Case study presentation: The Upper Mustang conservation and development

project, Nepal
Chandra Gurung
1998
cgurung@go.com.jo

Keywords: conservation, development, Mustang, Nepal.

INTRODUCTION
Upper Mustang, situated on the northern border of Nepal adjoining Tibet, is an
isolated, economically impoverished region of Nepal which was recently
opened for trekking tourism. Until the political change in Nepal in 1990,
Mustang was considered a strategic area from a border security perspective,
and was closed to outside visitors, but since 1992, a limited number of trekkers
have been allowed to enter the area. In the early 1990s the Nepalese
government embarked on an ambitious project to use tourism as a means to
foster economic development, nature conservation and cultural heritage in this
region. Even though they have made some progress, numerous problems have
been reported which threaten the sustainability of the approach and seriously
comprise the goals of economic uplift and nature conservation. This case study
shows how rapid, poorly planned tourism development in remote mountain
areas like mustang can have matters worse, and undermine the chances for
long term improvements in social welfare and biodiversity management.

BACKGROUND

Mustang covers about 2,563 km2 in size and has a total population of 6,123 and
1,189 households, scattered in 32 small hamlets and isolated settlements
throughout the region. To reach Lo-Manthang (12,500' AMSL), the ancient
walled city and the capital of Mustang, it takes 10 days of hard walking from
the nearest road-head, or four days from the nearest seasonal airport. There is
no communication linkage between Mustang and outside world.

There are geographical, climatic and political factors which have retarded
tourism development in upper Mustang until recently. The region is situated in
the rain shadow of the Himalaya and receives less than 100 mm rainfall
annually. The high altitude and the combined effect of strong sun and wind are
responsible for Mustang's cold desert landscape. As a result, there is very little
vegetation and growing seasons are very short. Most of Mustang remains under
snow for 4 to 5 months a year. Basic necessities such as drinking water, health
services, schools, and alternative sources of energy are virtually non-existent.
The region is one of the most remotest and underdeveloped regions in Nepal.
The people have adapted to this environment by practicing a form of
subsistence agro-pastoralism and seasonal migration. Farming is done wherever
irrigation is possible, but only one crop a year can be produced. This barely
supports the local population for only 6 months a year, and the region is a
severe food deficit area. As a result, during the winter months almost 70
percent of the local people emigrate to the lower part of Mustang, Pokhara,
Kathmandu and India, for employment and trading. During this time, the
Nepalese Government closes all its offices in Mustang including schools, police
and border security offices. Only old people and young children are left in
Mustang.

In contrast to the small human population, Mustang has large herds of cattle,
sheep, goats, yaks and horses, totaling over 41,000. In the past, local people
were able to bring their livestock to Tibet for grazing. Since mid-1970s,
however, the Chinese government has restricted this practice, which has led to
a severe shortage of pasture land and localized grazing problems. A large
number of livestock have died as a result.

Fuelwood is another scarce resource in Mustang. There are only few patches of
forest left, and people are forced to cut or uproot the scattered junipers and
other scrub vegetation for heating and cooking. Local people have started using
yak dung and goat pellets as a supplementary energy source. This could have
the effect of decreased agricultural productivity due to shortage of manure.

Even so, this harsh environment supports a rich cultural and natural heritage.
Buddhism is very much alive in this region, and there are several monasteries,
cave dwellings, festivals and artifacts which reflect this living tradition. The
area is equally rich in biodiversity. Endangered species such as Snow leopard,
lynx, Tibetan arghali sheep and wild donkeys are found throughout the region.

THE UPPER MUSTANG CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (UMCDP)

After the restoration of multi-party democracy in Nepal in 1990, the Nepalese

Government decided to open up Mustang for trekking tourism and plough back
part of revenue for Mustang's development. A limit of 200 visitors a year was
set, and a group of high government delegates assured the local people at
various public meetings that 60% of the revenue generated from tourism would
be made available for mustang's development and heritage conservation. To
finance this scheme, trekkers wishing to visit the area were required to be with
a registered group organized through an authorized trekking agency. A
premium fee of US$ 500 per week (per person) was levied with a maximum of
two weeks allowed in the region. Groups had to be self-sufficient in kerosene
and all garbage had to be carried out. Furthermore, each trekking group had to
be accompanied by an environmental officer (EO) whose remuneration was also
paid by the group. The EO's job was to assure that the group followed the
prescribed route and environmental protocols, and that they do not purchase
or smuggle any valuable artifacts out of Mustang.

In March 1992, the first batch of tourists visited upper Mustang. Realizing the
potential profits to be made, the tourism industry started lobbying the
government to increase the 200 tourists per year limit and decrease the
premium for the second week. Most treks to Mustang required at least ten
days, and US$ 1000.00 was seen as too exorbitant. Within a couple of months,
the number of visitors authorized to trek to Mustang was increased to 400 for a
year and the premium fee was revised to US$ 700 for ten days of trekking. Each
additional day beyond 10 days was charged US$ 70 per day. Six months later,
the number of tourists was again increased to 1,000 a year.

