climbers and they started using their pro techniques and equipments to provide safe access for “common” people to surpass steep terrain features. Rappel, rope ascending, zip lines and rope-aided river crossings became part of some adventurous ecotourism routes on mountains and caves. Provided the level of difficulty of such climbing and hard-core adventure techniques were compatible with the user or group profile, they were very welcomed among clients and, compounded with the entire nature experience, rendered unforgettable good memories. With the maturation of the ecotourism and nature-based tourism markets in Brazil, the adventure part of eco-tours became structured as an independent activity, an end in itself. This specialization occurred in tune with the development abroad of canopy ecotourism and rope courses. Mixing the aura of canopy ecotourism with the fun of rope courses, the national “arborism” overcame the ground obstacles typical in hiking and trekking and incorporated height as its core ingredient, utilizing the trees as support and the forest as scenario. Further development detached the activity from the forest and it can now be practiced also over grass fields or even indoor in shopping malls, wherever wood poles can be fixated giving structure to the obstacles circuit and enabling it to stand. This, say, “urban arborism” closest association with forest, canopy or trees comes from its typical wood pole, once a living tree in the woods. Currently, one can find the whole spectrum of forest environments in connection with “arborism” facilities: from total absence of trees to the lush primary Atlantic Forest; passing through ecologically unexpressive cultivated woods made with exotic species eucalyptus; or else narrow forest patches with tiny trees supporting the walkways.

17

As a result of this evolutionary process, “arborism” providers sleeked their identity aggregating their product with the adventure concept rather than with the ecology one. It usually sells alone or with rafting, real climbing, kayaking, and finds enthusiasts everywhere, from the young to adults, both genders and most social classes. In short “arborism” is fast paced, it gives the user a sure shot of adrenaline, no commitment, 30 minutes and it is done, the user gets ready to do other things. In opposition, typical ecotourism activities are lengthy, require commitment, and somewhat philosophical. Sure these essential differences raise marketing concerns. One of oldest and best examples of canopy-access facilities built in Brazil is the ecotourism type. It started operating in 1997 and still today is subsidized by an NGO. Today a total of three of such facilities can be found country-wide. Conversely, “arborism” facilities grew mostly from the year 2000 on and reached about 100 sites. It seems that the canopy-access method involving an almost instantaneous and strong experience is more in-synch with the contemporary patterns of mainstream social groups. Hence, a second and third question arises: is there space for growing old-fashioned, environmentally-driven canopy access facilities in Brazil? Or even are all canopyaccess facilities doomed to become acrobatic circuits in the future, must they be profitable or at least sustainable? This study pursued these answers while analyzing a dozen sites of both types, including the whole “universe” of canopy ecotourism authentic sites: the Ecoparque de Una in the State of Bahia, the Parque das Neblinas in São Paulo and the Cristalino Jungle Lodge in the Amazon region. And, of course, it included also the most representative canopy-access sites where challenging circuits are the featured activity. It is interesting to notice that while “arborism” evolved from a national practice of ecotourism, it no longer resembles this national ecotourism. The canopy ecotourism, which maintains a strong correlation with the original practice, was an imported packaged model. It was clearly inspired in the aerial walkways of Costa Rica and was even projected by an international consulting firm based in Canada, which has made several projects in that Central American Country. This imported model is technically well fit to Brazilian forests and climate but the whole project didn’t succeed in evaluating the marketing constraints for that type of facility at the given location.

18

1.7

The size of canopy access

Distribution and size of canopy access facilities in Brazil

Although there are no official measurements or statistics regarding the size of canopy ecotourism or similar activities in Brazil, the canopy-access sites based on challenging circuits are becoming organized around an outfitters’ association named ABETA – Associação Brasleira de Empresários de Turismo de Aventura, which translates to Brazilian Association of Adventure Tourism Entrepreneurs. As part of this study, a technical director of ABETA was interviewed. ABETA has an approximate statistic in this field. It comes from its member’s associations and an active observation of the sector. According to ABETA, there are about 104 sites dedicated to some type of canopy activity in the whole country. A sample of 25 sites, 13 deeply analyzed, made it possible to estimate the total footprint of canopy-access in a country-scale. According to ABETA, from the total one hundred estimated sites, more than 50% are located in the São Paulo state, 20 are between Minas Gerais and Rio de Janeiro states and the remainder 30 sites are scattered over the other all states (Map 02). The primary data obtained by this study show a total of 5,833 meters of aerial pathways closely associated with forest canopy and one 50 m high tower (Table 01). Taking into account the entire population of sites we can estimate a total of about 47
19

km of aerial canopy walkways, both adventurous and contemplative. Quite a long ride if they were all lined up. ABETA estimates the public attending these facilities as of 270,000 per year. This study has found an accounted sum of 87,930 visitors for all 13 closely-evaluated sites (Table 02). Considering that the sampling takes into account only about 13% of the estimated total number of sites, ABETA’s estimative might be an under representation of the actual public walking, waving and hanging around the nation’s canopies. But more than the power of a large raw number of canopy goers it is important to note that many sites have been visited by groups of schools kids, which makes them suited for carrying out very effective key environmental education processes. The canopy accounting carried out by this study has found that out of the 13 core sites a total of 10,710 hectares of forest area has been used for canopy-access and related activities, rendering them perceivably economically alive protected areas, regardless of their legal protection status. Moreover, these mostly forested areas, both primary and secondary, are not only important for their absolute size. The lands occupied by canopy tourism ventures are often placed adjacent to or even within protected areas, decisively contributing to its buffering or management. When not adjacent, or even close by, they integrate ecological corridors, protecting riverbanks and its characteristic forest stripes. Again, the qualities involved in canopyrelated preserved areas excel their sizes, either individually or summed. Not mentioning these areas are strategic zones for current or potential environmental education processes targeted at the general public and local communities, boosting their overall “forest protection quotient”.
Item Cumulative Total

Number of canopy-access 13 studied sites Establishing Date 1995 to 2005
4 3 3 1 2 RPPN Non protected Obligatory prot. National Park State Park

Types of area

Aerial circuit length/ tower tall

5,833 m Horizontal 50 m Tower 10 Private

Owned by 2 NGO
1 Public

Size of area 10,709.7 ha used/owned Visitor number 87,930 /year Admission Price R$ 63.00 Canopy (average) R$ 94.00 W/ lodge Total revenue R$ 1,205,200.00 Total cost of R$ 1,934,000.00 establishing Total employment 281 Local employment 95%

All together, R$ 1,934,000.00 have been Woman 41.4% invested in establishing the 13 studied employment facilities. Over the last year they, together, generated total revenue of R$ 1,205,200.00, making them investments of low risk and Table 01 – Cumulative canopy figures relatively quick capital return. The income comes mainly from ticket sales, for which three main classes of prices were found: the first of which is free to enter and use, with all the resources both human and material, similar to what is found in paid sites. It is the case of Parque da Juventude, where the canopy-access activity is sponsored by the State Government.

20

#

Alias

Facility Name

#

Alias

Facility Name

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13

UNI IGU TOC JUV TUI NEB ALA ALT ARV YBI UNA CRI MAR

Parque Unipraias Cânion Iguaçu Toca da Raposa Parque da Juventude Tuím Parque Parque das Neblinas Alaya / MataDentro Altus Circuito Arvorismo Ybirá Pê Canopy Tour Ecoparque de Una Cristalino Jungle Lodge Fazenda Marupiara

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

ARI CUI UAT MAM CAX SEL CAN ECP RAN MIX GSM URB

Ariaú Amazon Towers Rio Cuieiras Rio Uatumã Mamirauá - RDS Caxiuanã Selva Aventura Sítio Canoar Ecopoint Aventura no Rancho Ecoação Arvomix Grutas de São Miguel Arvorismo Urbano

Table 02 – List of researched canopy-access sites with aliases and map numbering.

21

The second class comprises the privately or NGO owned sites which costs an average of R$ 63.00 for doing the canopy activity (ranging from R$ 20.00 to R$ 99.00). A third class addresses the sites that tie canopy activities with other costly services like lodging. Two sites were researched within this class with an average of R$ 249.00 per person per day. The total employment resulted in 281 job posts, most of which are year round for two main reasons: either the differences between high and low seasons are not as steep or so much training is necessary to prepare good monitors and guides that it is too risky to dispense them for further re-contracting. The latter is typical of challenging circuits, requiring a highly elevated technical prepare. The employment above has one more positive side as well: an average of 95% of all employed people comes from the local surrounding communities, even for the most demanding positions. One shortcoming of the depicted employing conjuncture is that, without exception, all sites are privately owned, belonging to an NGO or state property, in this case managed by the state itself or under public concession to a private company. None of the researched sites are owned by a local cooperative or in a communitarian basis. As far as this study could reach, there is no canopy access facility operating under such model, although there are ecotourism sites where it does occur and there is certainly potential for implementing such model focused on canopy with proper fomenting and startup funding. Another downside of the employment related to canopy-access sites refers to gender inequality: only 41.42% of employees are female. Even within the group of employed women, their occupation often refers to positions with lower salaries and in lessqualified functions like cleaning, cooking, staffing in offices and gift shops, ticket sales and general reception of visitors. Functions strictly related with accessing the canopy, like dealing with the aerial visiting systems, giving it periodic maintenance or interpreting the environment, are duties mainly carried out by male employees. Exception sites which have or had woman at the ropes, as it is said, report that women are fully capable of performing at least a similar job to the male guides. One alleged reason for such imbalance is that “women have less spontaneous interest in becoming guides” which is obviously a questionable motive. An interesting find points to a reversion of the proportion of employed women when the facility owner or manager is a woman herself. In these cases, the majority of people employed or contracted are female. Although the indirect socio-economic benefits generated by the investigated canopyaccess sites were in general of little extent, in the cases where it could be detected and measured it showed a prevalence of women involved in corresponding activities, with more opportunities of them running or participating at a higher levels in family entrepreneurships.

22

1.8

Expert’s chats and interviews

Interviews at the national level study

In order to portray a synoptic view of Brazilian canopy-driven ecotourism, both current and potential, a number of interviews were conducted with people from different complementary fields. The five interviews that yielded the best insights are summarized here. Before beginning with technical questions an introduction to the subject was always made for fine-tuning the interviewees with the upcoming questions. This part included getting an insight about the familiarity they have with canopy ecotourism, the ecological importance of canopy ecosystems and the existence of the Global Canopy Programme and its actions and projects. This warming up phase was also implemented in the interviews carried out at the site-level. Most people declared themselves to be well familiar with canopy-related activities, often referred to simply as “arborism”. When separated from canopy ecotourism, which were depicted as being more contemplative, environment-driven, people remembered having heard or read about it, but not seeing or experiencing it themselves. About the importance of forest canopy for life, there was a reasonable awareness among the people with whom this study interacted. About GCP, little has been found about its existence and activities. They were, nevertheless, aware of the work of scientists back in the 80’s that climbed trees and discovered a rich biodiversity at the canopy level.

23

The researcher’s perception it that canopy ecotourism in its strict sense is an abstract concept for most interviewed people. When properly stimulated they thought about it and gave their best contribution to the ideas discussion. With few exceptions, canopyecotourism has the same identity as plain ecotourism, differentiated only by its elevated structures. This study’s authors attribute the lack of segmentation in the concept of canopy ecotourism to scarce site availability and to the weak popularity the activity shows in Brazil. Conversely, when a reference is made to “bird watching”, the concept of segmentation within ecotourism is prompt. From IBAMA – Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis, the federal environmental authority, the interviewee was national park chief Dr. Adílio de Miranda. He was personally interviewed in Bonito, one of the Country’s most renowned ecotourism destinations. Dr. Miranda is working in planning and structuring public visitation at the recently created Bodoquena National Park. His past work at IBAMA includes a remarkable experience of fostering local communities to forgo the hostilities against Chapada dos Veadeiros National Park in a time that its temporary closure had been determined. He managed to create new opportunities for the involvement of local people with the park, changing the crisis situation to a model of cooperation and benefit sharing between protected areas and surrounding communities. His open mind regarding creative management and solid experience in actually managing protected areas qualified him as a trustable opinion source for the sake of this study. According to Dr. Miranda, there is not a trend to provide national parks with canopyrelated structures, once it requires a very intensive and technical management. Exception is made to private concessions such as the ones in Iguaçu National Park. Canopy ecotourism could definitely contribute to the conservation of endangered forests by providing auxiliary means to carry out scientific research. It might also generate opportunities for poachers to become wildlife guides for fauna watching. He pointed out that much of the “arvorism” done in Brazil doesn’t follow adequate rules and norms. It is eminently empiric and could damage the natural resources involved in it. Particularly, he mentioned the importance of knowing trees’ specific resistance to support the elevated structures without incurring in long term damage. His institution is also in charge of licensing “arborism” facilities depending on their localization. As to how canopy ecotourism could be considered a means to help local communities by generating alternative source of income, he mentioned at least six successful examples of involving creative ideas born within the community. The Chapada dos Veadeiros case, for instance comprised the use of local fibers to make compelling packages for preserves and other home-processed food they found tourists loved buying. Ecotourists generated market for organic products at local restaurants, which in change, generated positive changes in agricultural patterns in the park’s vicinities. As to the importance of getting women involved in canopy ecotourism he remembered a Rural Woman’s Meeting with the attendance of more than 200 women from seven municipalities surrounding Chapada dos Veadeiros National Park, a remarkable score considering the local cultural patterns. He believes women are the big trump in changing environmental attitudes, which includes initiatives to adopt innovative work and behaviors vis-à-vis new opportunities brought by ecotourism. He pointed out that there is potential for more canopy-access facilities. Adding that if they were of a contemplative type, it could tap in the marketing “segment” of those afraid of doing traditional acrobatic “arborism.” He finished his comments stating that “the national park creates islands of future in seas of the past,” referring to local action

24

towards the whole of socio-environmental changes the World has to face in current and upcoming times. Another interviewee was the president of the IEB – Instituto de Ecoturismo do Brasil, the Brazilian ecotourism institute, Mr. João Allievi. IEB is a class association dedicated to congregate the interests of ecotourism entrepreneurs for the further developing of ecotourism in Brazil. Besides being IEB’s president, Mr. Allievi is a renowned Brazilian spelunker and owns an ecotourism business. He possesses specific experience with canopy ecotourism, having helped with the establishment of Ecoparque de Una in Bahia. Mr. Allievi believes the “arborism” is heavily centered in challenge, emotion per se, with very little contemplative approach and almost no scientific research involved. He considers this the ideal moment to develop canopy ecotourism because ecotourism is very popular; its attending public is growing significantly. All IEB’s policies are aimed at the ecotourism development. He mentioned a national planning project carried out by the institute named “ecotourism poles,” which researched 96 places with potential for ecotourism development, indicating the best way of implementing it. He pointed out that IEB is not as active as it was in the past due to the national political scenario. His view is that the ruling party has avoided to direct resources to the institute, in part because they had a close relationship with governmental institutions once subjected to the former ruling party. In an exaggerated politization of state, it is seem as a kind of “affiliation” with the current opposition parties, resulting in isolation. He believes there is potential for more canopy-related entrepreneurships, but it is necessary to develop techniques that lead to Nature valorization, because up to now, in most cases it is not a focus, just a background. As a comparison he cited the descending technique rappel, used in mountain and caves that is currently being practiced in bridges and viaducts. As his final thought he believes the conventional “arborism” steep growth hides a bubble effect, which, in a no long time, will lead operators to start closing their businesses. Because most canopy-related human leisure activities practiced in Brazil fall within the “arborism” concept, a technical director of ABETA – Associação Brasileira de Empresários de Turismo de Aventura, the Brazilian association of adventure tourism entrepreneurs, Mr. Mássimo Desiati was also interviewed. Besides his position in ABETA, he co-owns an adventure tourism concession within a national park. Mr. Desiati remembered the common origin of ecotourism and adventure tourism, pointing to its current difference in objectives: the first is turned to Nature and the second aims mainly at a emotional experience. He put that opposite to Costa Rica, which utilizes its canopy infrastructure for scientific research; in Brazil there are many more facilities offering only challenging experiences. He believes Brazil’s tourism potential is not well known internationally. According to him, ABNT – Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas, the Brazilian association for technical standards is elaborating the standards for building and operating adventure tourism facilities and entrepreneurships. Although the technical rules embody environmental concerns, there is no specific regulation or parameter targeted at the environment, as there are regarding safety issues. ABETA is teaming up with the Ministry of Tourism to make the technical norms well known and adopted when they are ready.

