Analysis of Future Scenarios for Tourism Development in ...€¦ · 2.2 Stakeholder analysis ... 15 people of Khumbu origin living or visiting Kathmandu, and staff and experts of

Giuseppe Daconto, Lhakpa N. Sherpa and Jeremy Spoon

Exploring the future:

Analysis of Future Scenarios for Tourism Development in Sagarmatha

National Park and Buffer ZoneSecond Scenario Planning Workshop

Namche Bazar, 28-30 May 2007

Partner: CESVI

Activity: A.1.1 4

Date: January 2008

Version: final

Circulation: Public

HKKH SP-SNP 2nd session report final

2

Version History

Version number Edited by Sent on date Sent to Action required Comments 2.1.08 GD 2.1.08 Jeremy Spoon, Lhakpa N. Sherpa review 4.2.08 GD 87.2.08 HKKH

CESVI’s contacts: [email protected] Author’s contacts: [email protected]

The future as a braided river of possible outcomes.


3

CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................4

1.1 Background and objectives of the session...............................................................................4 1.2 Structure of this report.............................................................................................................5 1.3 Acknowledgments .....................................................................................................................5 1.4 Workshop preparation: merging Scenario Planning with Theatre for Development ........5

2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ............................................................................................6 2.1 Introduction to the study of the future and scenario planning .............................................6 2.2 Stakeholder analysis .................................................................................................................6 2.3 Trend lines and past milestones ...............................................................................................7 2.4 Hopes and fears for the future .................................................................................................8 2.5 The Focal Question. ..................................................................................................................9 2.6 System description and drivers of future change...................................................................9

2.6.1 Controllable drivers of change ................................................................................................................9 2.6.2 Uncontrollable drivers of change ..........................................................................................................10

2.7 Identification of alternative futures....................................................................................... 10 2.8 Playing out and discussing future scenarios. ........................................................................ 12

2.8.1 Scenario 1: High government centralization; High control by outside investment .............................12 2.8.2 Scenario 2: Low centralization; Low level of control by outside business..........................................12

2.9 Analysis of scenarios ............................................................................................................... 13 2.10 Closing comments ................................................................................................................... 13

3 PARTICIPANTS’ EVALUATION......................................................................................15

4 COMMENTS BY THE FACILITATORS ..........................................................................17

5. PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD .............................................................................................18

Appendix-1. List of Participants................................................................................................21


4

1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background and objectives of the session Scenario planning is a tool to support strategic thinking and multistakeholder exploration of the future. Scenario Planning methodology was originally conceived by large business corporations to explore the long term possibilities and different directions that their environment and markets could take. The objective is not to predict what the long term future might be, which is impossible. It is rather to learn from the future, similarly to our learning from the past. The methodology is based on the identification and creative description of future possible scenarios, that means futures that could be, alternative dynamic stories that include descriptions of the industry and the area, without worrying about the probability of each possible future. Through this methodology, one can think very carefully through possible developments that could happen and learn from rehearsing the future stories built by stakeholders.

The conceptual basis of the exercise is presented in a separate document1. In March 2007, a scenario planning exercise was organized by the DSS Partnership at Dulikhel, Nepal2. The event was attended by 15 people of Khumbu origin living or visiting Kathmandu, and staff and experts of DSS Partnership Agencies including IUCN, EvK2CNR, ICIMOD, CESVI and representatives from the Department of Naitonal Parks and Wildlife Conservation and Sagarmatha National Park.

The first session identified two focal questions for the future of SNP and BZ, formulated as follows:

How do we develop and maintain quality tourism, local identity and control ?

That session produced an initial identification and description of drivers of change in Khumbu which will affect plausible outcomes concerning that future dilemma. It also produced an initial narrative description of four plausible future states in which the region might find herself in a 25 years perspective. The participants selected (a) national politics and (b) the extent of control over local business retained by local people versus outside investors, as the two most prominent drivers of future change in the region. By exploring the plausible interplay of these two forces, they produced four alternative scenarios for the SNP region. The discussion around the scenarios allowed the participants to question trends in a long term perspective and assumptions over long term trends underlying present day’s decisions and stakeholders’ perspectives.

