1  

Tourism Law Session Protecting the “must see” sites. A comparison between the world heritage destinations: Angkor Wat, Luang Prabang and Bagan. 25th LAWASIA Conference, Bali, Republic of Indonesia. Matthew Baird, MEIANZ, Cert. Env. Prac. Barrister Chair, Environmental and Planning Law Group, Law Council of Australia Deputy Chair, Standing Committee on Environmental Law, LAWASIA Member, Commission on Environmental Law, IUCN. matthewbaird@wentworthchambers.com.au Introduction One of the great advantages of tourism is that properly managed it is possible to use this as renewable resource. If you visit Rome or Jerusalem you will see cities that have been welcoming (and profiting from) tourism for thousands of years. Cairo has been the subject of visits and the tourists for over 4 thousand years. But we must remember that the world has seen some fundamental changes over the past 40 years. Changes in income, huge increases in the number of travellers and change in the number of nationalities travelling has increased significantly over the past 20 years. As AirAsia says “Now everyone can fly”. But the question we should ask is should everyone? It is likely that some sites will soon need to impose greater restrictions on the number of tourists that visit. Also fee for visiting sites may need to be used to ensure that World Heritage values are protected. This may act to limit the accessibility of some sites. This is turn raises the question of the value that tourism may bring to a specific community. It also raises the real question as to whether such entrance fees will only lead to a situation when only wealthy people can visit particular sites. This paper examines three sites that have become the “must see” sights in each of these countries – Bagan, Angkor Wat and Luang Prabang. It can be seen that each of these sites has seen a significant rise in the number of visitors since the 1980’s when tourist numbers began to rise. Two of these three sites are World Heritage Properties under the World Heritage Convention and UNSECO. Bagan, in Myanmar, has been nominated but not yet approved. These sites have extraordinary values but also require significant protection and complex management.

  2  

This paper examines the impacts of tourism on each of these places and recommends options to ensure that the specific social and cultural values of these sites can be protected whilst ensuring that the benefits of tourism growth can accrue to the local communities as well as provincial and national governments. Growth of tourism in Asia-Pacific The growth of tourism in Asia-Pacific reflects the increasing wealth of the Asian population. Tourist numbers to Europe and the United State are falling and intra-regional Asian tourism is increasing. This places significant pressure on existing tourist infrastructure and also on governments seeking to capitalise on the tourism dollar.

International tourism recepts are estimated at US$1,030 billion.1 Asia and the Pacific recorded a total of 217 million tourist arrivals, up 13 million or 6%. As the UNWTO Report indicates the Greater Mekong River Community experienced doubled digit growth.

“By subregions, South-East Asia experienced the highest growth in international arrivals (+10%), benefiting from strong intraregional demand. A large number of destinations reported double-digit figures, with Myanmar (+26%), Cambodia, Thailand (both +20%) and Vietnam (+19%) posting the highest growth in arrivals. In absolute terms, Thailand recorded the largest

                                                                                                               1  UNWTO Highlights 2012. mkt.unwto.org/sites/all/files/docpdf/unwtohighlights12enlr_1.pdf

0  

500000  

1000000  

1500000  

2000000  

2500000  

3000000  

3500000  

2002   2003   2004   2005   2006   2007   2008   2009   2010   2011  

Laos  PDR  Cambodia  Myanmar  

  3  

increase, with over 3 million more tourist arrivals, followed by Singapore (+1 million).”2

This level of growth has the potential to “love a place to death” and already countries such as Myanmar are beginning to feel extreme pressure on infrastructure, prices, the community and the environment. In particular, as the table below shows Lao PDR and Myanmar have a significant growth, although from relatively low base. Cambodia, although a tourist destination since the middle of the 1990’s still maintains a 20% increase in tourism numbers.