25

About the social component of ecotourism, he agreed it is one of the basis of the activity, but considered it very difficult to work with local communities because activities like “arborism” require quality and it involve a lot of training. He thinks the growth of community environmental awareness is still slow and there is a need to show people the importance of preserving the environment, that it can be an income source and it also might help with scientific research. Mr. Desiati added that there is a lot of space for further development of canopy ecotourism in Brazil, mainly in the challenging modality, considering the national tourist profile and preferences. According to his view, there is a trend of Brazil becoming part of the international “arborism” circuit, and hence the recognition would come, as occured in Costa Rica. To complete the demand for expressive opinions in all major fields interacting in canopy ecotourism development, MSC Geraldo Antonio Daher Corrêa Franco was interviewed, a botanist from IF – Instituto Florestal do Estado de São Paulo, the São Paulo State Forest Institute. His research interests are very linked to what WFOs and canopy ecotourism facilities could provide, what motivated an invitation for him to collaborate with this study. He is the lead researcher in the project “characterization, dynamics and evaluation of forest ecosystems” and also participates in the “evaluation of permanent parcels” research group from USP, the University of São Paulo. Mr. Franco stated that he has little familiarity with canopy ecotourism, but as a botanist he frequently uses this portion of forest for collecting plant specimen. He also actively participates in the making management plans for protected areas his institution is in charge for. Mr. Franco believes there is a large potential for developing this kind of activity but is not sure whether it would be indicated to do so within protected areas. If so, it must follow the management plan guidelines and only be placed over zones already set aside for intensive use. It must be accompanied by a very detailed impact study, with the inclusion of the surrounding communities. However, he thinks canopy ecotourism is more suited for private areas where use could be more intense and where profiting is involved. According to Mr. Franco, it is possible and desirable to make the canopy-access structures available for scientific research. He finished by pointing out the importance of the facility offering benefits to the population, and it could definitely aggregate value for standing forests.

26

1.9

Sampling the canopyaccess sites

Canopy-access sites in Brazil: Survey Sampling

The large amount of about 104 canopy-access sites existing in Brazil made it necessary to perform a sampling strategy. This process resulted in 25 sites believed to form a good representation of the whole scenario of canopy-related tourism and leisure activities. The sampling process involved the determination of certain parameters to assure that the differences among canopy-related sites were well represented in the study. From the beginning it was known there was an imbalance between two types of sites: contemplative and challenging. The first type has a stronger correlation with the overall GCP policies for canopy ecotourism but only three of these have been pre-detected in operation. On the other hand, the challenging canopy pathways have blossomed and become popular, with thousands hanging around the canopy. So including them would be a way to prospect their potential to become permeable or cooperative with forest protection, increase in awareness and science studies due to the inherent intimacy they already have with the forest canopy itself. The criteria used were determined based on professional experience in ecotourism issues in Brazil and on a qualitative pre-assessment carried out to subsidize the study proposal. It included:
27

a. Physical canopy structure: Walkway, zip line, tower, etc; b. Ownership model: Private x institutional; c. Location: Nearby heavily populated places x backcountry (reach); d. Public access: Broad x exclusive (reach); e. Relationship with local community: Permeable x contained; f. Experience provided to users: Contemplative x challenging; g. Inductiveness for active perception and learning from forest, particularly the canopy ecosystem.

# 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Alias UNI IGU TOC JUV TUI NEB ALA ALT ARV YBI UNA CRI MAR ARI CUI UAT MAM CAX SEL CAN ECP RAN MIX GSM URB

Facility Name Parque Unipraias Cânion Iguaçu Toca da Raposa Parque da Juventude Tuím Parque Parque das Neblinas Alaya / MataDentro Altus Circuito Arvorismo Ybirá Pê Canopy Tour Ecoparque de Una Cristalino Jungle Lodge Fazenda Marupiara Ariaú Amazon Towers Rio Cuieiras Rio Uatumã Mamirauá - RDS Caxiuanã Selva Aventura Sítio Canoar Ecopoint Aventura no Rancho Ecoação Arvomix Grutas de São Miguel Arvorismo Urbano

State SC PR SP SP SP SP SP SP MS MS BA MT AM AM AM AM AM PA SP SP SP SP SP MS SP

Municipality Balneário Camboriú Foz do Iguaçu Juquitiba São Paulo São Sebastião Mogi das Cruzes Brotas Campos do Jordão Bonito Bonito Una Alta Floresta Presidente Figueiredo Novo Airão Manaus Manaus Tefé Portel Juquitiba Juquitiba Ilhabela Campos do Jordão Brotas Bonito Brotas

Table 03 – List of selected canopy-related sites, with localization (state and municipality).

28

Out of the 25 chosen sites, 13 were closely analyzed in this phase of study (Table 03 sites 01 to 13). Seven other sites (19 to 25) were visited during the field trip and were computed at region level. The remaining 5 sites are located in the Amazon and 4 of them (sites 14 to 17) were considered important to be closely researched but were not included due to funding restrictions. Four types of survey were used to get data at local level, as indicated below. Type I: Comprised dedicated site visits, yielding to personal interviews, direct evaluation of site structure and operation and photographic documentation; Type II: Comprised telephone surveys for updating and levelling information of sites where actual technical visits were done in recent past, yielding to interviews, direct evaluation of site structure and operation and photographic documentation; Type III: Comprised telephone surveys for gathering information on sites considered relevant but not covered on phase 1 of this study; this type yields to interviews, site description and classification and pictures provided by site operators; Type IV: A comprehensive information recollection with the objective of mapping occurrences of canopy ecotourism in a country level. It comprised personal or phone interviews with tourism authorities, subject-driven class organizations, canopy infrastructure constructors and ecotourism operators, as well as bibliographic and internet search. A complete depiction of these sampled sites is presented in the report’s annexes.

29

1.10

Study’s main conclusions
Conclusions

An analysis of canopy ecotourism in Brazil Scope and methodology - This study analyzed 25 canopy-access sites out of the near 100 expected existing and potential locations. Thirteen out of the 25 were closely investigated with field visits, interviews and systematic evaluation. Including interviews with people from fields that closely relates to canopy-access like facility owners, academic researcher, protected area managers and leaderships on both ecotourism and adventure tourism. Informal talks were done with the public attending to canopy leisure and tourism activities, guides, municipal officials and politicians, as well as rural property owners and a leadership in woman-rights. A complimentary bibliographic and internet research was also done. The above methodology yielded to a sound data collection upon which it was possible to drawn the present conclusions. Sustainable benefits - The analysis of all prospected information resulted in indication of the extent in which canopy-access activities and facilities promote sustainable benefits to forests and the associated communities. The results were summarized according to a set of 11 main aspects: planning; economic sustainability; ownership model; location; type of access: broad or exclusive; relationship with local community; impact and future potential of different kinds of canopy tourism; types of tourists tourism impacts; markets and cooperation between canopy facility, NGOs, and/ or research projects and GOs to ensure the protection of the environment.
30

Aspect of canopy ecotourism development

How it works and/or current examples

How it should be carried out to maximize sustainable benefits

Planning.

Most “arborism” site planning is limited to business strategies and minimizing direct impact on the resources. It lacks interpretation, awareness rising strategies and solid benefit generation and sharing with local communities, besides local employment. Challenging “arborism” sites are usually profitable whereas canopy ecotourism sites are most often purposefully subsidized. Since subsides are mostly limited, the site gets stranded in a vegetative operation mode. Private sites are numerous and pumps thousands to the canopy heights. They are limited, however, on the extent benefits are provided from site operation. Institutional sites have a more elaborated environmental and local socio-economic proposal but they lack economic sustainability. It seems there is an apparent incompatibility between being economically viable and socio-environmentally valuable. Exceptions apply to Cristalino Jungle Lodge and Tuim Parque. No community-owned facility has been detected and adjacent businesses are of little expression or inexistent on most sites.

Planning phase including local community participation. Site plan abides to strict ecotourism principles; Specific guidelines tailored for canopy-access site planning are made available in local language from a credited institution like GCP. Plan it for economic sustainability; if it is profitable, setup a reinvestment plan to further the originally planned benefits – land acquisition for conservation, local and neighboring ecosystem restoration, etc. Both models have potential to further the benefits generation. Institutional sites are prone to play a holistic role, addressing issues that depend on multidisciplinary collaboration. Privatelyowned sites can shape themselves based on demonstrative, successfully established institutional sites, like the CE performed at the WFO. These sites foster the development of local community adjacent businesses or even superspecialized canopyaccess sites, for example platforms to watch nocturnal fauna within private properties.

Economic sustainability.

Ownership model.

31

Location as conditioning factor for reaching the public.

Canopy-access sites located nearby heavily populated places allowed for large-scale public visitation. In the opposite hand, sites located far in the backcountry had, in general, lower visitation rates. Typical average visitation rates were 20 and 8 persons/ day in front and backcountry locations respectively. Parque Unipraias with 25 and Cristalino Jungle Lodge with 2 persons/ day are extreme examples of contrasting localization strategies.

Site localization depends on specific goals and objectives. A new canopy ecotourism facility located not far from large cities can be visited by an expressively higher number of people, allowing for large-scale awareness rising processes based on environmental interpretation and education carried out in connection with the facility. Backcountry locations or very far in the wild areas can provide good support for research, ecosystem protection and local community’s benefits but will be limited in reaching the public.

Type of access: broad or exclusive as conditioning factors for reaching the public.

It has been found different degrees of public accessibility to canopyaccess sites. Limiting factors are geographical isolation, pricey entrance fee and operation packaged with lodging. Most sites have special discount fees for local community members and schools visits. State-run Parque da Juventude offers challenging “arborism” free for anybody with operation capacity of 60 visitors/ day.

A recommended canopy ecotourism site in Brazil has broad public access. Everyone paying a reasonable entrance fee can participate in the canopy leisure, education and recreation activities. Any lodging or packaging with other ecotourism products is made available as an optional purchase. Local community’s members get a fee waiver and strategic education groups get specially reduced fees and dedicated activity program. A new canopy access site employs most of its personnel from local communities. Upon continued training programs local people become able to perform tasks like guiding,
32

Relationship with local community.

Most sites evaluated providing canopy access is contained; they showed little integration with local communities. The most common type of integration occurs with local employment

(average rate 95%) and discount or free entrance for local community members. The sites are, in general, welcome by local people but they didn’t generate a large amount of perceivable subsidiary benefits. They play a role in local environmental awareness rising by demonstrating that trees and forests can generate economic benefits even standing up. It is a good starting point to further this perception with actual involvement of expressive amount of local people in the direct and indirect benefits. There are some examples of ex-hunters working as tourists and scientist guides for fauna observation. Cristalino Jungle Lodge is the best studied case of canopy ecotourism facility permeable to the local community. Tuím Parque went further as giving live chicken and corn beans to known neighbor poachers asking them to forgo their illegal activity and get proteins from an alternative source.

interpreting, building and maintaining canopy aerial structures. In cooperation with SEBRAE (SEBRAE (Small Entrepreneurship Supporting Brazilian Agency) local people can become prepared to take advantage on potential working and entrepreneurship opportunities. The canopy ecotourism site helps in promoting or booking the local adjacent businesses and services to their visitors. Cooperative work among members of local communities is fomented from site planning to operation. Cooperative work applies well to handcraft making, transportation services, guiding services, food supplying, among others. To address the widespread poaching problem the site should assess and map the activity in the area through social engineering techniques. Special planning strategies are established to bring all poachers to work in association with tourism or with alternative jobs. There are regions in the Country where poachers are a link in a complex chain of consumption of wild animal flesh by people exhibiting higher social status. An effective canopy ecotourism facility has option for different public segments. Traditional canopy walkways and respective tree platforms are rare in Brazil and can be the new facility’s core
33

Impact and future Challenging aerial potential of different kinds walkways have attracted of canopy tourism. entrepreneurs and large public to the establishing of the majority of canopyaccess sites in Brazil. Due to its adrenaline-driven nature, it did not naturally

favor environmental interpretation. Hanging on apparently precarious and risky bridges drains user’s attention with the task of meeting the circuit’s challenge. Many “arborism” circuits end with a zip line section. Zip lines are not yet explored in its full potential. Canopy ecotourism contemplative sites resort on aerial walkways or towers. It has been observed from visitors’ impressions that these devices provided the most enjoyed experiences within the whole trip set. Types of tourists and the corresponding kinds of canopy tourism. In general, national tourists ask for challenging “arborism” circuits and international tourists ask for contemplative canopy ecotourism. Fazenda Marupiara illustrates this trend in a peculiar way: its physical structure is set for challenging experience but it has been used also by international birdwatchers. These specialized tourists are attracted by the Amazon biodiversity rather than by a personal equilibrium experience and find in the “arborism’s” tree platforms something useful for fulfilling their primary trip outcome. Schools have mainly used contemplative circuits for educational purposes but also challenging circuits for entertaining. Corporate training groups use challenging “arborism” to perform their team building and selfconfidence exercises.

canopy-access feature. It can also be composed of zip lines and challenging circuits. Observation towers that goes taller tan forest canopy are good and rare recourses in Brazil. Towers are attractive, outstanding and allow for most people getting a positive strong canopy experience, even those with moderate height panic. Zip lines with many intermediate platforms where the visitor travels extensively through the forest is a low impact structure with high experiential impact. A canopy-access facility targeted essentially to international ecotourists traveling through Brazil and South America will present structures to allow contemplative presence amidst the canopy. It includes compatible behavior of other visitors, which would not scream or excessively wave the aerial structure for fun. These are common behaviors associated with “arborism” sites. Depending on marketing opportunities, a site zoning can set places and structures for different experiences under the same management effort. Environmentally-oriented challenging circuits (notexistent in Brazil) can arise interest from the large national public to visiting the ecotourism facility.