This initial session has been designed to introduce the concept and test the acceptability of future analysis through scenario planning. The participants expressed a very positive appraisal of this experience and recommended to involve a larger group of stakeholders in further process, and in particular local level stakeholders and representatives of the SNP governance system.

The facilitators recommended therefore an approach to further analysis and scenario planning work as a soft tool to strengthen capacities in system analysis, multistakeholder consultation and strategic planning.

The second session was organised in May 2007 to involve in the process representatives of the Buffer Zone User Groups, Committees and Council, along with local DNPWC officials.

The objectives of this second sessions were:

1. to engage Buffer Zone institutional representatives from across Khumbu and Pharak in a system oriented analysis of the future patterns of change in the region and the tourism industry;

2. to validate the outcomes of the first session, in terms of:

1 Daconto, G. Analysis of future scenarios for Sagarmatha National Park: Scenario planning as participatory decision support tool. DRAFT- 1: concept paper for discussion. Institutional Consolidation for the Coordinated and Integrated Monitoring of Natural Resources towards Sustainable Development and Environmental Conservation in the Hindu Kush-Karakoram-Himalaya Mountain Complex. CESVI. January 2007. 2 Daconto, G. and Sherpa, L.N. Exploring the Future. Analysis of Future Scenarios for Tourism Development in Sagarmatha National Park and Buffer Zone. Report on the First Scenario Planning Exercise Dwarika’s Himalayan Shangri-La Resort, Dhulikhel 23-25 March 2007. Institutional Consolidation for the Coordinated and Integrated Monitoring of Natural Resources towards Sustainable Development and Environmental Conservation in the Hindu Kush-Karakoram-Himalaya Mountain Complex. CESVI. May 2007.


5

a. values and priorities relevant to local stakeholders for future analysis;

b. description of the system (i.e., stakeholder analysis and drivers of change);

c. review of the first scenarios produced for internal consistency based on participants’ knowledge and perceptions;

3. to initiate a consultative process of the development of a long term vision for development and management of Khumbu;

4. to test a drama based approach to scenario development and validation.

1.2 Structure of this report This document contains:

1. The record of the proceedings of the event;

2. Comments by the facilitators on the event and way ahead;

1.3 Acknowledgments The Scenario Planning session was organised by CESVI as part of the HKKH-DSS project. The event was prepared and co-facilitated by Mr Giuseppe Daconto of CESVI and Dr Lhakpa Norbu Sherpa of The Mountain Institute. Mr Jeremy Spoon assisted note taking and provided important comments on the organisation and conduct of the session. Mr Prakash Dhital and Rajesh Thapa of MITRA conducted the drama sessions and also assisted the facilitation of the proceedings.

The participants, listed in Annex-2, include representatives for a large number of BZUG, and the Chair and Vice-Chair of the BZ Council, as well as the SNP Warden and ranger.

1.4 Workshop preparation: merging Scenario Planning with Theatre for Development Given the relatively abstract nature of some of the proceedings used to introduce and apply scenario planning to stakeholders, we have thought of testing a drama based representation of scenarios to engage stakeholders at grassroot level. CESVI entered into an agreement with Mitra, a Kathmandu based NGO specialised in facilitation and media related social work. MITRA made available two artists/trainers, with background and experience in Theatre for Development.

The main purpose of this engagement was to facilitate drama based role playing by the workshop participants. This had been tested to a limited degree during the first session. It was assumed that an informal role playing exercise facilitated by professional local artists in Nepali language could help eliciting creative and involved participation during the event. We made specific reference to the elaboration of alternative storylines, whereby the artists were meant to stimulate the playing of credible roles and actions of key stakeholders by the workshop participants, within the parameters of each individual scenario. We thought that this could help capture participants’ knowledge about the local dynamics in a practical fashion, as opposed to an abstract conceptualisation. We also wanted to test whether dramatisation could help gauging the reactions of participants to the storylines, which had been written with the purpose of provoking out of the box thinking about the future. The artists were also asked to facilitate energising and creative breaks in between sessions of the workshop.