To oversee conservation and development activities in Mustang, the

government brought in the King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation
(KMTNC), Nepal's leading environmental non-governmental organization.
KMTNC had successfully implemented the Annapurna Conservation Area Project
(ACAP) since 1986, and was the logical choice given its expertise as well as its
geographical proximity to Mustang. ACAP's northern border adjoins the
southern part of Mustang. The government decided to handover the
management responsibilities of Mustang to KMTNC, and in July 1992, the
Nepalese Government gazetted the ACA and included upper Mustang within its
jurisdiction.

The KMTNC sent a team of experts in August 1992 to carry out the feasibility
study and identify needs and priorities of Mustang. In November 1992, 9 months
after Mustang was opened for trekking tourism, the KMTNC commenced its
activities by establishing the "Upper Mustang Conservation and Development
Project (UMCDP)" project office in Lo-Manthang. For the first time, local
communities had seen outsiders residing in Mustang during winter season. The
UMCDP staff began its work by gathering basic information of the village and
spends a great deal of time developing rapport with the local people and on
environmental awareness activities. Cleaning campaigns were launched and
rubbish pits were dug. Biodegradable and non-biodegradable items were
separated as far as possible and burnt or buried as required. Even the local
Buddhist monks were happy to participate. For the first time, the local
communities received medical support as one of the UMCDP staff was a health
worker. These activities built up strong feelings of mutual trust between the
project and the local community, which created a positive work environment
for future initiatives. Together, the staff of the UMCDP and members of the
local community developed a work plan to guide their activities during the
upcoming years.

UMCDP focused broadly on five key programmes:

1) Sustainable Tourism Development,

2) Natural Resources Conservation,

3) Cultural Heritage Conservation,

4) Alternative Energy Development, and

5) Community Development

These programs were carried out via numerous trainings, study tours,
awareness campaigns. Training on lodge management, food preparation,
sanitation and hygiene, and handicraft production were provided.
Representatives of the local community were brought to ACAP's field sites to
see how other communities manage tourism, and to learn from communities
facing similar issues. In order to raise awareness among the visitors,
informational brochures and codes of conduct were developed and distributed
with trekking permits and through UMCDP's information office at Kagbeni, the
gateway village to Mustang. Since all tourists were required to register at the
police check-post there, the UMCDP staff worked closely with the police to
assure that tourists and guides followed the guidelines.

UMCDP also carried out surveys for various alternative sources of energy, such
as micro-hydro and solar electricity energy. A kerosene depot was established
at Kagbeni to fulfill the immediate energy needs, and UMCDP helped to
rehabilitate some of the existing micro-hydro facilities that were not working.
In order to meet fodder and fuel wood needs, reforestation programmes were
launched by adopting the local plantation techniques. The UMCDP also helped
the local communities in irrigation and agriculture. Conservation education and
extension programmes were launched to raise environmental awareness among
school children and adults alike. Basic infrastructure works were also
undertaken, such as the construction of a health post, schools, bridges and
trails. The UMCDP also provided support for monasteries and historical
renovations.

In order to manage and sustain these efforts, local-level conservation and

development committees (CDCs), lodge management committees (LMC) and
mothers' group or "Ama Samuha" (AS) were formed. These are grass-roots level
management committees who are empowered and given responsibilities of
managing and utilizing their natural resources and tourism industry.

CONSTRAINTS TO SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION

While UMCDP has had demonstrated success, several problems plague both the
day to day operations as well as the sustainability of the project as a whole.
One of the biggest problems has been financial sustainability. For a variety of
reasons, the Nepalese Government never provided 60% of the tourism revenue
for Mustang's development. In 1992, approximately US$ 303,000 was collected,
out of which approximately US$ 126,000 (41%) was given to KMTNC for UMCDP.
The following year, there was an increase in revenue amounting to US$ 534,000
whereas the contribution received by KMTNC from the government was only
about 25%. There has been a considerable decrease in the amount received by
KMTNC from the government ever since. In 1997, for example, the KMTNC
received only US$ 25,000 (4.5%) whereas the revenue collected from Mustang
trekking fee amounted to US$ 548,000. Now, in order to continue the on-going
programmes of UMCDP in Mustang, the financial burden is on the shoulders of
KMTNC/ACAP.

Another obstacle to UMCDP's success is the lack of coordination among

international donors. Once Mustang was opened, many outside organizations
showed their interest to work in Mustang. In addition, several foreign
ambassadors who were resident in Nepal visited the area and promised or
provided direct support to the local communities. Currently, there are at least
five international organizations with multi-year projects, aside from UMCDP:
CARE International, Mustang Development Service Association-Japan, American
Himalayan Foundation, and National Centre for Scientific Research (CRNS)-
France, and United Nations International Labour Organization (ILO). Some of
these projects are working in close collaborations with UMCDP whereas others
are conducted in an independent fashion, and there have been several
problems with duplication, contrary methods, and even competition for
community support. The KMTNC / ACAP organized coordination meetings with
government and INGOs for a better coordination in development programmes
for Mustang which has helped a little bit in coordination.