34

Impacts created by different kinds of tourism.

The typical half-day “arborism” tourism usually generates ecosystem protection at the site level. It doesn’t provide environmental awareness rising nor it generates outstanding local benefits besides direct local employment. Canopy ecotourism sites tend to differ by providing strong interpretation programs. Canopy-access destinations yielding the greatest per visitor benefit generation are those where the lengths of stay include one or more overnights at the site or close to it.

Canopy-access sites oriented to “arborism” could enhance their environmental and social performance by adopting specific guidelines including innovative ways to use the walkways for fauna and flora perception, techniques for canopy environment interpretation with suggestion of materials and signing, and, of course, content or indication on how to fill the aerial trip with relevant and interesting environmental content. These guidelines instruct and stimulate the facility to make a difference in the local socio-environmental scenario with actions that could bring support for forest valuing and generating alternative local development opportunities. This supplemental information is referred in this report’s suggestions part (Item 2) as Canopy Knowledge layer - CKL. A new canopy access structure can target both the “arborism” market segment and the contemplative ecotourism. The first is appealing to a larger national public. The last attracts a type of public and has embodied attributes that generates the greatest sustainable benefits. Depending of site localization the site can target on one or both market segments.

Markets and market impact of the canopy facility.

“Arborism” circuits became very popular in Brazil. The main facilities provide real canopy physical access but there are many other facilities built up within beach and country hotels and leisure resorts following public demand. Not having necessarily trees involved, the item contributes for clients ranking them as a full featured hotel (somewhat similar to having / not having swimming pool). Canopy ecotourism has a

35

small market footprint, with only three known facilities with 20,250 visitors per year, a 23 % share of 87,930 total canopy visitors in the studied sites. It has been estimated a Country total between 270,000 and 500,000 total visitors. Cooperation between canopy facility, NGOs, and/ or research projects and GOs to ensure the protection of the environment. A few examples of cooperation between canopy facility, NGOs and research projects have been seen involving the “arborism” facilities. Tuím Parque has an informal partnership with a neighbor State Park for helping to avoid invasion and poach. Ecoparque de Una, Cristalino Jungle Lodge and Parque das Neblinas, all canopy ecotourism sites, are closely associated with environmental NGOs and have given support for academic and scientific research. These sites also cooperate with neighbors public protected areas. Cooperation with NGOs can rationalize and further the proposed canopy tourism-anchored socioeconomic and environmental benefits. These institutions come from the social, environmental, commercial, rural, entrepreneurial, and women rights sectors. Strict cooperation should also be carried out with the three governmental spheres: municipality, state and federal. During the pre-planning all interacting institution should be identified and invited to take part in the planning phase that is participatory. This phase should count not only with the organized social organization but also with local leaderships. Startup NGO’s participation in the planning efforts might include assigning them with customized, funded assessments studies in their working areas. To bring academic and scientific interest it is important to make targeted diffusion of information about the potential and demand for studies in the facility. The canopy access facility can enhance support for research making it
36

available at the site lodging, basic laboratory and communication (phone, internet) for academic students and scientists.

37

2

Recommenda tions for GCP action

Recommendations for GCP operation in Brazil concerning canopy ecotourism

Regarding canopy ecotourism, GCP could play fundamental roles in addressing the detected issues in the national scenario as well as helping in improving the reach of the positive benefits the activity has already being able to promote. This study concluded that a recurring underlying problem with the canopy-access facilities in Brazil is the lack of strategic envisioning. Doing mainly “arborism”, studied facilities don’t follow systematic procedures which would contemplate the achievement of sustainable benefits at a collective level. They mostly explore a marketing niche or follow an individualized institution policy, leaving aside a number of potential actions, even small ones, which could result in large-scale differences in the forest protection, awareness rising and knowledge advancement. Ecotourism sites have a better approach to it. The energetic approach GCP embraces in dealing with the forest cause, along with the strong body of scientific knowledge it represents make the institution an ideal partner to national and local initiatives in providing forests and their canopies affairs with an accessible, strategic view for the so needed sustainable use, awareness rising and knowledge advancement.

38

2.1

GCP >> WFO

Whole Forest Observatories (WFO) – Establishing it with a holistic approach

The findings of this canopy ecotourism study allow recommending GCP to consider a range of complimentary action levels, from the abstract virtual grounds of the Internet to the heavily physical construction work of aerial canopy walkways. The suggestions (Table 04) include working on providing the paths for adaptive diffusion of information and knowledge; on implementation of demonstrative canopy ecotourism sites; on upgrading canopy-access facilities with an environment-driven knowledge layer and assuring excellence as the standard canopy-access operation through the establishment of a green label, as further explained below and in section 2.2. Diffusion of information and knowledge - This action line’s main goal is contributing to fill in the knowledge gap affecting the management of canopy-driven leisure and tourism initiatives. In a global scale there is a lot of scientific and technical knowledge about forest and canopy specifics, resulting from years of research efforts and cumulated experiences. This body of knowledge seems not perceivably available by parties involved with implementing and operating canopy-related facilities, nor is it to officials in charge of making policies, planning and ruling the activity at larger scales. Even further from recognizing the values of tree-tops ecosystems are the majority of national visitors to canopy-access facilities, as well as local communities which have forests as a raw material for development, whichever way the forests could bring it.
39

GCP World-wide action Actions in Brazil Actions toward extending the sustainable benefits associated with canopy ecotourism
ADIK
ADAPTIVE DIFFUSION OF INFORMATION AND KNOWLEDGE

SEW
SOCIO-ENVIRONMENTAL WORK

WEB+
EXTENDING THE REACH OF THE GCP WEB SPACE

LABEL
ASSURING EXCELLENCE AS THE STANDARD CANOPYACCESS OPERATION

BRIDGE
IGNITING INTERESTS OVER CANOPY-RELATED MATTERS FOR WHOM IT MATTERS

WFO
BUILDING UP DEMONSTRATIVE, EFFECTIVE, CANOPY ECOTOURISM SITES WITHIN PLANNED WFO

CKL
UPGRADING CANOPY-ACCESS FACILITIES WITH A KNOWLEDGE LAYER

Canopy Ecotourism Module
SITE CHOICE PRE-PLAN STUDIES PARTICIPATORY PLANNING FINAL PLANNING IMPLEMENTING MONITORING

Table 04: suggested approaches for GCP action towards canopy ecotourism in Brazil An indicator of this unawareness is the overall lack of knowledge, in Brazil, about the GCP, even among people professionally dealing directly with the canopy. It is important to expand general awareness towards GCP beyond strict botany and ecology circles. To aid that, it is proposed the development of an adaptive diffusion of information and knowledge (ADIK) process. It is a method where the global canopy-related or forest as a whole body of knowledge is made selectively available for target groups, with a built in strategy to make it prone for occurring its re-transmission for adjacent groups when these interact socially, institutionally or commercially. It is a low-energy process of replicating ownership of knowledge, minimizing institutional investment in information campaigns. The following strategies could be pursued to create an ADIK environment toward the forest canopy in Brazil: Extending the reach of the GCP web space (WEB+) To have a section of GCP website in Portuguese is a first realized step toward beaming forest and canopy-related information over the Brazilian community. As a second webrelated move, the website could be expanded and restructured to communicate better with the different social groups that could be accessing it in a foreseen future, as an ADIK strategic plan is put forward. As in the forest strata, the site should be made out of layers of information, presented in proper forms that allow for stronger visitor’s adherence. It should arouse interest and constitute of practical usefulness for a wide range of people. To grasp the idea in one simple image, in an ideal stage, GCP webpage should naturally be the browser’s home page for anyone dealing on a daily basis with forest canopy.

40

Igniting interests over canopy-related matters for whom it matters (BRIDGE) The distance non-scientific canopy-related groups keep from actually looking for relevant field-specific information, like these potentially offered through GCP website, is sufficiently large to demand initial, active bridging strategies. Selective information campaign and exchange events could be set up for groups like canopy goers, canopy tourism entrepreneurs, environment and tourism officials, protected area managers, education and school didactic advisers and managers and, off course, the scientificacademic community. Campaigns targeted to these interest groups should be specific and effort-concentrated. As an opportunity and suggestion it could be co-organized or co-sponsored the 1st National (or International) Congress on Canopy Ecotourism, joining people from government; academy – both researchers and students; tourism trade; NGOs, services and canopy equipment suppliers, among others. This could be a salient starting point to further GCP actions toward canopy ecotourism in Brazil. Another good landmark would be to launch a series of technical training seminars or courses for environmentally-wise canopy-access site operation and policy making, for the respective target publics. This could happen before and after the WFO canopy ecotourism sites get built. This training effort would be a good match for spreading out the proposed CKL as explained below. GCP could also participate in ecotourism and adventure travel congresses and fairs in Brazil, as other international environmental NGOs already do. Canopy-related research award, grants or scholarships could be cosponsored by GCP in partnership with international and national science or education multilateral institutions or even private corporations. Upgrading canopy-access facilities with a knowledge layer (CKL) This action aims to make dozens of kilometers of blind canopy walkways into effective places of whole interaction with the canopy ecosystem. Most current canopy facilities provide good canopy-access hardware, with fairly good standards for safety and impact reduction. But they put people at the canopy level without providing any canopyspecific content on their experience. It just misses a knowledge layer or topping. Besides acting in bringing the interest of facility’s managers and users in extending the experience to a further, environmentally fit dimension, GCP could develop a piece of information, specially crafted to match the current operations, that adds ecosystemintelligence to it. It would be a Canopy Knowledge Layer – CKL, which could be seen as environment-oriented software for the “arborism” hardware. Within this analogy, currently, this kind of hardware is only supplied with adventure game-like software, even being able to run otherwise. Supplying a well structured CKL, customized to the marketing and culture associated with these facilities could make them drift from “pure emotion” to “emotion with a cause” model of operation. This study sensed the receptivity of such standard shift among entrepreneurs and clients and concluded it would be well accepted and would add to the overall experience. An ideal CKL should be not centered just in biology aspects but on the whole social and environmental aspects related to the forest and its canopy. The envisioned CKL should be like an operation manual for fourth-dimensional human presence in the canopy, including suggestion for innovative ways to use the walkways for fauna and flora perception, techniques for canopy environment interpretation with suggestion of materials and signing, and, of course, content or indication on how to fill the aerial trip with relevant and interesting environmental
41

content. Another part should instruct and stimulate the facility to make a difference in the local socio-environmental scenario with actions that could bring support for forest valuing and generating alternative local development opportunities. Assuring excellence as the standard canopy-access operation (LABEL) As long as information and stimulus, as above suggested, are made available for allowing a higher level of canopy-access operation, GCP in partnership with local institutional counterpart could launch a certification-like quality label for canopy ecotourism and similar operations. Facilities either doing ecotourism or “arborism” willing to follow a strict set of operation rules and standards could receive a certificate of compliment making them credited sites for good canopy-access. This voluntary commitment should make the adhering facilities develop and maintain their full potential for generating the sustainable benefits on socio-economic, environmental, socio-cultural and knowledge advancement. In the other hand, the operators would develop a sense of affiliation with a party that represents the conscience and knowledge about forest and canopy. This feeling of being part of a larger effort for conservation and awareness rising should boost voluntary actions and interest on make a difference through their operations, being them important nodes in the ADIK process, because under their discretion, thousands of people will shape their canopy experience. Off course, the certification would also increase their profiting potentials. Concerns GCP should consider before adopting any strategy on this direction is to assure the green label is not equated to an ISO-like certification, which is almost impossible for most canopy-operations to fulfill all requirements. Certification for adopting canopy-wise operation standards cannot assure that visitor’s personal safety would be guaranteed. Ideally, another local certification would take care of this aspect. ABETA and ABNT are preparing the rules for creating and operating canopy facilities. Depending on how the government will promote the norms enforcement, it would offset this problem. The last concern is the operational contours on how to concede site certification and supervise whether they are complying with the standards. A narrow cooperation with a local institution would be the best way to go, providing, if not the GCP stamp, the know-how needed to develop such a certification project. This study sensed the receptivity for the adoption of a green certification among canopy-access entrepreneurs and concluded it would be well accepted.

42

2.2

WFO >> CEM

Building up demonstrative, effective, canopy ecotourism sites

The building up of physical canopy ecotourism sites would be the ultimate contribution GCP would do for qualitative enhancement of canopy-related facilities in Brazil. These sites are expected to be part of the already planned Whole Forest Observatories – WFOs to be developed in the Amazon and Atlantic Forest Biomes. These sites would extend the reach of their positive impact way beyond the site-specific realm. They could become strong demonstrative canopy ecotourism sites, as it already happens with the Ecoparque de Una in Bahia. WFO’s canopy ecotourism modules (CEM) should be planned from the ground to maximize the sustainable benefits the activity as a whole can yield to. Aspects as diverse as marketing issues, tangible generation of direct and indirect socio-economic and socio-cultural impact and broad, significant public attendance should be rigorously taken into account in the planning process. Off course these canopy-access sites will be core-committed to function as scientific research observatories, for impact or other types of investigations, demonstrating how ecotourism and science can and should walk together at the canopy level. Insights for specific planning guidelines were taken from the collected information and observations made for this study on operating canopy-access sites and are presented below.
43

Site choice This is the initial step upon which several other canopy ecotourism aspects will be a function of. It is known from the marketing theory that a tourism provider can supply an existing demand with the corresponding product. This demand can be revealed or potential but must be in some way pre-existent. The necessary effort to create new demand for a latent offer is often beyond the reach of investments set to a local/regional scale. Specific demand for canopy-related leisure and tourism is, in its turn, dependent on the facility placement and can change radically from place to place. If the intent were to build a facility only committed with ecotourism, placement could be consequence of choice factors like tourism access, proximity to emission markets (if targeted for national demand), existence of local/indigenous communities in the surroundings that could directly and indirectly benefit from the facility, correspondence with a local protected areas, among others. Being the ecotourism operation part of a WFO, it is natural that the process of determining site location takes into consideration specific science-related parameters that might eventually override optimum parameters for an ecotourism-driven site. In any case it should be possible to plan for maximizing the sustainable benefits provided by the site’s ecotourism operation, although it should be expected different benefits range depending on where the site is. To illustrate this, let’s consider the range of benefits generated from a site located thousands of kilometers deep in the forest, away from any human settlement, with only helicopter access departing from a major city and attending about 300 visitors per year, which is not an unreal projection in Brazil. Another feasible perspective could be a site with conventional access where a larger spectrum and number of visitors could go, attracted mainly by the canopy facility and, once there, they could spend more days in the region, being supplied with services and goods by an engaged local community that, before the facility establishment, was threatening the local forest environment while attending its resource needs. Any of these extremes could be excellent spots for biodiversity and species-interaction studies depending on biological issues and could compensate building up a WFO. The ecotourism module, however, should be planned in a rather different way in each situation. The following factors are considered depending on the site choice (Chart 01): facility’s economic sustainability; the extent of direct benefits to local people that will be generated; the extent of indirect benefits to local people that will be generated; the extent of the public which will benefit from the existence of the facility; the magnitude of awareness rising as consequence of the previous three factors; the extent of protected areas or endangered species that will benefit from the facility’s existence; the types of visitors, like schools, international tourists, national adventure seekers, etc; and the specific types of activities/canopy infrastructure to offer/ build. Pre-plan studies Once defined the site location, a series of pre-plan studies should take place, including (Chart 01): A marketing research with a survey application should determine the specific canopy ecotourism vocation based on the available or latent demand; In-deep socio-economic and socio-cultural research aimed at evaluating the potential and willingness for local community to integrate with the ecotourism project; Environmental assessment to map the fragilities and opportunities to take into account while actually planning the facility with a view for sustainability and extended benefits for natural habitats and protected areas; Potential interactions and specific needs scientists and
44

academic researches would place over canopy-access infrastructure based on the broader WFO scientific demands and goals; and search for local, national and international institutions and people from NGO, private or public sectors with potential for interacting with the project at planning, execution and operation stages. With these studies done, a draft planning can take place yet within the scope of GCP and WFO direct partners with proper ecotourism planning assistance.