The typical experience of MITRA’s artists in Theatre for Development mainly involves the organisation and performance of a week long session for rural and urban communities. During such sessions, community members are given seminar type of lessons about the fundamental elements of drama, from script-writing to acting skills. The artists cum trainers also write, perform and assist to organise and perform community theatre plays on issues of public health, development, human rights, etc..

The preparation involved the introduction of scenario planning concepts to MITRA’s artists, the review of the scenarios produced in the first session and detailed planning of the event’s schedule and steps.

The report of the first session was summarised in a concise form and translated into Nepali for distribution among participants and reference for the dramatisation.

Workshop preparation also involved logistic organisation of the mission to SNP by project team and of the event in Namche Bazaar; and the review of the results of the first session.


6

2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

DAY ONE

OPENING SESSION

The facilitators gave an introduction about the HKKH Partnership.

2.1 Introduction to the study of the future and scenario planning The facilitators gave a presentation on the objectives of the workshop, the background about the first session, and introduced the concept of future analysis. The purpose of the event was not to identify near or medium term actions. This workshop was rather organised as a way to think about the long term future of the area and to propose stakeholders to engage on discussion on the strategic direction of the future. This required to grasp the uncertainty surrounding the long term futures, the different aspirations and concerns of the many stakeholders and the wide range of possible directions that the area may take. The participants were requested to express the reasons why they wished to explore the future, by writing their motivation on cards. Results are presented in Box-1.

BOX-1: Participants’ responses : why do you want to think about the future of Khumbu and Pharak ?

The discussions highlighted that, as the Sherpa culture is rooted in Buddhism, their view of the world and the future is anchored on the concept of Kharma: in other words, one’s present situation is determined by past conduct and today’s actions determine one’s future.

The presentation gave an overview of the programme of the workshop and introduced the concept of scenarios as plausible alternative futures build by stakeholders and based on their knowledge of the area and the tourism industry.

2.2 Stakeholder analysis Participants were presented with the outcome of the stakeholders analysis produced in the first session (translated into Nepali and written in a poster). They were requested to identify the ones they felt were the most important interest groups in the area regarding management issues and tourism. These were listed as follows:

• To keep our own area safe and balanced. • To have a good livelihood. • To have a comfortable and respectable life. • To have sustainable development, to promote cultural knowledge, and to have a wise

use of the environment. • To avoid bad incidences. • To make it safe for future generations to live here. • To think about the environment, forest, air, and water, as well as children and

grandchildren. • The future is important for the next generations. With no future, there is no life. • It is important for sustainable development, children and grandchildren. • To have a successful livelihood through sustainable tourism and villages. • If we do not do something about our future, we will not be successful. If we do not, our

economy and society will degrade. Because the region is dependent on tourism, we must think about it.

• Because of political changes, competition, and technology.


7

Institution Goal/comments

Politicians If political parties are honest, the area will be developed, there will be security and peace, and there will be assistance for tourism. The politicians always sound positive, but there actions can have negative influences.

Department of National Park and Wildlife Conservation

To support sustainable tourism

VDC Infrastructure development in support to tourism development

DDC Infrastructure development in support to tourism development

Trekking agents To develop the tourism industry

Trekking guidebook writers Own promotion

Foreign government and embassies

Financial institutions, such as banks and money exchange

Organizations involved in tourism capacity building

Well wishers of Khumbu, such as national and international personalities

To see positive development in Khumbu

Cultural groups

Monasteries cultural and local language conservation

2.3 Trend lines and past milestones Participants were asked to identify the principal historical events that have impacted the Khumbu region over the past 30 years (from 1970) in the following categories: natural, economic, social-political, cultural, technological, and institutional. The exercise was conducted orally.