Another factor is the rapid pace at which tourism was brought to Mustang,
without time for proactive community planning and basic infrastructure
development. Visitation has been steadily growing, from 433 tourists in 1992 to
over 800 in 1996. Total number of tourists so far number 4,312. Because
mustang is so remote and underdeveloped, without any basic tourist
infrastructure such as hotels and lodges, appropriate energy sources, waste
management system and drinking water facilities, the KMTNC felt that it was
too early to open the area to tourism. They felt that doing so could potentially
be much more destructive and actually undermine the long term sustainable
development of the region. The KMTNC lobbied very hard not to open Mustang
for three years in order to develop basic infrastructure, train the local people
to manage lodges and camp sites, and establish alternative energy sources and
waste management systems. The government did not agree with this proposal
and the opening up of Mustang continued.

As a result of high donor interest, international publicity, and rapid tourism

development, the expectations of local people have been raised far beyond
realistic levels. This had had several unintended effects which has
compromised the potential for both nature conservation and sustainable
economic development. Within the first year many international television
companies and photo journalists visited Mustang. At times, helicopters were
flying back and forth from Kathmandu every day, carrying dignitaries from
many parts of the world. The Rt. Honourable Raja of Mustang, Jigme Parbal
Bista, and his son traveled to America, Europe and Japan as guests of foreign
INGOs to raise funds for both Mustang and the INGOs. The local people
responded to this hoopla by charging exorbitant prices for renting horses,
camping places and some of their valuable arts and crafts in an effort to make
a quick buck. In some cases they even captured wild animals to sell to the
tourists. In many cases, the EO, who was supposed to enforce the regulations,
never went along with the group, preferring to take his salary and stay in more
comfortable accommodations in the low altitudes. The situation has gotten out
of control: community cohesiveness is breaking down, short-term gain is
overriding long-term development, and the environment continues to suffer.

CONCLUSION - LESSONS LEARNED

What lessons can we learned from Mustang, even though the UMCDP began with
a clear set of objectives and an operational framework that linked tourism with
community development and nature conservation. Since the inception of
UMCDP in Mustang in 1992, a considerable number of infrastructure facilities
such as trails, bridges, health posts, schools, micro-hydro electricity
rehabilitation, and development of solar energy, irrigation, and drinking water
projects have been established. Important monasteries have been helped to
renovate and a lamasery school has been opened. Forest plantations have been
carried out in order to supplement fodder and fuelwood needs. Local people
have been given training lodge management, food preparation, sanitation and
hygiene. In order to manage and sustain conservation and development efforts,
local level conservation and development committees (CDCs), lodge
management committees (LMCs) and mothers' group or "Ama Samuha (AS) have
been formed. Satisfactory progress has been made by UMCDP since its
establishment. However, several factors impinged upon its success.

1) Poor Planning, Preparation and Changing Government Policies:

Tourism is a very dynamic industry. It is a goose that lays golden eggs if it is

properly managed. Otherwise it also fouls its own nest. Tourism started in
Mustang without any proper planning and development of tourism
infrastructure. People were not trained about managing tourism. Government
policies changed very often. Private tourism industry also lacked long-term
vision. They gave pressure to the government to change its policies. The EO
who was supposed to be the enforcer of the rules laid down by the Ministry of
Tourism, a lot of them use this as a way of making extra-money rather than
fulfilling their duties.

2) While the Government decided to limit the number of tourists and enforce
kerosene only policy, there was no rule for the support staff particularly for
porters and guides who accompanied the tourists. In average, 4 support staff
was brought in by one tourist. Thus, almost 4,000 porters, guides and support
staff used the same scarce resources as a source of energy. Similarly, the MOT
rule did not apply to the porters on carrying out their waste. Thus, pollution
and litter also became problem in Mustang.

3) The role and responsibilities of KMTNC / ACAP was not well defined in
Mustang. When a protected area is managed by the Government, the
Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC), has full
authority within the protected area. Everybody, both public and private sector,
have to receive authorization from the Department in the use of the resources.
In contrast to the Department, KMTNC being an NGO was not fully authorized
to strictly enforce rules and regulations within the protected area.
Development projects and licenses were issued by various organs of the
Government without the knowledge of KMTNC. Therefore, the question arose
who is the main responsible organization to coordinate all the development
activities within Mustang?

4) In order to achieve a sustainable tourism development, all the stakeholders:

the local communities, the private sectors, the government and the visitors,
have roles to play in conserving and protecting the natural and cultural
heritage of Mustang. Neither the Government's representative, the EO fulfill his
duty properly nor the private sector. Private sectors also lacked long-term
vision and were into making a quick buck. Similarly, the local people also went
for a quick money as they were not trained how to derive a long-term benefit
from tourism.

All of these factors have affected the environment of Mustang and tourism
industry as well. The most disturbing trend I have observed now in Mustang is
the creation of economic disparity by tourism which has brought social
disharmony in the community.

Therefore, what we can learn from Mustang's case is that even if there is a
possibility of generating revenue from mountain tourism and plough back for
the community development and conservation activities, the tourism may bring
more negative impacts into the community unless the tourism plan is properly
developed and executed.

________________

Notes to readers

This paper is a case study on The Upper Mustang Conservation and

Development Project, (UMCDP), Nepal. A Mountain Forum email conference on
community-based mountain tourism.