SITE CHOICE > PRE-PLAN STUDIES > PARTICIPATORY PLANNING > FINAL PLANNING

SITE CHOICE DEPENDENCIES

Facility’s economic sustainability

Extent of direct benefits to local people Extent of protected areas that will benefit

Extent of the public which will benefit

Types of visitors

Extent of indirect benefits to local people

Magnitude of awareness rising

Specific types of activities to offer

PRE-PLAN STUDIES Marketing research; Collaboration and partnership search Socio-economic and socio-cultural research Environmental assessment for planning / monitoring Science and academic specific needs / integration

PARTICIPATORY PLANNING ASPECTS AND ACTORS Facility design and building strategies Operation guidelines and procedures Carrying-capacity assessment Visitor impact management strategy A marketing & business plan

Types and quality of experience to be offered Customized training strategy

Interpretation and signing

Multiple-domain impact monitoring

Facility’s local socioeconomic and sociocultural intertwining

Actors: local communities, ecotourism, adventure tourism and scientific-academic sectors as well as protected area officials

Chart 01 – Site choice dependencies, pre-plan studies and participatory planning Participatory planning A further planning implementation would involve the participation of local communities, ecotourism, adventure tourism and scientific-academic sectors as well as protected area officials (Chart 01). Besides being part of the new ecotourism process from its beginning, getting their support, their inputs should allow for refinement of proposals, amendments or substitution if necessary.
45

The planning should encompass the typical aspects referring to facility’s building up and operation, including site layout, carrying capacity determination, visitor impact management strategy, types and quality of experience to be offered, interpretation, multiple-domain impact monitoring (environmental, social, cultural, economic), etc. A marketing plan should be developed, aiming at institutional and commercial divulgation. This should provide visibility to the upcoming WFO site, beyond academic walls. It should gather interests for cooperation and interaction with the site from multiple sectors such as government, environmental and social NGOs, tourism trade, education, local stakeholders, among others. The marketing strategies should be backed by a business plan, with mechanisms that allow educational and local’s visits be free of charge or at discount fees as well as a deep local socio-economic and sociocultural intertwining. A customized training strategy should be developed addressing the local communities. The aim is enlightening them about taking advantage of the opportunities the WFO’s ecotourism module brings out. This process could vary depending on particular local characteristics. It can be guide courses, workshops for craftwork abilities and traditions rescue; rural cooperative initiatives; or creative entrepreneurship, among others. Canopy-access site operators and institutions participating in this study should be involved in this part by sharing their experiences. This demand fits well with the experience of Cristalino Jungle Lodge, Ecoparque de Una and Tuím Parque Specificities about the ecotourism product should be carefully designed considering its multiple affecting factors. As an illustration, when a site location is determined and the corresponding marketing research demonstrate it has a large potential for what is “arborism”, i.e. near popular national tourist destinations, the canopy-access facility could have a mixed approach where a circuit could be followed through different paths with different challenging levels. Visitors could go through plain walkways or acrobaticstyle walkways, with common platforms specially designed for ecosystem perception and interpretation, independently of the path used to get there. One possible design could make these two types of ways converging to the highest platform, a large interpretative one, with a seductive all-public escape-route made though a zip line all the way down. This study has detected a demand for contemplative aerial circuits when asking “arborism” facility managers about expansion plans. It seems that part of the people attending their sites did not feel comfortable with the acrobatic thing. Many other specific design solutions and features for extending the range of sustainable benefits should come out with the actual WFO canopy ecotourism module planning. Final planning A final planning should be drawn with the assurance that the WFO’s ecotourism module will perform at its best. The plan should embody strategies for preventing negative impacts and maximizing sustainable benefits. All planning phases should be coordinated by an ecotourism planning specialist. The sites should be made and marketed as models of canopy-access operation. It should be particularly concerned in broadening the generation of indirect benefits to local population, which seems to be a small-scale effect on current canopy-access sites. Properly planned and implemented WFO’s ecotourism sites can raise the bar on this matter in Brazil.
46

2.3

Empowering woman

Empowering women through Canopy Ecotourism sensitive development

Within the Brazilian canopy-access conjuncture, women’s condition reflects the overall Country’s gender inequality, with only 41.4% employment in the sampled facilities. It was noticed that when the facility’s manager or owner was a female, the proportion of female working at it was equal or frequently larger than 50%. One good example comes from Cristalino Jungle Lodge’s owner Vitoria da Riva Carvalho. Besides employing 8 women out of 14 people, she has actively stimulated local people to provide alternative visiting places with food, fish tanks, orchids and art crafts. Ecotourists are then taken to visit, experience and buy on these sites. These satellite businesses also have more women than men at work. In order to promote women’s empowering through canopy ecotourism sensitive development, it has been identified four instances where intervention could make a difference in the quantity and quality of women participation. These are planning, training, operating and fomenting (Table 06). The participatory planning process should have local community participation. Odds are most if not all attending people were men. A strategy should be implemented to allow women participating at significant level. Because the planning phase is where
47

mechanism and principles for women inclusion are incorporated in all aspects of the future operation, it is fundamental to have them seeding it at this core level. Instance Planning Training Operating Fomenting Intervention Woman-intensive participatory planning Quota-defined men/women participation Equal gender employment policy Seeding for women cooperative work Stimulus for women entrepreneurship Selective funding for micro-businesses

Table 06 – Instances and interventions for woman empowerment This women-intensive planning should not be limited to the community level participation because some inputs require women imprints that surpass typical localpeople experience. Women occupancy of higher hierarchy job posts is an indicator of empowerment. To achieve this status, which is not the natural trend, it is important to invest in training. The training process required for good facility’s intertwining with the local socioeconomic and socio-cultural fabric can accommodate two instances favoring women empowerment: it can have courses targeted to women affairs, furthering their existing abilities; and, for other functions, it can be defined a system for male/female quota in training courses and classes. A third intervention strategy can be carried out in the facility’s operation phase, following a policy of equal gender employment. Outside the facility, a number of women empowerment actions can be set within what could be referred as “fomenting”. It includes seeding for women cooperative work; stimulus for women entrepreneurship and selective start-up funding (loans, donations) for women-oriented micro-businesses.

48

Annex 1

Site-to-site analysis

Canopy Ecotourism site-to-site analysis – A synoptic view

This section depicts each studied site with a summary of its main characteristics. Each canopy-access facility in the core-set (sites 01 to 13) is presented with a “Quick View” table, a researcher’s impression comment and the photo record with six selected pictures taken during the field work or supplied by site owners. The Quick View table presents the following information: date when the facility was built; aerial circuit length or tower tall; type of ownership; type of area; size of area used or owned; canopy activity offered; visitor number per year; ecotourism status; average admission price; total revenue; cost of establishing the facility; total employment; percentage of local employment; percentage of woman employment. For further detailed information refer to the annexed data tables. The remainder sites from the selected 25 were researched without the same detail profundity as the core-set. Therefore they are shown in this section with the researcher’s impression comment only.

49

Parque Unipraias

01

Avenida Normando Tedesco, 1355/ Barra Sul. Balneário Camboriú/ SC/ 88330-000 Contact person: Gustavo Bauer Tel (47) 3360 0274 e-mail: atendimento@unipraias.com.br www.unipraias.com.br

Date when the 2002 facility was built Aerial circuit length/ 140m tower tall Private / Owned by National Visitor number 10000 /year Total revenue Ǿ Ecotourism status 5/6 % Local 80%

Type of area RPPN Challenging AC Canopy activity / Cable car Size of area 8.5ha used/owned Admission price R$ 23.00 Cost of R$ 250000.00 establishing Total Employment 73 % Woman 40%

Parque Unipraias is a mass market privately-owned ecotourism semi-urban facility. It is based on a cable car transportation system linking two adjacent beaches in the Balneário Camboriu town. Besides travelling over a steep hill covered with wellpreserved Atlantic Forest, the visitor can disembark at the top hill station where two other thematic experiences are available: the “Environmental Park” and the “Adventure Park”. The first offers a walk through the interpretative circuit which intercalates forest ground trails and belvederes; the second gives visitors the opportunity to do the canopy “arborism” with a 12-part challenging aerial walkway. The Unipraias have an educational project called school-park which is co-sponsored by a major national energy company. School groups visit the park with special activities and guidance with goals in environmental learning and education. Under the project these groups pay a discount entrance fee. The park’s existence is a guarantee that the forest hill it occupies will be permanently preserved, against the coastal towns trend of sprawling over adjacent hills. Before the park establishment the area was threatened by poaching, deforestation and environmentally aggressive stone-blocks extraction. The park has restored the environment in the stone extraction areas and takes care of the whole forest surveillance.
50

Photo Record – Parque Unipraias – Date: 26/Nov/2006

Photos by Ismael Nobre

51

Cânion Iguaçu

02

Rodovia das Cataratas, Km 27/ PNI Foz do Iguaçu/ PR/ 85853-000 Contact person: Marcelo Skaf Tel (45) 3529 6040 e-mail commercial@campodedesafios.com.br www.campodedesasafios.com.br

Date when the 2003 facility was built Aerial circuit length/ 120m tower tall Private / Owned by National Visitor number 10000 /year Total revenue R$ 450000.00 Ecotourism status 4/6 % Local 100%

Type of area National Park Challenging Canopy activity aerial circuit Size of area 0.3ha used/owned Admission price R$ 85.00 Cost of R$ 700000.00 establishing Total Employment 32 % Woman 43.75%

Cânion Iguaçu is the only canopy-access facility associated with a national park in Brazil. It is a private concession within Iguaçu National Park. It offers a challenging aerial walkway, indoor climbing wall, rock climbing, rafting and rappel from an elevated platform near the waterfalls. No interpretative information is given to visitors. Guides supervise and instruct the visitor’s progress over the challenging sequence of aerial bridges and cable passages within the “arborism” activity. The circuit is supported by wood poles instead of living trees to minimize impact and maintenance. It has been noted a frequent presence of mammal fauna around the circuit, including monkeys, an indicative that human impacts are of little extent and well handled. The park concessionaire expansion plans include building up a contemplative aerial circuit offering traditional canopy ecotourism experience. They voluntarily expressed willingness to work with GCP in any canopy-related project involving the forests of Iguaçu National Park. One botany academic research with epiphyte bromelia has been done aided by site’s canopy-access structures. The facility regularly receives school teachers and students within Park’s environmental education program.

52

Photo Record – Cânion Iguaçu – Date: 16/Jan/2007

Photos by Ismael Nobre

53

Toca da Raposa
Toca da Raposa - Lazer e Cultura

03

Rodovia Regis Bittencourt Juquitiba/ SP/ 06950-000 Contact person: Regina Tel (11) 3032 1315 e-mail: tocadaraposa@tocadaraposa.com.br www.tocadaraposa.com.br

Date when the 1995 facility was built Aerial circuit length/ 150m tower tall Private / Owned by National Visitor number 15000 /year Total revenue R$ 20000.00 Ecotourism status 4/6 % Local 100%

Type of area Non protected Challenging Canopy activity aerial circuit Size of area 8ha used/owned Admission price R$ 45.00 Cost of Not informed establishing Total Employment 20 % Woman 75%

Privately owned and operated Toca da Raposa “arborism” site is located in a 50 km radius from the 20-million inhabitant’s metropolitan region of São Paulo. Its main visitors, mostly formed by school groups, come from that huge market place. Besides offering a challenging canopy aerial circuit detached from any representative forest environment, there are two other features that compound the biggest site attractions: an Indian village replica and the wild animal’s rehabilitation centre. Both circuits offer rich cultural and environmental interpretation guided schemes. The village is authentically made by members of the Xingu ethnic group. It works as an Indian’s outpost in the civilized world and also as a cultural interchange centre. A group of forest-living Indians come annually from Mato Grosso State (MT) for a 45-day campaign when Indian’s culture and values are presented to young and adult white men. They also use the opportunity to sell their art products. Few academic researches in botany and zoology have been done within the site and none relies on the canopy-access structure. Entrance fee waiver is conceded to public schools; the facility works energetically on rising local’s environmental awareness.

54

Photo Record – Toca da Raposa – Date: 23/Nov/2006

Photos by Ismael Nobre

55

Parque da Juventude

04

Avenida Zaki Narki, 1309 São Paulo/ SP Contact person: Rodrigo Abrantes Tel (11) 6251 2706 e-mail: contato@corpodeguias.com.br www.sejel.sp.gov.br/parquedajuventude

Date when the 2002 facility was built Aerial circuit length/ 226m tower tall Owned by Government Visitor number 8400 /year Total revenue 0 Ecotourism status 4/6 % Local 100%

Type of area State Park Challenging Canopy activity aerial circuit Size of area 24ha used/owned Admission price R$ 0.00 Cost of R$ 124000.00 establishing Total Employment 8 % Woman 25%

Parque da Juventude State Park has been recently built in a deactivated penitentiary area in downtown São Paulo. Besides having jogging tracks, sport courts and open space walkways it offers a challenging canopy-access structure of “arborism” type. Its use is free of charge for all visitors, though the canopy circuit it is limited to 60 persons /day in groups of 15. The activity focuses on sport and leisure and no environmental interpretation is currently offered. A biologist-led environmental interpretation program is in preparation to be carried out in its ground trails. Although Park’s forest patch is secondary and mixed with exotic species eucalyptus, it is a rare sample of Atlantic Forest that survived the metropolis’ devastating urban development. It could happen only because it was hidden for decades within prison’s walls. There is a great potential for contemplative aerial walkways driven at the canopy environment. Twenty million inhabitants live within a 20 km radius and could benefit with environmental awareness experiences and scale-significant canopy recreation.