8

Transcript:

• Natural: destruction of alpine vegetation (1970); Reforestation (1984); Ama Dablam GLOF (1977); Glacial lake (Dig Tsho) burst (1985); Fanga avalanche (1994)

• Economic: Growth in mountaineering on Everest (1980s); Quality lodge development (1990s); Resorts like Kongde built (2006)

• Social-Political: Privatization of airlines (1970); Political changes after 1990; Maoists went to the jungle (1996); Restricted area opened (2000); Peace process attained (2006)

• Cultural: Cultural change (from 1970s)

• Technological: Hydropower, Telecom, internet (from 1994)

• Institutional: SNP (1976); UNESCO WH (1979); SPCC (1990); SCAFP (1995-2005); Buffer Zone (2002); TRPAP (2003-6)

2.4 Hopes and fears for the future Participants were asked to identify their greatest hopes and fears for the Khumbu region in the next 30 years. Responses were written on cards, collected and read back to the group.

Hopes Fears

• Better protection of wildlife and vegetation, and better protection of the hotel businesses.

• Development of cultural and ecological tourism.

• Pollution free Khumbu. • Balanced environment. • No pollution, high standard for tourism, and

economic improvement. • Khumbu retains its cultural and linguistic

originality, which will become a tourism product.

• Sherpa brothers will be more unified, more tourists, making progress in conservation of culture and environment.

• Progress in protection of forests, medicinal plants, and animals.

• Improvement in cleanliness and electricity. • Conserved traditional architecture and

recycling and composting of litter. • Improved trails and education. • Enhanced Sherpa culture and traditions. • Electricity in all houses, road network

throughout SNPBZ, and forest on all vacant lands.

• Happiness comes through conserving language and religious traditions.

• Educated people, clean environment, poverty alleviation, conservation of cultural heritage, endangered wildlife conservation, good trails and development of roadways, and improved security.

• Development of new technology. • Road between Saleri and Namche.

• Rapid changes in society, religion, and culture. • Degraded Sherpa culture. • Loss of culture and tradition. • Quick economic growth brings cultural

degradation, more pollution, and unhappiness (stress). High chances of loss of language and religion

• Disappearance of Sherpa culture. • People have to look for a “Sherpa” in 30 years. • Sherpas becoming a minority in their own land

because of out-migration. • Seeing increased pollution, deforestation, loss

of culture, and lack of cooperation. • Reduction in tourism, floods and landslides, loss

of culture, and loss of peace and security. • Road going above Lukla. • Seeing hotels and lodges developed around Mt.

Everest. • Destruction of ozone and global warming,

population growth, unpredictable weather, and out-migration of youth.

• Deforestation, loss of Sherpa culture, pollution due to uncontrolled and unmanaged tourism, economic inequality, breakdown in Sherpa unity, loss of rare wildlife.

• Massive deforestation • Pollution and ice and snow melting. • More pollution, degraded trails, modernization

that degrades local culture. • Seeing destroyed culture and religion. • Impact of climate change and deforestation. • Uncontrolled tourism that causes pollution and

destruction of local culture. • Cultural destruction.


9

2.5 The Focal Question. The concept of focal question was introduced, as the focus for the exploration of the future that participants wished to choose. The FQ formulated during the first session (“How do we develop and maintain quality tourism, local identity, and control?”) was produced and participants were requested to ponder it and confirm whether the formulation captured their main concern for the future. Participants were divided randomly into groups and discussed the issue. Group conclusions were presented in plenary discussion, which led to the re-formulation of the FQ as follows:

• How to develop quality and sustainable eco-tourism in the Park and Buffer Zone ?

DAY TWO

2.6 System description and drivers of future change Participants were requested to identify factors which will drive and affect future change in the area, keeping in mind the focal question. The concept of driver was introduced and debated. A total of thirty-one variables were identified by the participants. These variables were first grouped into controllable and not controllable categories. The variables under controllable and not controllable categories were further clustered into certain or uncertain groups with reference to available knowledge about the trajectory of change and causal factors. Cards were also sorted around main domains such as natural, economic, socio-political, technological, cultural, and institutional.