56

Photo Record – Parque da Juventude – Date: 27/Nov/2006

Photos by Ismael Nobre

57

Tuím Parque

05

Rua do Palmital, 122 São Sebastião/ SP/ 11600-000 Contact person: José Luiz Nadai Tel: (12) 3867 2097 e-mail: tuim@tuimparque.com.br www.tuimparque.com.br

Date when the 2004 facility was built Aerial circuit length/ 250m tower tall Private / Owned by National Visitor number 7.200 /year Total revenue R$ 100000.00 Ecotourism status 4/6 % Local 100%

Type of area Law Protected Challenging AC Canopy activity Zip/ A Walkway Size of area 6500ha used/owned Admission price R$ 50.00 Cost of R$ 150000.00 establishing Total Employment 17 % Woman 35%

Tuím Parque is located in a private land adjacent to Atlantic Forest Serra do Mar State Park. It buffers state park, helping to protect it from urban sprawl encroachment. There has been an informal but effective cooperation between Tuim and the state park. Tuím Parque has implemented proactive management practices aimed at bringing the local community to support the conservation it promotes while also benefiting from the attracted tourism. Because local community didn’t have continued tradition on handcraft making, Tuím Parque’s owner José Luis Nadai managed to hire an instructor who teaches them the necessary techniques and abilities. It is the Arte no Sertão project. The handcrafts are then sold in the park’s visitor center shop. The park hired a currently former poacher for helping with trail maintenance and guiding. The canopy-access physical structure is directly supported by primary-forest trees and comprises a challenging walkway sequence, two short zip lines and two traditional ecotourism aerial walkways. Guided forest day hikes and kayak trips are also offered. Four college-level ecotourism academic researches have been done in the park. Typical clients are corporate training groups and nearby beach tourists.

58

Photo Record –Tuím Parque – Date: 19/Nov/2006

Photos by Ismael Nobre

59

Parque das Neblinas

06

Sertão dos Freires Mogi das Cruzes/ SP Contact person: Guilherme Rocha Dias Tel: (11) 4724 0556 e-mail: gdias@ecofuturo.org.br www.ecofuturo.org.br

Date when the 2001 facility was built Aerial circuit length/ 150m tower tall Owned by NGO Visitor number 12000 /year Total revenue R$ 29000.00 Ecotourism status 5/6 % Local 90%

Type of area RPPN Canopy activity Aerial Walkway Size of area 2800ha used/owned Admission price R$ 30.00 Cost of Not informed establishing Total Employment 19 % Woman 48%

Parque das Neblinas park is operated by NGO Instituto Ecofuturo, which is the environmental arm of a big paper and cellulose corporation. The park embodies the highest standards for protected area establishment and management: from ecosystem restoration to guided visitation with strong emphasis in environmental awareness and Nature interpretation. The canopy-access structures are divided in two sectors: the aerial walkways and the hanging bridge river crossing. Neblinas is heavily visited by school groups. It offers also forest ground trails, kayaking and waterfall baths. The canopy ecotourism activity is, however, visitors’ most famous and liked experience. Parque das Neblinas aids conservation of neighbour’s Serra do Mar State Park by buffering it and rising environmental awareness in the local community. It employed a former poacher which embraced new environmental values and spread them out within the community. Parque das Neblinas has supported college-level researches for fauna observation, offering lodging, transportation and food.

60

Photo Record – Parque das Neblinas – Date: 17/Nov/2006

Photos by Ismael Nobre

61

Alaya – Ecoparque

07

Avenida Mário Pinotti, 230 Brotas/ SP Contact person: Marcio Vaz Tel: (14) 3653 5656 e-mail: marcio@alaya.com.br www.alaya.com.br

Date when the 2005 facility was built Aerial circuit length/ 1370m tower tall Private / Owned by Local Visitor number 4080 /year Total revenue R$ 44200.00 Ecotourism status 3/6 % Local 90%

Type of area Law Protected Challenging AC Canopy activity and Zip Line Size of area 55ha used/owned Admission price R$ 99.00 Cost of R$ 105000.00 establishing Total Employment 23 % Woman 13%

Alaya is a holding company which operates two canopy-access facilities in Brotas, a municipality that became famous for its large portfolio of adventure tourism and ecotourism activities. One is the Verticália, an “arborism” adventure centre; the other is Mata Adentro Ecoparque, mixing challenging “arborism” and zip line. Verticália has been built up in a small rural property adjacent to Jacarepepira River, which is famous for its rafting activities. The place, a former sugarcane plantation area, is being restored with its native forest. Ecoparque is located in a forested river bank permanent protection area belonging to a historic deactivated hydroelectric power plant. Alaya has set up its 4-sector, 1,200m-long zip line crossing a 60 m deep canyon allowing sliding visitors a bird’s view of a sequence of four beautiful waterfalls. No environmental interpretation process is carried out at the sites, which are focused solely on adventure. Alaya has also a consulting team which has projected tens of “arborism” facilities for third parties country-wide. Their main building system uses live trees (preferably eucalyptus) with wood platforms fixated in the bottom with two pairs of squeezing bars. Periodical maintenance changes the position which the bars touch the trunk.

62

Photo Record – Alaya / Ecoparque – Date: 10/Nov/2006

Photos by Ismael Nobre

63

Altus

08

Avenida Brasil, 108/ Cadji Plaza/ Loja 1 Campos do Jordão/ SP/ 12460-000 Contact person: Udo Alexandre Vagner Tel: (12) 3663 4122 e-mail: udo@altus.tur.br www.altus.com.br

Date when the 1999 facility was built Aerial circuit length/ 2.017m tower tall Private / Owned by Local Visitor number 9000 /year Total revenue R$ 37000.00 Ecotourism status 4/6 % Local 100%

Type of area State Park Challenging Canopy activity aerial circuit Size of area 8.4ha used/owned Admission price R$ 85.00 Cost of R$ 260000.00 establishing Total Employment 30 % Woman 30%

Altus is an adventure company which operates two canopy-access facilities in Campos do Jordão, a municipality that became famous for its mountain climate and charming tourism. They are the Bosque do Silêncio “arborism” circuit and the Campos do Jordão State Park. Bosque do Silêncio has been built up in a patch of native forest that has resisted to intense urban sprawl. It is a private conservation area whose owner receives 10% of the canopy-activity operation revenue. This is considered an important factor in the current and future conservation status of the area. Their 12m-tall aerial pathways reach 1877 m in length in two independent circuits. Altus operation in Campos do Jordão State Park is only 140 m long but it pioneered partnership with a public protected area back in 1999. Besides a small nominal monthly fee, Altus pays the salary of one park ranger. No environmental interpretation process is carried out at the sites in connection with the “arborism”, which is focused solely on adventure. One undergrad study about amphibian was carried out at their Bosque do Silêncio site.

64

Photo Record – Altus – Date: 11/Nov/2006

Photos by Ismael Nobre

65

Circuito Arvorismo

09

Rua Monte Castelo, 826 Bonito/ MS/ 79290-000 Contact person: Rubens Magalhães Tel: (67) 3255 2740 e-mail: rubens@viabonito.com.br www.circuitoarvorismo.com.br

Date when the 1999 facility was built Aerial circuit length/ 350m tower tall Private / Owned by Local Visitor number 1800 /year Total revenue R$ 35000.00 Ecotourism status 3/6 % Local 100

Type of area Law Protected Challenging Canopy activity aerial circuit Size of area 10ha used/owned Admission price R$ 80.00 Cost of R$ 30000.00 establishing Total Employment 5 % Woman 60%

Circuito Arvorismo is a canopy-access facility in Bonito, a municipality that became nationally famous for its ecotourism attractions such as caves and rivers with extremely crystal waters. The company is family owned and operated. Out of 220,000 day-visits realized in 2005 to all Bonito’s attractions, the facility got about 1.5% whereas the main attractive, the Gruta Azul (Blue Cave) got 25%. Circuito Arvorismo is located in a secondary forest area which has been specially purchased for establishing the canopyaccess facility. The area is under no environmental land use restriction and could be deforested for agriculture and cattle raising if not serving to ecotourism purposes. Local people used to consider crystal waters and waterfalls as valuable tourism assets but forest are thought as just land for development. According to owner Rubens Magalhães despite the facility’s size it gives a strong message to the local community about conserving the forest environment while making money of it. Circuito Arvorismo is very rustic with minimal aerial or ground infrastructures. Accessing the canopy is done jumaring on a rope; likewise early canopy botanists used to do.

66

Photo Record – Circuito Arvorismo – Date: 25/11/2006

Photos by Ismael Nobre

67

Ybirá Pe Canopy Tour

10

Bonito/ MS Contact person: Afonso Rodrigues Tel: (67) 3255 1003 e-mail: ybirape@terra.com.br www.ybirape.com.br

Date when the 2003 facility was built Aerial circuit length/ 380m tower tall Private / Owned by Local Visitor number 2200 /year Total revenue R$ 150000.00 Ecotourism status 3/6 % Local 70%

Type of area Non Protected Challenging Canopy activity aerial circuit Size of area 37.5ha used/owned Admission price R$ 98.00 Cost of R$ 180000.00 establishing Total Employment 8 % Woman 37.5%

Ybirá Pe is a canopy-access facility in Bonito, a municipality that became nationally famous for its ecotourism attractions such caves and rivers with extremely crystal waters. Out of 220,000 day trip-person realized in 2005 to all Bonito’s attractions, the facility got about 1-1.5% whereas the main attractive, the Gruta Azul (Blue Cave) got 25%. Ybirá Pe is located in a primary forest area corresponding to the permanent protection area of a larger agricultural property. Ybirá Pe is very rustic with the few aerial or ground infrastructures built in harmony with the environment. Facility’s owner Afonso Rodrigues is permaculturist and employs that philosophy and techniques in the site’s design and operation. It is a minimalist “arborism” site where users feel themselves really climbing a tree. Accessing the canopy level is done by means of an ingenious lifting system: the visitor must pedal a stationary bicycle which lifts a counterweight so that, later on, she/he gets pulled up through an ascending zip line. Facility’s users might also enjoy bathing in a river’s natural pool with waterfall after or before the canopy activity. There are no specific procedures for environmental education or awareness rising to date.

68

Photo Record – Ybirá Pe Canopy Tour Brazil – Date: 25/11/2006

Photos by Ismael Nobre

69

Ecoparque de Una

11

Una/ BA Contact person: Flávio Leopoldino Tel: (73) 3663 1121 e-mail: flavio@ibest.com.br www.ecoparque.com.br

Date when the 1997 facility was built Aerial circuit length/ 100m tower tall Owned by NGO Visitor number 7500 /year Total revenue R$ 40000.00 Ecotourism status 6/6 % Local 100%

Type of area RPPN Canopy activity Aerial Walkway Size of area 383ha used/owned Admission price R$ 30.00 Cost of R$ 80000.00 establishing Total Employment 8 % Woman 25%

Ecoparque de Una is the pioneer canopy ecotourism facility in Brazil. It was established in 1998 by IESB, the South Bahia Socio-environmental Studies Institute, a not-for-profit NGO. The facility is based on a set of four sequential plain aerial walkways connected by tree platforms. The walkways structure is based on aluminium ladder covered by wood plaques and the wood platforms are suspended by steel cables hanging from upper forks. The area is protected as RPPN. It is adjacent to a federal biological reserve, serving as its buffer zone and working also as a socioenvironmental agent for local awareness rising. It is a full featured ecotourism project with all elements incorporated. From strong environmental interpretation program to deep involvement of local community members in the building up, operation and extension projects. The facility delivers high satisfaction level to its visitors and despite charging entrance fee, Ecoparque’s revenue hasn’t made it economically sustainable. Instead, it is permanently subsidized. Three Doctoral dissertations, two Master thesis and 3 undergrad monographs were done in the area, all funded by major science and education governmental agencies.

70

Photo Record – Ecoparque de Una – Date: 18/Feb/2005

Photos by Ismael Nobre

71

Cristalino Jungle Lodge

12

Alta Floresta/ MT Contact person: Vitória da Riva Carvalho Tel: (66) 3512 7100 e-mail: info@cristalinolodge.com.br www.cristalinolodge.com.br

Date when the 2002 facility was built Aerial circuit length/ 50m tower tall Private / Owned by Local Visitor number 750 /year Total revenue R$ 300000.00 Ecotourism status 5/6 % Local 100%

Type of area RPPN Observation Canopy activity Tower / Lodge Size of area 700ha used/owned Admission price R$ 400.00 Cost of R$ 33000.00 establishing Total Employment 18 % Woman 56.25%

Cristalino Jungle Lodge is one of the best privately-owned ecotourism sites in Brazil. It has a sturdy 50 m tall tower that allows forest observation at any level, including above the canopy. It is located in a RPPN and is adjacent to Cristalino State Park. The region encompasses 5 different Amazon ecosystems, making its biodiversity extremely rich and perceivable. Visitors have said “this is probably the premiere tourist lodge in all of Amazonia. It is in an unbelievably species-rich forest… we will walk trails, travel up the river by boat, and climb an observation tower that provides a dramatic view of unbroken rainforest canopy as far as the eye can see… It doesn't get any better than this... so it's sort of a Noah's Ark for quite a bit of rainforest wildlife. I think the last time we were there we saw 5 species of monkeys in one morning!” Twelve formal fauna and flora research projects have gotten facility’s support. Lodge’s owner Vitória da Riva Carvalho actively promotes local awareness rising and community integration with Lodge’s low-scale generated tourism. Loggers, farmers and state politicians have fought a dramatic political battle against her ecotourism project and the State Park. Conservation and sustainable development principles are a threat to their cultural meanings and economic interests.

72

Photo Record – Cristalino Jungle Lodge – Interview Date: 27/Feb/2007

Photos by Cécile Dubois and Mário Friedlander (supplied by site owner).

73

Fazenda Marupiara

13

Rua Manaus, 10/ Sala 12 Presidente Figueiredo/ AM Contact person: João Alves Flores Tel: (92) 3324 1445 e-mail: Claudia@fazendamarupiara.com.br www.fazendamarupiara.com.br

Date when the 2005 facility was built Aerial circuit length/ 230m tower tall Private / Owned by Local Visitor number Ǿ /year Total revenue Ǿ Ecotourism status 4/6 % Local 100%

Type of area Non Protected Challenging Canopy activity aerial circuit Size of area 175ha used/owned Admission price R$ 98.00 Cost of R$ 22000.00 establishing Total Employment 20 % Woman 50%

Fazenda Marupiara is a canopy-access facility in Presidente Figueiredo, a municipality known for its ecotourism attractions such as sandstone caves and a host of waterfalls. The site is 100 km away from the Amazon gateway Manaus, making it a destination for international tourists as well. The canopy-access facility is operated in conjunction with a cabin lodge which also offers rafting and forest hiking. Although it is a 230m challenging aerial circuit, it has shown comprehensive types of use, including those performed by American bird watchers and some researchers. It exemplifies how “arborism” and canopy ecotourism can be convergent at one single canopy-access facility, depending on market demands and/or operation orientation. Its primary-forest land was acquired for conservation purposes. Marupiara’s owner proactively watches and denounces any attempt or plot for the regionally common illegal deforestation on neighbouring properties, augmenting the facility’s “forest conservation coefficient”. The site carries out a project under which biology students from UEA (Amazonas State University) visit it. The facility is environmentally certified by IPAAM (Amazonas State Environmental Protection Institute).

74

Photo Record – Fazenda Marupiara – Interview Date: 06/Mar/2007

Photos supplied by site owner. Waterfall picture by DanielM @ http://www.wunderground.com

75

Ariaú Amazon Towers

14

Rua Leonardo Malcher, 699/ Centro Novo Airão/ AM/ 69010 170 Tel: (92) 2121 5000 e-mail: treetop@ariautowers.com.br www.ariau.tur.br

Photo from www.maria-brazil.org

Ariaú Amazon Towers is a super-sized hotel complex built up over poles amidst Rio Negro’s flooding forest in the Amazonas State. It sits at the canopy level, comprising long elevated walkways (many are also golf car driveways) and cabins put atop the highest trees. The facility allows for intimate contact with the canopy environment including its fauna. Forest monkeys attending the site are world-wide famous for the easiness they get in direct touch with tourists, by means of hugs or human rides and even eating / drinking given food.

Rio Cuieiras

15

Potential Canopy Ecotourism Zone - PCEZ Reserva Biológica do Cuieiras Manaus/ AM

Photo by Ismael Nobre

Rio Cuieiras PCEZ brings together several strategic elements for future canopy-access developments. It is located near the Amazon gateway Manaus, easing to visitors accessing the site; there are at least two protected areas nearby; the region is under threat of environmentally destructive development which could be counterweighted by sustainable alternatives; the area is focus of intense scientific research carried out by INPA which could collaborate to make the site an interface for broad forest knowledge diffusion; there are local communities nearby that could interact with the project; and it allows for an attractive, long, immersive circuit through the majestic Amazon forest both by road and by river, with plenty of potential for ground hiking and canopy walking (if implemented). There are two taller-than-canopy towers that are used for measuring and understanding the forest metabolism at the ZF-2 research outpost. These
76

structures and the impressions caused on selected groups that have visited them give a good glimpse about the outstanding potential the whole Rio Cuieiras zone has for canopy ecotourism.

Rio Uatumã

16

Potential Canopy Ecotourism Zone - PCEZ Amazonas

Satellite image from Google Earth

Rio Uatumã PCEZ is located along the Uatumã River, downriver the Balbina hydroeletric power plant dam. According to Mariano Colini Cenamo from Instituto de Conservação e Desenvolvimento Sustentável do Amazonas, the area has an interesting and infrequent terrain with steep slopes covered by lush Amazon forest. The region also showed a strong need for alternative, sustainable development strategies to compensate an environmental damage affecting traditional local communities. The dam’s river-blocking adversely changed reproductive patterns of native fishes, plunging down fishing stocks, which used to be local community’s main subsistence resource. Mr. Cenamo considers it a priority area for canopy ecotourism development.

Caxiuanã

17

Potential Canopy Ecotourism Zone - PCEZ Portel/ PA www.museugoeldi.br/pesquisa/caxiuana/index.htm

Photo by Ismael Nobre

Caxiuanã is a National Forest within which is located the Ferreira Penna research station (EFCP), an outpost from Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi (MPEG). The area presents a complete lodging infrastructure that could be shared with selective scienceoriented ecotourism. It showed a full potential for canopy ecotourism development.

77

Mamirauá - RDS

18

Potential Canopy Ecotourism Zone - PCEZ Tefé/ AM www.mamiraua.org.br

Photo from http://www.mpefunbio.org.br/mpe/noticia.asp?tipo=3&noticia_id=96 The Mamirauá Sustainable Development Project is administered by The Sociedade Civil Mamirauá, a non-profit NGO. The Sociedade is responsible for all activities within the Reserve, by agreement with Amazonas state government (IPAAM). The Mamirauá Project combines researchers, extension workers and local community members, working together. Institutional support comes directly from CNPq, and via agreements with IPAAM and IBAMA. Financial support is principally from the National Research Council (CNPq/MCT), bilateral co-operation from the British Government, the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and from the European Commission (EC). The conservation model followed at Mamirauá includes the sustainable use of natural resources by the human population. People already living in the Reserve were not removed and the residents of Mamirauá and the adjacent areas participate in discussions on the working of the Reserve. There is an ecotourism program at Mamirauá which could be complemented through implementation of canopy-related activities. It is a priority site for developing canopy ecotourism in the Amazonas State.

Selva Aventura
Trilhas – Rafting - Arvorismo

19

Rua Arthur da Costa e Silva, 1575 Juquitiba/ SP Contact person: Arsenio Fernandes Martins Tel: (11) 4681 4101 Cell: (11) 9984 4704

Photo by Ismael Nobre

Selva Aventura is a challenging “arborism” site located 50 km from São Paulo. Corporate groups which use the canopy-access infrastructure for training purposes are its main target public. Property’s owner Arsenio Martins faces severe problems with night invaders that pillage law-protected palmetto tree to feed the plant’s black market.

78

Sítio Canoar

20

Juquitiba/ SP Tel: (11) 3871 2282 e-mail: rafting@canoar.com.br www.canoar.com.br

Photo by Ismael Nobre

Sitio Canoar is a challenging “arborism” site located 50 km from São Paulo. Its aerial structure is built up over wood poles. It crosses the wide Juquitiba River two times: it goes through a hanging bridge (photo) and returns through a short zip line. White-water river rafting in the Juquitiba is the original and main activity carried out at this adventure site.

Ecopoint

21

Ilhabela/ SP Tel: (12) 3895 1017 e-mail: ecopoint.ilhabela@gmail.com www.ecopoint.com.br

Photo by Ismael Nobre

Ecopoint is a challenging “arborism” site located in Ilhabela Island in São Paulo State. Its aerial structure is built up over wood poles. The island is a well developed beach destination which receives several thousand visitors each summer. 85% of the whole island’s land sits within the Ilhabela State Park. Despite this high proportion of protection land, there are many places where urban neighbourhoods have invaded park’s limits. Ecopoint borders the park; it sits between the park and the city’s suburban area working as a buffer belt and helping to protect the Atlantic Forest.

79

Aventura no Rancho

22

Campos do Jordão/ SP Tel: (12) 3663 7400 e-mail: contato@aventuranorancho.com.br www.aventuranorancho.com.br

Photo by Ismael Nobre

Aventura no Rancho is a canopy-access facility in Campos do Jordão, a municipality that became famous for its mountain climate and charming tourism. The site’s main activity fits well within the challenging “arborism” concept. It has been built up on hills covered with the Araucaria Forest, the high-altitude variation of the Atlantic Forest. It is a private area whose owner Lígia Eisenlohr voluntarily preserves with financial support coming from the canopy-access operation revenue. Rancho’s canopy-access comprises 8 independent circuits with a variety of difficulty levels. It ranges from ground level to vertiginous 40 m high, with is above the canopy level, due to the fact that some pathways cross a deep valley. The canopy aerial ways placement and activity options recall a mountain sky resort. It is also offered horse ridding and rustic cabin lodging. The property borders Campos do Jordão State Park and is officially recognized as a private protection land that substantially contributes with the ecosystem protection anchored by the park.

Ecoação Arvomix

23

Rua Mário Pinotti, 205

Brotas/ SP Tel: (14) 3653 8040 e-mail: reservas@ecoacao.com.br www.ecoacao.com.br

Photo by Ismael Nobre

Ecoação Arvomix operates a canopy-access facility in Brotas, a municipality that became famous for its large portfolio of adventure tourism and ecotourism activities. The site offers challenging “arborism” activities with aerial pathways and a steep zip line. The canopy aerial circuit is supported by both wood poles and live trees. It was built in a narrow patch of secondary forest. In the absence of old trees with large
80

trunks, some platforms were supported by small-diameter trees, making it questionable the impact acceptability of such setting. Its placement, however, makes the visitors walk right at the canopy tops, allowing for a beautiful view of the neighboring sierras. It is like “walking over water”, but over trees instead. Facility’s owner Rodrigo Saldanha stated using the property for tourism yielded for much higher revenue than the traditional cattle raising did, although he still raises horses and other animals.

Grutas de São Miguel

24

Bonito/ MS Tel: (67) 3255 1733 www.ygarape.com.br

Photo by Ismael Nobre

Grutas de São Miguel is a canopy-access facility in Bonito, a municipality that became nationally famous for its ecotourism attractions such caves and rivers with extremely crystal waters. Grutas de São Miguel canopy-access structure comprises just an elevated walkway that initiates in its visitor centre’s second floor, crosses a driveway and goes all the way through the forest canopy till it naturally reaches the ground, uphill. It was made as a low impact, attractive access to a cave entrance.

Arvorismo Urbano

25

Brotas/ SP

Photo by Ismael Nobre

Challenging “arborism” as it is seen in an urban setting in the municipality of Brotas. This case reveals one origin of the activity in Brazil: the ropes course. This type of bare “arborism”, despite evoking trees in its name, doesn’t have any association with trees besides its wood poles, once living trees. It is frequently seen in association with hotels, resorts, and even indoor in shopping malls and amusement parks. It
81

demonstrates the high popularity the activity has among Brazilians. Most conventional “arborism” sites are similar to this with an added forest background, punctuating the distance it keeps from its other origin: the canopy ecotourism.

82

Annex 2

Research’s data tables

Canopy ecotourism site-to-site analysis – Data tables

This section depicts each studied site by presenting the whole data collected during field work and interviews. It contains the highest level of detail about site’s main characteristics. The way the tables were structured allows for horizontal and vertical information reading. In the first case it is possible to get a sense on how a certain characteristic varies across multiple studied sites. The further reading option gives a sense on how each site behaved regarding a set of different analyzed characteristics. In order to make the Brazilian research transversely comparable with those carried out in Asia and Costa Rica, it was utilized the same guidelines for assessing impacts and potentials of canopy tourism, which are based on Quebec Declaration on Ecotourism, NEAPIII, GCP-Workshop with R. Denman and fieldwork data from evaluation of canopy tourism in Costa Rica. Due to the particular characteristics of the “arborism”, which comprises the majority of Brazilian canopy-access facilities, several inquiring guidelines didn’t fit well with its typical operation model, yielding to apparent missing information in the data set. It was chosen to do this way for keeping comparability at a world scale, rather than reshaping the inquiring guidelines to match the typical national pattern.
83

1

Description of Canopy Tourism Operation/Facility

01 UNI

02 IGU

03 TOC

04 JUV

05 TUI

06 NEB

07 ALA

08 ALT

09 ARV

10 YBI

11 UNA

12 CRI

13 MAR

01.
2002

Date when the facility was built (year)
2003 1995 2002 2004 2001 2005 1999 2003 2003 1997 2002 2005

Location 02. Public area (X)
X X X *

03.
OWN

Private area (ONW = owned; REN = rented; CED = ceded)
OWN OWN CED REN OWN OWN OWN OWN OWN

04.
RPPN

Status of protection (see legend below)
PN NON PE APP RPPN ** APP PE APP NON RPPN RPPN NON

05.
8.5

Size of area used/owned by facility (hectare)
0.3 8 24 6500 2800 55 8.4 10 37.5 383 700 175

06.
23.5

Percentage of land used for tourism purposes (%)
100 37.5 7 10 15 100 80 40 13.3 10 4.2 30

07.
MIX

Forest type (PRI = primary; SEC = secondary; MIX = mixed)
SEC SEC SEC PRI SEC SEC PRI SEC PRI PRI PRI PRI

Additional Legend RPPN = Natural Patrimony Private Reserve; PN = National Park; PE = State Park; APP = Permanent Protection Area (law enforced); NON = Non-protected area, usually well preserved, voluntary by owner. * Campos do Jordão State Park; Altus operates also in Bosque do Silêncio, a private protected area in process of becoming RPPN. ** Undergoing official process to become RPPN

84

1

Description of Canopy Tourism Operation/Facility

01 UNI

02 IGU

03 TOC

04 JUV

05 TUI

06 NEB

07 ALA

08 ALT

09 ARV

10 YBI

11 UNA

12 CRI

13 MAR

Construction 08. MP = metal pole; WP = wood pole; TP = tree platform; MT = metal tower; MU = multiple
MU WP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP MT TP

09.
140

Aerial circuit length/ tower tall (meter)
120 150 226 250 150 1370 2017 350 380 100 50 230

Activities offered 10. Type of canopy activity (see legend bellow)
C G z C C z C z C w z W C Z C z C z C z W T C p

11.
HIK GON

Package with other kind of nature tourism (e.g. rafting)
RAF WAL RAF CAY HIK RAF CAY HIK

12.

Combination with a lodge (X)
X X

Model of ownership 13. Owned by (PRI = private; GOV = government; ONG = non governmental organization)
PRI PRI PRI GOV PRI ONG PRI PRI PRI PRI ONG PRI PRI

14.
NAT

Owned by (INT = international; NAT = national; LOC = local) company or institution
NAT NAT LOC NAT LOC NAT LOC LOC LOC LOC NAT LOC

15.
N

Owned by the local community (Y = yes; N = no)
N N N N N N N N N N N N

Additional Legend W (w) = Aerial walkway; G (g) = Cable car; T (t)= Tower; Z (z) = Zip line; P (p) = Platform (sub-canopy); C (c) = Challenge circuit; [CAPITAL letter meaning it provides the main experience, otherwise it is part of an experience featured by another canopy activity] HIK = hiking; GON = cable car rides; WAL = climbing or rappel; RAF = rafting; CAY = kayaking

85

1

Description of Canopy Tourism Operation/Facility

01 UNI

02 IGU

03 TOC

04 JUV

05 TUI

06 NEB

07 ALA

08 ALT

09 ARV

10 YBI

11 UNA

12 CRI

13 MAR

Visitors 16. Annual number of visitors
10000 10000 15000 8400 7200 12000 4080 9000 1800 2200 7500 750 Ǿ

17.
6000

Visitors during high season
7000 Ǿ Ǿ 3200 6000 3600 4500 Ǿ 1200 3000 Ǿ Ǿ

18.
4000

Visitors during low season
3000 Ǿ Ǿ 4000 6000 480 4500 Ǿ 1000 3500 Ǿ Ǿ

19.
20

Percentage of foreign visitors (%)
Ǿ 35 0 5 5 Ǿ 2 30 10 10 60 30

20.
80

Percentage of national visitors (%)
Ǿ 65 0 94 87 Ǿ 95 70 85 50 40 30

21.
Ǿ

Percentage of local visitors (%)
Ǿ Ǿ 100 1 8 Ǿ 3 Ǿ 5 40 Ǿ 40

22.