2.6.1 Controllable drivers of change Certain Uncertain

Natural Consumption of energy (firewood)

Economic Local economic growth

Standards of trekking agencies

Organization of porter services

Tourist services provided by locals

Change in production of local agro-pastoral goods

Competition among local entrepreneurs

Change in livestock economy

Socio-political Local population growth rate

Security Levels of corruption

Technological/Infrastructure

Technological development in energy sector

Road access

Cultural Change in female role Change in cultural identity

Institutional Management of environmental pollution


10

2.6.2 Uncontrollable drivers of change Certain Uncertain Natural GLOF Climate

change

Economic In-migration of outsiders Out-migration of local people

Number of tourists

External investment

Tourist preferences

Socio-political Government education policy and programs

Government tourism policy

International politics

Trans-boundary and cross-border tourism policy of Tibet

Pandemic disease

Changes in national politics

Technological/Infrastructure

Impact of air accessibility

Cultural Exposure to media

Institutional

Participants were encouraged to discuss the classification of each of the main drivers. Discussion points:

• Out-migration can be controlled by education and job opportunities. Better facilities and opportunities exist outside which attract Sherpas from Khumbu. There are contrasting views whether this phenomenon can be controlled or not, while the majority tended to classify it as uncontrollable.

• Participants felt that migration into Khumbu by outsiders was also a complex issue, which was eventually classified as uncontrollable by local stakeholders, on par with out-migration.

• Local stakeholders can control the standards of trekking companies. If the standards are low, the tourists will pay less and the local quality will decrease

• Change in government policy can support or deny control by local stakeholders. If government makes policy to allow access to restricted areas, the local people will have no control. On the other hand, if they have a say in the policy or are involved, they can exert control. The Buffer Zone governance system is an example of local control and its implementation can influence future policy changes.

• Livestock promotion would increase with a compensation program for losses due to wildlife.

• Corruption is not just an issue of kickbacks. If an official does anything for his or her benefit, this is also corruption. There are many types of corruptions, from local to national levels.

2.7 Identification of alternative futures From the list of uncertain and uncontrollable drivers, the participants were asked to choose two most important drivers that are likely to play major role in determining the future of Khumbu while keeping in mind the focal questions. Each group selected two drivers The selected drivers were ranked for their importance based on number of times they were selected by different teams. The results in order of priority were:

1) Number of tourists

2) Change in national politics

3) Tourist preferences

However, instead of building alternatives around these drivers, the facilitators suggested to refer to the alternative drivers selected in the first session. This was due to the high level of convergence between the two sessions, in terms of identification of drivers, and the lack of time to better articulate the above key drivers and elaborate new scenarios.

Therefore, the four alternative scenarios identified during the first session were introduced and described. The Nepali language translations were distributed.


11

High centralisation

Low level of control by outside business

High centralisation

High level of control by outside business

Low centralisation

Low level of control by outside business

Low centralisation

High level of control by outside business


12

2.8 Playing out and discussing future scenarios. The session aimed at stimulating reflection on two of the four scenarios produced in the first workshop. The participants were divided into two groups and asked to act out different scenarios that reflected the scripts from the previous planning session. The groups were assisted by the Mitra artists in performing characters associated with the storylines, which were freely adapted and simplified. The two plots were presented in short performances and both artists and participants promptly engaged in vibrant and humorous plays.

2.8.1 Scenario 1: High government centralization; High control by outside investment Scenario Plot: Government has sparse resources. It becomes vulnerable to outside investors since they provide resources. Local people do not get their needs fulfilled since they do not have the capital.

Comments:

If the government lack resources, external investment will have a lot of influence.

Local people will not have access to their natural resources.

Local people will suffer with a lot of external investment.

Local people need to have direct contact with central government without a broker.

If there is high government centralization, corruption will be high.

All vital positions will be held by external players, which will make their decisions reflect their own interests.

Government does not care about local people and will support external investment.

Local people will be slaves to external investors.

The local community can stop this scenario from happening.