Admission price for canopy access activities (R$)

23.00 85.00 45.00 0.00 50.00 30.00 99.00 85.00 80.00 98.00 30.00 400.00 98.00

23.
Y

Market profile of visitors (see legend below)
K Y W Y Y K K K K K L K

Additional Legend Ǿ = information was not made available, not known or it doesn’t apply; K = middle class, “what is in” doers, age 25-30; higher education; L = middle to upper class; high degree of education; seasoned travelers; Y = private school groups and company motivational groups; W = segment with mixed classes, C predominant; high school education;

86

1

Description of Canopy Tourism Operation/Facility

01 UNI

02 IGU

03 TOC

04 JUV

05 TUI

06 NEB

07 ALA

08 ALT

09 ARV

10 YBI

11 UNA

12 CRI

13 MAR

Economy 24. Total annual revenue (R$ x 1000)
Ǿ 450 20 0 100 29 44.2 37 35 150 40 300 Ǿ

25.
Ǿ

In case of package/ combination, percentage of revenue out of canopy tourism (%/yr)
Ǿ Ǿ Ǿ 30 Ǿ Ǿ Ǿ Ǿ Ǿ Ǿ Ǿ Ǿ

26.
250

Total cost of establishing the canopy facility (R$ x 1000)
700 Ǿ 124 150 Ǿ 105 260 30 180 80 33 22

27.
OWN

Source(s) of funding (see legend below)
OWN OWN STA OWN DON OWN OWN OWN OWN DON DON OWN

28.
MOR

Overall economic performance (see legend below)
PRO EVE SUB PRO SUB PRO LOS EVE PRO SUB PRO PRO

29.
Ǿ

Extent of reinvestment in the facility (R$ x 1000 or % where indicated)
Ǿ Ǿ 200 Ǿ Ǿ 7 % 15 % Ǿ 35 15 Ǿ 2

30.
Y

Plans for expansion/improvement (Y = yes; N = no)
Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y

Additional Legend Ǿ = information was not made available, not known or it doesn’t apply; PRO = profit; EVE = break even; LOS = financial loss; MOR = bank loan amortization; SUB = subsided; OWN = own money or banking loan; DON = donated; STA = state-funded.

87

1

Description of Canopy Tourism Operation/Facility

01 UNI

02 IGU

03 TOC

04 JUV

05 TUI

06 NEB

07 ALA

08 ALT

09 ARV

10 YBI

11 UNA

12 CRI

13 MAR

General Ecotourism Criteria: 31. Overall ecotourism evaluation of facility based on Wallace’s six ecotourism principles*
5/6 4/6 4/6 4/6 4/6 5/6 3/6 4/6 3/6 3/6 6/6 5/6 4/6

32.
X

Entails a type of use that minimizes negative impacts to the environment and local people
X X X X X X X X X X X X

33.
X

Increases the awareness and understanding of an area’s natural and cultural systems and subsequent involvement of visitors in issues affecting those systems
X X X X X

34.
X

Contributes to the conservation and management of legally protected and other cultural areas
X X X X X X X X X X

35.

Maximizes the early and long-term participation of local people in the decisionmaking process that determines the kind and amount of tourism that should occur
X

36.
X

Directs economic and other benefits to local people that complement rather than overwhelm or replace traditional practices
X X X X X X X X X X

37.
X

Provides special opportunities for local people and nature tourism employees to utilize and visit natural areas and learn more about the wonders that other visitors come to see
X X X X X X X X X X X

38.

Ecotourism certification or other systems of voluntary regulation
RBMA RBMA IPAA M

39.
S

In no certification exists, acceptance of such certification for the future (S = yes)
S ABNT N S ABNT S S ABNT S ABNT S ABNT S MTur S ABNT

Additional Legend ABNT = Technical Norms Brazilian Association; IPAAM; RBMA = Atlantic Forest Biosphere Net; MTur = Tourism Ministry * Boolean evaluation. It might misrepresent partial complying toward a given principle.

88

2
A 01 UNI

Socio-Economic and Socio-Cultural Aspects
Direct economic/ social benefit from the operation 02 IGU 03 TOC 04 JUV 05 TUI 06 NEB 07 ALA 08 ALT 09 ARV 10 YBI 11 UNA 12 CRI 13 MAR

01.
5

Employment in operating the canopy facility directly hired by the operator
28 20 8 11 0 2 5 5 8 3 14 16

02.
19

Employment in operating the canopy facility contracted by the operator
0 130 0 6 15 20 25 0 0 5 4 4

03.
80

Percentage of employment from the local community (%)
100 100 100 100 90 90 100 100 70 100 100 100

04.
50

Employment in, and purchasing by, other services closely associated with the canopy facility - operated by the facility operator (person)
3 0 0 16 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

05.
500

Employment in, and purchasing by, other services closely associated with the canopy facility - operated by others under concession (person)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

06.
28 [c]

Extent of involvement of women in the above employment (woman / see legend)
14 [c] 15 [a] 2 [a] 6 [b] 9 [c] 3 [c] 9 [b] 3 [a] 3 [a] 2* [b] 9 [a] 10 [b]

07.
3

Support by the operator for local economic/ social initiatives/ projects in the community
3 2 5 4 5 2 3 2 2 5 5 3

08.

Any formalised process for a proportion of admission going towards local economic/social projects in the community (X)
X

09.

Any process of promoting voluntary giving/ support by tourists (X)
X

Additional Legend Ǿ = information was not made available, not known or it doesn’t apply; * only during high season [a] Computed with item 01 only [b] Computed with items 01and 02 [c]Computed with items 01, 02 and 04

89

2
A 01 UNI

Socio-Economic and Socio-Cultural Aspects
Direct economic/ social benefit from the operation 02 IGU 03 TOC 04 JUV 05 TUI 06 NEB 07 ALA 08 ALT 09 ARV 10 YBI 11 UNA 12 CRI 13 MAR

10.
N

Instruments and strategic alliances for an equitable distribution of benefits (Y/N)
N* N N N N N N N N N N N

11.

Promotion of other operator’s ecotourism products through the marketing of the facility
X

12.

Bookings for ecotourism products on behalf of other operators
X

13.

Company policies for socio-economic sustainability with a view to applying them in each part of the operation
X X X X

Additional Legend

90

2
B 01 UNI

Socio-Economic and Socio-Cultural Aspects
Indirect economic/social benefits and costs from the operation of the facility 02 IGU 03 TOC 04 JUV 05 TUI 06 NEB 07 ALA 08 ALT 09 ARV 10 YBI 11 UNA 12 CRI 13 MAR

01.
SEV

Indication of number and size of local enterprises in the local area that appear to benefit from the facility, in addition to those which profit directly
UNS SEV UNS SEV UNS UNS UNS UNS UNS UNS SEV UNS

02.
LOC

Estimate of total employment in these enterprises, and whether local (LOC)
Ǿ LOC Ǿ LOC Ǿ Ǿ Ǿ Ǿ Ǿ Ǿ LOC 20 Ǿ

03.
MED

Any other evidence of impact of these enterprises on local community, e.g. purchasing of inputs (crafts, food etc.) from local area
SML MED STR

04.

Extent to what the above enterprises have become established after (AFT) the canopy facility and as a consequence of it (CON)
CON

05.
80

Indication of the approximate percentage of visitors to these enterprises that may be due to the canopy facility (%)
90 45 5 100

06.

Extent of involvement of women in the above employment (% or MTY = majority)
MTY 60 80

07.
MTY Ǿ

Indication of percentage of visitors to the canopy facility who stay in the local area, and length of stay (day; TOT = 100%; MTY = majority; NON = none)
TOT 2 NON 1 NON 1 UND 2 NON 1 TOT 2 MTY 2.5 TOT 2.5 TOT 2.5 TOT 3 TOT 6 TOT 3

08.
T

Infrastructure related to the canopy facility development – road access, energy, water etc also benefiting the community
N N N Et S Ed N N N N Rd Et W N N

Additional Legend Ǿ = information was not made available, not known or it doesn’t apply; SEV = Specifically evident; UNS = Unspecific | STR = Strong; MED = Medium; SML = Small | T = transport; Et = electricity; S = emergency rescue; Ed = education; Rd = road; N = none

91

2
C 01 UNI

Socio-Economic and Socio-Cultural Aspects
Aspects of socio-culturally sensitive operation 02 IGU 03 TOC 04 JUV 05 TUI 06 NEB 07 ALA 08 ALT 09 ARV 10 YBI 11 UNA 12 CRI 13 MAR

Respect of operation/ facility towards land and property rights of indigenous and

01.

local communities where recognized; the right to self-determination and cultural sovereignty of indigenous and local communities (X = evidence)
X

Participative planning mechanisms to allow local and indigenous communities to

02.
N

define and regulate the use of their areas at the local level and to opt out of tourism development (Y/N)
N N N N N N N N N N N N

03.
N

Active cooperation with indigenous leadership and local communities to ensure that indigenous cultures and communities are depicted accurately and with respect (Y/N)
N N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

04.
N

Cooperation with GOs/ NGOs to ensure the above criteria (Y/N) Comments on how or whether staff and visitors are well and accurately informed regarding local and indigenous sites, customs and history (Y/N)
N Y N N N N N N N N N N

05.
N

06.
Ǿ

Comments on any social impact issues – reaction of the community to the facility, evidence of any disruption (see legend bellow)
N N N N Y+ YY+ YN N YY-

07.
50% BTD

Admission price structure for members of local community (see legend bellow)
50% OFF FRE CON FRE ALL 20% 50% OFF FRE ALL N FRE ALL FRE ALL FRE ALL FRE DAY DSC OFF TCH OFF

08.
N

Identification how to minimise negative social impacts and action according to information gathered (e.g. consultation of specialists/ social impact study undertaken on the local community) (Y/N)
N N N N N N N N N N N N

09.
Ǿ

Company policies for socio-cultural sustainability with a view to applying them in each part of the operation (see legend bellow)
Ǿ Ǿ Ǿ PAS Ǿ LOC Ǿ Ǿ Ǿ Ǿ Ǿ Ǿ

Additional Legend BTD = site birthday promotion (August); 50% off for local community; FRE ALL = free for all local community members; FRE CON = free for students and poor people; FRE DAY = free for local community in specific days; DSC OFF = discount and payment facility for locals; TCH OFF = local teachers are invited each 2 weeks; Y- = negative reaction, against facility establishment; Y+ = positive reaction, high expectancy; LOC = employment from local community; PAS = arte no sertão project (wilderness art), artisans are monthly paid R$ 350.00 Ǿ = information was not made available, not known or it doesn’t apply;

92

3
A 01 UNI

Environmental Aspects
Environmental impact during construction of canopy tourism facility 02 IGU 03 TOC 04 JUV 05 TUI 06 NEB 07 ALA 08 ALT 09 ARV 10 YBI 11 UNA 12 CRI 13 MAR

01.
HIG

Visual impact of the facility in situ (if possible to see construction work) (High/Low)
LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW

02.
OPN

Location of tourism infrastructure such as visitor centers (e.g. in primary (PRI) or secondary (SEC) forest sections or previously open, anthropic area (OPN))
SEC OPN OPN OPN OPN OPN PRI NEX OPN OPN PRI OPN

03.
4/7

Design, planning, development and operation of the facility take into consideration sustainability (X/Y = X out of Y)
6/6 5/5 5/6 6/7 7/7 4/5 5/6 5/5 5/6 6/7 7/7 6/6

04.
X

Sensitive site design
X X X X X X X X X X X X

05.
X

Conservation of water, energy and materials
X X X X NA X X X X

06.
X

Sustainable transportation principles in the planning and design of access and transportation systems
NA NA NA X NA NA NA NA X NA

07.

Transportation of construction material (e.g. on special construction paths or via helicopter)
X X X X X X X X X X X X

08.

Avoiding the cutting of trees and corridors during construction
X X X X X X X X X X X X

Additional Legend Ǿ = information was not made available, not known or it doesn’t apply; HIG = High; LOW = Low

93

3
A 01 UNI

Environmental Aspects
Environmental impact during construction of canopy tourism facility 02 IGU 03 TOC 04 JUV 05 TUI 06 NEB 07 ALA 08 ALT 09 ARV 10 YBI 11 UNA 12 CRI 13 MAR

09.
X

Avoiding erosion when building metal constructions such as bridges or towers
X NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA X NA

10.
NA

Usage of spacers and other protective devices to avoid the damaging of trees when building tree platforms
NA NA X X X NA X X X X NA X

11.

Usage of environmentally friendly materials and methods during maintenance (e.g. anti-corrosives, change of steel cables, change of cable position on trees)
X X X X X X X X X X X X

12.
SPE

Land for conservation purposes is acquired
NOT STD NOT STD STD STD NOT STD STD SPE SPE SPE

13.
Ǿ

Environmental impact study to determine limits of acceptable change, or environmental carrying capacity of the tour site (AAA # = type of study and value of CC, see legend)
FCC FCC 300 FCC 60 FCC 100 SSE FCC SSE 250 FCC DLA 55 FCC 45 SSE FCC 112

14.
NOT

Cooperation with governmental and non-governmental organizations in charge of protected natural areas and conservation of biodiversity
OFI OFI NOT INF OFI NOT OFI WIL NOT OFI OFI OFI

Additional Legend Ǿ = information was not made available, not known or it doesn’t apply; SPE = land specifically acquired for conservation; STD = land acquired for canopy ecotourism is also protected; NOT = no land was purchased) FCC = Formal Carrying Capacity study; DLA = determined by licensing agency; SSE = site self-established; NOT = none) OFI = cooperates officially; INF; cooperates informally; WIL = willingness to cooperate; NOT = no)

94

3
B 01 UNI

Environmental Aspects
Environmental impact during operation of canopy tourism facility 02 IGU 03 TOC 04 JUV 05 TUI 06 NEB 07 ALA 08 ALT 09 ARV 10 YBI 11 UNA 12 CRI 13 MAR

01.
LOW

Visual impact of the facility in situ (LOW = low; HIG = high)
LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW LOW

02.
NOT

Use of revenue from the facility (admission etc.) to support conservation
PCF NOT NOT IND ALL NOT NGO NOT NOT ALL NGO NOT

03.
n e

Impact of operation – noise (n N), littering (l L), pollution (p P), energy/ water use, general disturbance to wildlife (w W), sewage (s S) [CAPITAL indicating intensity]
n n n n n n S n s n n

04.
36

Visitor flow/pressure impact, traffic movement to the site - Group size
120 18 10 15 15 20 OPN 10 8 15 15 4

05.
X

Visitor flow/pressure impact, traffic movement to the site - Guided/ unguided tours
X X X X X X X X X X X X

06.
VIS

Company policies for environmental sustainability with a view to applying them in each part of the operation
POL VIS POL VIS POL POL VIS VIS VIS POL POL VIS

07.
X

Diversification of the facility's offer by developing a wide range of tourist activities at a given destination
X X X X X X

08.
N

Diversification of the facility's offer by extending it to different destinations
N N N N N N N N N N N N

Additional Legend Ǿ = information was not made available, not known or it doesn’t apply; PCS = public concession; IND = indirect, eventual; ALL = 100% is directed to PA; COP = strait cooperation with NGO that supports conservation; NOT = no) POL = follows a formal policy; VIS = embodies a vision of sustainability; NOT = no)

95

3
B 01 UNI

Environmental Aspects
Environmental impact during operation of canopy tourism facility 02 IGU 03 TOC 04 JUV 05 TUI 06 NEB 07 ALA 08 ALT 09 ARV 10 YBI 11 UNA 12 CRI 13 MAR

09.