If this happens, local people must know what to do. They must be prepared.

Government without money will take investors’ money and use it towards own interests.

External investors could support the maintenance of gompas for tourism and to gain support from the local people.

If external investment is high, education, transportation, and health could be more developed, even though local people will not be in control. Investors will help themselves, if they live here, they will provide infrastructure. But, there will be no local culture.

Outside investment does not respect local needs.

There have been three stages of development in Nepal: development as compensation, need-based, and right-based. Now is the time for right-based development.

We need to ask the question whether we should allow external investment.

We should designate what local can provide and what needs to come from outside.

External investment can be good, if controlled properly.

2.8.2 Scenario 2: Low centralization; Low level of control by outside business

Scenario plot: A tourist is visiting the area with a guide. The guide explains that the management of the park area has been fully decentralized and that the money spent by the tourist can help develop the community. 70% of revenues go to development in the community and 30% is retained by the park. There are various positive and negative behaviors in reaction to having full control, including a drunk villager harassing the tourist.

Comments:

Current political changes in Nepal supports decentralization.

Local language promotion was missing from the scenario.


13

Poor discipline can be a reaction to decentralization.

The local community does not have the ability to establish all of the necessary institutions for development, such as engineers and doctors.

Rules and regulations would be made in a short amount of time, as they are necessary.

The biodiversity would be conserved very well.

The message is not clear from this scenario.

There would need to be anti-alcoholism program by locals for locals.

Decentralization can be misused, such as the drunkard and misuse of authority in the scenario.

Is full decentralization a good idea? Will it bring success?

This scenario is a perfect place to develop sustainable ecotourism, if done correctly.

2.9 Analysis of scenarios Participants were asked which scenario is the most ideal and voted by a show of hands. 100% of participants agreed that the ideal scenario is 2 (low government centralization; low level of control by outside business). They were then asked to identify challenges and opportunities to reach scenario 2 from today’s situation. The following table captures the responses.

Table 1. Challenges and opportunities to reach scenario 2 (low government centralization; low level of control by outside business)

Challenges Opportunities Lack of expertise Growth in the local economy Lack of awareness Control of local population Lack of local resources Better security Lack of competition Porter management Lack of female involvement Pollution control Improved local services and facilities Fuel use Changes in local products Development of local resources Livestock economy Cultural conservation

Participants were asked what steps would need to be taken to move ahead in actualizing scenario 2.

How do you minimize external business encroachment?

o Create tourism sub-committee with guidelines through Buffer Zone Committee to give permission for outside development.

o Grow more local expertise.

o Institutional capacity development.

What can you do to achieve decentralized government?

o Ability to coordinate with regional government.

o Increase local involvement.

o Representation in Constituent Assembly.

2.10 Closing comments Mr Tulsi Sharma, Chief Warden, SNP, stated that the main local business is tourism. People needed to question how can we run tourism in the long-term and for our current generation. They should question about the long term future of their community. All activities should go towards the objectives of long-term


14

planning agreed upon by community.

Mr Tenzing Tashi, Chairperson, Khumjung Buffer Zone, stated that there was a need to count wildluife in the National Park; business development and biodiversity conservation are very important. The was a need to focus on how to implement and negotiate park and buffer zone rules and regulations; to trainlocasl people to manage the visitor centre; to undertake research oriented conservation and management of the park.

Mr Sonam Gelzen, Chairperson, Namche Buffer Zone, stated that coordination between the Buffer Zone and National Park was going smoothly, but everybody should be responsible. Buffer Zone User Groups are not working systematically. It is important to follow the agree management system and once the Buffer Zone is strong the National Park will also be strong. In the future there will be a big gap because of working style. Conflict resolution is important. One must make sure that the NGOs objectives and outputs from their activities are supporting National Park and biodiversity conservation. A few potential new ideas deserved attention: capacity building, library, research information center, networking of tourist record, direct connection with Jorsale/Monjo to SNP headquarters, DNPWC, and community. Park staff should understand the local users’ attitude. Media development, such as FM radio station with broadcasting in Sherpa language and content on Sherpa culture was also important, along with preservation of spiritual values.

Mingma Tshering, Secretary, Charikaka Buffer Zone, stated that to obtain sustainable tourism we need: An alternative trail for livestock; to widen the existing trail; development of cultural based tourism with home-stays; to spread tourism benefits off the main route.


15

3 PARTICIPANTS’ EVALUATION Participants were asked to review the meeting objectives and indicate how well they thought these had been achieved on a scale of 0 (not at all) to 10 (fully achieved) (Evaluation form used is included in Appendix-5).

1. Objective: Understand and try Scenario Planning as a tool to assess strategies and explore the future

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

SCORE

FRE

QU

EN

CY

2. Objective: Improve awareness of your perceptions about change and factors likely to influence SNP and the tourism industry in the long term

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

SCORE

FRE

QU

EN

CY


16

3. Objective: Start developing possible alternative future scenarios for SNP and tourism.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

SCORE

FRE

QU

EN

CY

4. Objective: Provide advice to the HKK-DSS project on work on future analysis

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

SCORE

FRE

QU

EN

CY

Unfortunately the record of narrative evaluations collected through the questionnaire was lost due to a technical problem after the workshop. Nevertheless, we can report that narrative comments provided by participants showed a wide range of appreciation for the workshop. Some participants felt comfortable with the SP workshop methodology, while others felt unable to fully participate and contribute, due to poor grasp of the approach and illiteracy of some participants. This wide range of receptions is consistent with the wide scoring range provided in the graphs above.


17

4 COMMENTS BY THE FACILITATORS

The workshop suffered from a number of practical problems: the choice of the venue in Namche Bazar proved unhappy, as many participants did not follow the proceedings continuously but went in and out. They also had abundant distractions, including The Everest Marathon which arrived in front of the venue on the last day of the workshop and interrupted the proceedings. The total attendance on the three days was 18, 24 and 21 people respectively.

The drama approach proved very helpful in capturing the mood and feelings related to the scenarios. The drama animators conducted break-away sessions between SP sessions and provided participants with simple inductions to acting and dramatisation. Later they couched and supported them in acting out two short plays about two selected scenarios. The participants were extremely engaged in this part of the workshop and provided very positive comments on it.

However, we have learnt that a more adaptive approach to dramatisation is required so support an exploratory approach to enquiries about the future and to challenge people’s perspectives and mindsets in a constructive way. Nonetheless, the dramatisation gave confidence to a number of participants who had been less vocal in the other workshop sessions.

SP proved conceptually demanding for a number of participants, while others engaged actively in the explorations of plausible futures. This refers in particular to the initial sessions, concerning the identification of the future dilemma (focal question) and description of the system. Therefore, there was a bit of hiatus between the first and second part of the workshop, which constrained some potential outcome from the discussions.

Nevertheless, those initial sessions proved useful in highlighting an assessment of challenges, expectations and future dilemmas, plus a system description, which were strongly consistent with the picture produced during the first SP workshop, attended mainly by Kathmandu based Sherpa tourism operators. Both groups appeared as grappling with the same future dilemma and shared a very similar view of the forces which are likely to shape the future state of the park in the long term.

As in the case of the first workshop, participants enquired about the relevance of SP to their immediate management concerns and planning processes. These concerns emerged once again at the end of the workshop, as many of the participants are directly involved in the park governance system. This appears due to the extensive exposure of most participants to the park planning process which had taken place in the immediately preceding period; and to the novelty of a strategic long term approach to problem analysis. Nevertheless, the participants voiced some interest, during the last session of the workshop, in undertaking a reflection on the long term vision for the park and their region, which could look beyond immediate planning concerns.

In conclusion, we argue that:

1. the two workshop have proved that SP holds a strong potential to engage stakeholders in the exploration of plausible futures and the forces at play at regional and local level in the long term. The approach of the initial sessions produced a remarkably consistent picture, which bears testimony to the relatively small and cohesive cluster of stakeholders in both venues.