Visitor impact management systems of ecotourism destinations (reduced group numbers, limitation of visitors at a given time)
X X X X X X X

10.
PT

Employment of full-time qualified environmental management officer (see legend)
FT FT N N FT N N N N FT FT N

11.
NOT

Conservation agreement with a (public) protected area manager (GOV)/ private landowner (PRI) / local NGO (NGO)
GOV GOV NOT GOV NGO PRI NGO NOT NOT NGO NGO NOT

12.
N

Land for conservation/research and to use it as a control area to monitor visitor impacts is set aside
N N N N N N N N N N N N

13.
NOT

Independent monitoring program assessing environmental impact (NOT = no)
NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT

14.
N

Cooperation with governmental and non-governmental organizations in charge of protected natural areas and conservation of biodiversity (Y = yes; N = no)
Y N Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y N

Additional Legend Ǿ = information was not made available, not known or it doesn’t apply; FT = Full time PT = Partial time

96

3
C 01 UNI

Environmental Aspects
Raising awareness towards tropical forest 02 IGU 03 TOC 04 JUV 05 TUI 06 NEB 07 ALA 08 ALT 09 ARV 10 YBI 11 UNA 12 CRI 13 MAR

01.

Effect of general awareness raising in the community of the importance of the forest/ canopy - Employment alternative [J] to deforestation (F)/ poaching (P)/ despoiling (D)
J(PD) J(P) Ǿ J J(D)

02.
SCH

Effect of general awareness raising in the community of the importance of the forest/ canopy - School projects/ community activities
SCH CHA IND EAC SCH ART SCH SCH SCH EXA Ǿ SCH AGR ART ORQ SCH EAC

03.
PRE

Effect of general awareness raising among all management and staff of the importance of the forest/ canopy (EXP = expressive; PRE= presumable; NEV = no evidence)
PRE PRE NEV EXP EXP PRE PRE PRE Ǿ EXP EXP EXP

04.
3/6

Overall effect of general awareness raising among visitors of the importance of the forest/ canopy
1/6 4/6 5/6 3/6 3/6 3/6 3/6 4/6 Ǿ 3/6 6/6 5/6

05.
X

Evidence of broad and quality education/interpretation in the experience offered
X X X X X X Ǿ X X X

06.
X

Focus on qualities and sensitivities of the destination
X X X X X X Ǿ X X X

07.
X

Ethical and environmentally conscious behaviour vis-àvis the ecotourism destination visited
X X X X X X X X Ǿ X X X

08.

Encouraging voluntary contributions to support local community or conservation initiatives (monitoring/ research/ regeneration projects)
X Ǿ X

Additional Legend Ǿ = information was not made available, not known or it doesn’t apply; SCH = school; CHA = charity; IND = cultural project with Indians; EAC = environmental education with community; ART = craftwork projects; EXA = public example through own success in the activity; AGR = organic agriculture; ORQ = orchid community project.

97

3
C 01 UNI

Environmental Aspects
Raising awareness towards tropical forest 02 IGU 03 TOC 04 JUV 05 TUI 06 NEB 07 ALA 08 ALT 09 ARV 10 YBI 11 UNA 12 CRI 13 MAR

09.

Encouragement to provide constructive written feedback about interpretive or educational experience so that quality can be further improved
X X X X Ǿ X X

10.

Interpretive material, which promotes concepts of ecotourism beyond the area of the operation
X Ǿ X X

11.
ve

Ecological training of guides/ kind of training (see legend below)
ea sp ea ea ca tr ea ve ve sp Ǿ rg ec ff ve

12.
low

Sharing of best practice ideas with other operators through publications, training programs, workshops and influence in professional organisations (see legend)
eve low low hig low eve hig eve Ǿ hig hig eve

13.

Use of facilitated canopy access for conservation and research projects (X)
X X X X X X Ǿ X X X

14.

Involvement in a formal scientific research project aimed at measuring and understanding environmental impacts (X)
X X Ǿ X X

15.

Financial support of research initiatives and public land management projects beyond normal permit/licensing fee arrangements (X)
X Ǿ X X

Additional Legend Ǿ = information was not made available, not known or it doesn’t apply; ve = vertical techniques; ea = environmental education; ca = canoeing; tr = radical sports; rg = ranger course; ec = ecology; ff = fauna and flora; sp = other specific professional training. low = few sharing; eve = eventual sharing; hig = highly frequent sharing

98

Abbreviation List.
Abbreviation ABNT ABETA ADK AM AP APP BA CE CE CEM CI CKL CSU DF EC Embratur ES FIPE G17 Portuguese Name Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas Associaçao Brasileira das Empresas de Turismo de Aventura Difusão Adaptativa da Informação e Conhecimento Estado do Amazonas Estado do Amapá Área de Proteção Permanente Estado da Bahia Ecoturismo de Dossel Estado do Ceará Módulo de Ecoturismo de Dossel Conservação Internacional Interface de Conhecimento de Dossel Universidade do Estado do Colorado Distrito Federal Comissão Européia Empresa Brasileira de Turismo Estado do Espírito Santo Fundação Instituto de Pesquisas Econômicas Grupo dos 17 países que concentra a riqueza de biodiversidade. Programa de Dossel Global Produto Interno Bruto Medida de Desilgualdade de Distribuição de Renda Estado de Goiás Hectare Índice de Desenvolvimento Humano Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Instituto de Ecoturismo do Brasil Instituto de Estudos Sócio-Ambientais do Sul da Bahia Instituto Florestal do Estado de São Paulo Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais. Instituto de Proteção Ambiental do Estado do Amazonas English Name Technical Norms Brazilian Association Brazilian Association Adaptive Diffusion of Information and Knowledge Amazonas State Amapá State Permanent Protection Area (law enforced) Bahia State Canopy Ecotourism Ceará State Canopy Ecotourism Module International Conservation Canopy Knowledge Layer Colorado State University Distrito Federal European Commission Brazilian Firm of Tourism Espírito Santo State Economics Researches Institute Foundation Group of 17 countries which concentrate the wealth of biodiversity Global Canopy Programme Gross Domestic Product Measure of inequality of a distribution Goiás State Hectare Human Development Index Environment and Replaceable Natural Resources Brazilian Institute Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistic Brazil’s Ecoturism Institute South Bahia SocioEnvironmental Studies Institute São Paulo State Forest Institute National Institute of Space Research Amazonas State Environmtal Protection Institute
99

GCP GDP Gini GO ha HDI IBAMA

IBGE IEB IESB

IF INPE IPAAM

MA MCT MG MS MT MTur NEAP NGO PA PCEZ PE PE PI PN PR PROECOTUR RBMA RJ RN RO RPPN RR RS SC SE SEBRAE SEW SP TO UDC UFSCar UNIOESTE USP WCS WFO WTTC WWF

Estado do Maranhão Ministério da Ciência e Tecnologia Estado de Minas Gerais Estado do Mato Grosso do Sul Estado do Mato Grosso Ministério do Turismo Projeto de Certificação em Ecoturismo e Natureza Organização Não-Governamental Estado do Pará Zona Potencial para Ecoturismo de Dossel Estado de Pernambuco Parque Estadual Estado do Piauí Parque Nacional Estado do Paraná Programa de desenvolvimento do ecoturismo na Amazônia Reserva da Biosfera da Mata Atlântica Estado do Rio de Janeiro Estado do Rio Grande do Norte Estado de Rondônia Reserva Particular do Patrimônio Natural Estado de Roraima Estado do Rio Grande do Sul Estado de Santa Catarina Estado do Sergipe Serviço Brasileiro de Apoio às Micro e Pequenas Empresas Trabalho Sócio-Ambiental Estado de São Paulo Estado do Tocantins União Dinâmica de Faculdades Cataratas Universidade Federal de São Carlos Universidade Estadual do Oeste do Paraná Universidade de São Paulo Sociedade para Conservação da Vida Selvagem Observatório Integral da Floresta Conselho Mundial de Turismo e Viagens Fundo Mundial da Vida Selvagem

Maranhão State Technology and Science Ministry Minas Gerais State Mato Grosso do Sul State Mato Grosso State Tourism Ministry Nature and Ecotourism Accreditation Project Non-Governmental Organization Pará State Potential Canopy Ecotourism Zone Pernambuco State State Park Piauí State National Park Paraná State Amazon Ecotourism Development Program Atlantic Forest Biosphere Net Rio de Janeiro State Rio Grande do Norte State Rondônia State Natural Patrimony Private Reserve Roraima State Rio Grande do Sul State Santa Catarina State Sergipe State Small Entrepreneurship Supporting Brazilian Agency Socio-Environmental Work São Paulo State Tocantins State Dynamic Union Cataratas College São Carlos Federal University Western Parana State University University of São Paulo Wildlife Conservation Society Whole Forest Observatory World Travel and Tourism Council World Wildlife Fund

100

Photos list
Cover photo Page 4 Page 5 Page 7 Page 9 Page 11 Page 13 Page 16 Page 19 Page 23 Page 27 Page 30 Page 38 Page 39 Page 43 Page 47 Page 49 Tuím Paque Ybirá Pê Canopy Tour São Paulo City Parque Estadual da Serra do Mar Traditional family agriculture Brazilian aviation Ybirá Pê Canopy Tour Una Ecoparque Tuím Paque Una Ecoparque – Ismael and Linde Cânion Iguaçu Toca da Raposa Kid’s challenge at the Circuito Arvorismo – Photo by Rubens Magalhães Parque Estadual da Serra do Mar INPA’s ZF2 research station Weaver womam in a handicraft tapestry shop near Una Ecoparque Cristalino Jungle Lodge

Photos by Ismael Nobre where not specified

101

Bibliography
BRASIL. GRUPO INTERMINISTERIAL – MINISTÉRIO DA INDÚSTRIA, COMÉRCIO E DO TURISMO E MINISTÉRIO do Meio Ambiente, dos Recursos Hídricos e da Amazônia Legal, Diretrizes para uma Política Nacional de Ecoturismo. Brasília DF: EMBRATUR/IBAMA, 1994. CAMPOS, Eneida M. G.; FARLEY, Joshua; PEREIRA, Patrícia F. da S. Valor econômico e sociocultural do ecoturismo e das atividades recreacionais providas pela Área de Proteção Ambiental Serra de São José (MG - Brasil). ESTATÍSTICAS BÁSICAS DO TURISMO: BRASIL. Brasília. August, 2006. ESTUDO SOBRE O TURISMO PRATICADO EM AMBIENTES NATURAIS CONSERVADOS: Relatório Final. EMBRATUR: Instituto Brasileiro de Turismo. São Paulo, December, 2002. EHLERS, E.M. Determinantes da recuperação da Mata Atlântica no Estado de São Paulo. 2003. 281f. Tese (Doutorado em Ciência Ambiental) - Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2003. INSTITUTO BRASILEIRO DE GEOGRAFIA E ESTATÍSTICA, Censo Demográfico 1996. INSTITUTO BRASILEIRO DE GEOGRAFIA E ESTATÍSTICA. Síntese de Indicadores Sociais. Rio de Janeiro RJ, IBGE, 2006. INSTITUTO BRASILEIRO DE TURISMO – EMBRATUR, Pólos de Desenvolvimento do Ecoturismo. São Paulo, Instituto de Ecoturismo do Brasil, 2000. NEAP – www.ecotourism.org.au/neap.cfm RELATÓRIO DIAGNÓSTICO: Regulamentação, Normalização e Certificação em Turismo de Aventura. Brasília, August, 2005. SEIBEL, M. Evaluation of Canopy Ecotourism in Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah. Oxford, United Kingdom, 2006. SUSTAINABLE TOURISM AND POVERTY ALLEVIATION IN BRAZIL: Reflections and prospects. Brasília / Brazil. October, 2005.

WALLACE, G. N. AND S. M. PIERCE (1996). "An evaluation of ecotourism in Amazonas, Brazil." Annals of Tourism Research 23(4): 843-873.
WORLD TRAVEL & TURISM COUNCIL. The 2007 Travel & Turism Economic Research – World, Latin America and Brazil. Accenture. 2007.

102

Acknowledgements
Special thanks to environmental lawyer Veronika Schuler Dolenc for her tireless support on many different phases of this study. Many thanks also to all people who contributed to this study giving precious information over their canopy-access facilities, as well as to those who conceded their scarce time for a long personal or telephone interview: Adílio Miranda – Chief of Serra da Bodoquena National Park; Afonso Rodrigues – Ybirá Pe Canopy Tour; Antonio Donato Nobre – INPA (Instituo Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazônia); Arsênio Fernandes Martins – Selva Aventura; Augusto Barbosa Mariano - Tourism Secretary of Bonito; Carolina Nobre; Edmundo Costa Junior – Environment Secretary of Bonito; Fernando Nobre; Flávio Leopoldino –Ecoparque de Una; Geraldo Antonio Daher Corrêa Franco – IF (Instituto Florestal do Estado de São Paulo); Guilherme Rocha Dias – Parque das Neblinas; Gustavo Bauer – Parque Unipraias; Helena Romano – HR Viagens & Turismo; João Allievi – IEB (Instituto de Ecoturismo do Brasil); João Alves Flores – Fazenda Marupiara; José Arthur Soares de Figueiredo – Mayor of Bonito; José Carlos Francisco Junior – Alaya; José Luiz Nadai – Tuím Parque; Katherine Secoy – Global Canopy Programme; Leonardo Sá – MPEG (Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi); Lígia Ribeiro de Godoy Eisenlohr – Aventura no Rancho; Linde Nobre – Ecoparque de Una (former manager); Marcelo Skaf – Cânion Iguaçu; Márcio Vaz – Alaya; Mariano Colini Cenamo – Instituto de Conservação e Desenvolvimento Sustentável do Amazonas; Mássimo Desiati – Abeta (Associação Brasileira de Empresas de Turismo de Aventura); Mayra Ketter; Miroslava de Lima – Graded School (São Paulo); Patrícia Nobre; Paulo Nobre – INPE (Instituo Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais); Moema Viezzer – NGO Woman Education Net; Regina Fonseca – Toca da Raposa; Roberto Ezequiel Alves da Silva – Mata’dentro Ecoparque; Rodrigo Abrantes – Parque da Juventude; Rodrigo Braga Saldanha – Arvomix; Rodrigo Lanza Lopez – Grutas de São Miguel; Ronald Kaag – Ecopoint; Ricardo Márcio – Ecopoint; Rubens Magalhães – Circuito Arvorismo; Udo Alexandre Vagner – Altus; Vitória da Riva Carvalho – Cristalino Jungle Lodge; and Wilson Nobre Filho – Nucleotec (Núcleo de Tecnologia Avançada).

Veronika tries out a hanging bridge in an “arborism” circuit. It is a sequence of challenging aerial pathways starting at ground level and elevating to over 20 meters atop.

103

Credits
Ismael Nobre Study coordinator PhD Candidate at Colorado State University – CSU in Fort Collins, CO – USA BsC in Biology at São Carlos Federal University – UFSCar in São Carlos, SP – Brazil Elaine Cristina Rodrigues Field and office assistant Environmental analysis specialization student at Anglo-Americano College in Foz do Iguaçu, PR – Brazil BsC in Biology at Western Paraná State University – Unioeste in Cascavel, PR – Brazil

Ismael hangs on steel cables at an “arborism” circuit. Most canopy-access sites were found adrenaline-driven.

Elaine is geared up to experience a challenging canopy aerial route in Iguaçu National Park.

Contact information: Address: Rua José Novaes, 43 – São Paulo – SP – 05711–160 – Brazil E-mail: inobre@colostate.edu or nobrei@yahoo.com Phone: 55 (11) 8406 0066 Skype: inobre

104

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->