2. SP development can be positively kick-started through a stakeholder exercise; it then requires a technical process of conceptual review and narrative elaboration, producing articulate and engaging storylines. This requires inputs from technical people with direct knowledge of the local context. The iterative development path presented in our report of the first workshop confirms in our view its feasibility and suitability to support an analysis of long term change in an integrated and multidisciplinary fashion.

3. Stakeholders can be engaged in the review of future scenarios elaborated by the technical group, to validate them, challenge mindsets, open new perspectives, and moreover to involve them in elaborating a long term vision for their area.

4. The scenario review can be positively carried out with performing dramatisations of the scenarios, which will make communication and engagement easier. Drama performances need to be carefully prepared to this end and based on simplified bur rich scenario storylines, able to prod reflection along with involvement.


18

5. PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD


19


20

Appendix-1. List of Participants # Name Surname Institution Address

Community representatives

1 Shera Tenjing Sherpa Red panda Bz. Area Forest community user group Chaurikharka ,3

2 Ang Dorjee Sherpa Khumbuyulla Bz. Area user group Chaurikharka ,1

3 Mingma Chhiri Sherpa Chaurikharka Bz. Area user group Chaurikharka ,8

4 Nima Nuru Sherpa Gautam bhudha Bz. Area user group Chaurikharka ,5

5 Lhakpa Nuru Sherpa Gautam bhudha Bz. Area user group Chaurikharka ,5

6 Nima Tenzing Sherpa Khumbuyulla Bz. Area user group Chaurikharka ,5

7 Phu Nuru Sherpa Bhaudh Bz. Area user group Chaurikharka ,2

8 Ang Tshiring Sherpa Musya Bz. Area Forest community user group Chaurikharka ,4

9 Nima Dorjee Sherpa Chaurikharka Bz. Area user group Chaurikharka ,8

10 Sonam Gylgen Sherpa Buffer zone management committee Chairman/ SNP Namche Bazar ,1

11 Ang Maya Sherpa

(Ms)

Sagarmatha Bz. Area user group Namche ,5

12 Khumar Tamang Buffer zone area user group Namche

mendalfu

13 Lhakpa Nuru Sherpa Cho oyu Bz. Area user group Khumjung ,1

14 Chewang Sherpa Khumbuyulla Bz. Area user group Namche ,4

15 Mingma Temba Sherpa Tashi delek Bz. Area user group Khumjung ,4

16 Tensing Tashi Sherpa Khumbuyulla Bz. Area user committee Khumjung ,1

17 Urken Nuru Sherpa CBAPOUS: Community based anti poaching

operations units

Khumjung ,2

18 Chhimi Kalden Sherpa Khumbu Bijuly Company Namche ,2

19 Nima Wangchu Sherpa Khumbu Bijuly Company Namche ,7

20 Tensing

Chhotar

Sherpa Evk2CNR (pyr) Helper Namche ,8

21 Tashi Gylgen Sherpa Student, Helper Namche ,4

22 Ang Rita Sherpa

(Ms)

Himalayan Bz. Area user group Namche ,8

23 Pemba Tshiring Sherpa Student Khumjung ,3

Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation

24 Tulshi Ram Sharma Chief Warden SNP Namche

mendalfu

25 Maheshowar Niraula Ecology Unit Kathamandu

26 Birendra

Prasad

Khadal Ranger, SNP Namche

mendalfu


22

# Name Surname Institution Address

Facilitators & organizers

27 Giuseppe Daconto CESVI Zimbabwe

28 Lhakpa N. Sherpa The Mountain Institute Kathmandu

29 Jeremy Spoon IUCN consultant Kathmandu

30 Prakash Dhital MITRA Kathmandu

31 Rajesh Thapa MITRA Kathmandu

Documents

Analysis of Future Scenarios for Tourism Development in ...€¦ · 2.2 Stakeholder analysis ... 15 people of Khumbu origin living or visiting Kathmandu, and staff and experts of