2009 2010 2011 Change % 10/09 11/10 Share %

2011

South-East Asia 62,102 69,886 77,154 12.5 10.4 35.6

Brunei Darussalam 157 214 242 36.3 13.0 0.1

Cambodia 2,046 2,399 2,882 17.3 20.1 1.3 Indonesia 6,324 7,003 7,650 10.7 9.2 3.5 Lao P.D.R. 1,239 1,670 2,513 34.8 .. .. Malaysia T 23,646 24,577 24,714 3.9 0.6 11.4 Myanmar 243 311 391 27.7 25.9 0.2 Philippines 3,017 3,520 3,917 16.7 11.3 1.8 Singapore 7,488 9,161 10,390 22.3 13.4 4.8 Thailand 14,150 15,936 19,098 12.6 19.8 8.8 Vietnam 3,747 5,050 6,014 34.8 19.1 2.8 In addition to the increasing numbers expected tourist in Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar there is a change in the nationality of the visitor. Four out of five tourists visit places within their own region. China, for example, is number 3 of the rankings for international tourism expenditure, Japan in number 9 and Australia number 10. Per capita however Australians spend $1,184 on tourism compared to Japan at $213 and China at $54.3 According to Myanmar tourism statistics Chinese were the number 1 visitors to Myanmar with 70,000 visitors, 2nd were Thais with 62,000 visits and third were Malaysians with 23,000. The increase in Chinese visitors was about 33% from 2010. This represented a 20-fold increase in the number of Chinese visitors since 2000.

                                                                                                               2 UNTWO Highlights 2012, p.9  3  UNWTO Highlights 2012. mkt.unwto.org/sites/all/files/docpdf/unwtohighlights12enlr_1.pdf    

  4  

In Siem Reap, Chinese were 3rd in number of visits, after Vietnam and South Korea. Over 1.6 million people visited Angkor Wat in 2011 paying an average is $US20 per person for the privilege. Theoretically this would bring in $21 million annually to be used to preserve the region and develop service in Siem Reap. In Laos PDR in 2009 international tourist represented 15% of the approximate 2 million tourists. Thai visitors represented 65% of arrivals, Vietnam 15% and China 6%. Approximately 375,000 people visited Luang Prabang (pop 50,000) in 2009 of whom 237,000 were foreign visitors. ASEAN visitors were 20% of the total and Non-Asian Asia-Pacific Region was also about 20% with 38% from Europe and 19% from North America. In 2011, Laos PDR received 2.7 million arrivals, will over 1 million using border passes. It is projected that by 2015 arrivals will reach 3,700,000. It can be seen that the potential for growth in the number of Asian tourists is significant as is the potential for the growth in expenditure. Other countries in the region also attract significant visitor numbers. Malaysia Malaysia is the top tourist destination in Southeast Asia. About 21 million foreign visitors spent $14 billion in Malaysia in 2007. West Malaysia, which is part of the Asian mainland, includes the capital and is more economically developed. East Malaysia encompasses the northern third of the island of Borneo and includes more-secluded resort areas. Thailand Thailand has the second largest tourism industry in Southeast Asia. About 14.5 million foreign visitors spent $15.6 billion in Thailand in 2007. Major attractions include world-class diving and water sports, archeological and religious sites, and diverse tropical flora and fauna. Singapore Singapore has the third largest tourism industry in Southeast Asia. About 8 million foreign visitors spent $8.7 billion in Singapore in 2007. Much of the attraction is because of the dominance of English usage and the cultural diversity of Chinese, Malay, Indian, Arabic and British influences. Indonesia About 5.5 million foreign visitors spent $5.3 billion in Indonesia in 2007. The primary attractions are beach resorts and hotels in secluded island settings, and cultural tourism rooted in both Hindu and Islamic traditions. Vietnam About 4.2 million foreign visitors spent $3.5 billion in Vietnam in 2007. Tourism in Vietnam is dominated by visitors to the resorts and hotels near its capital, Hanoi, and its largest city, Ho Chi Minh City. Philippines

  5  

About 3 million foreign visitors spent $4.9 billion in the Philippines in 2007. The culture of the Philippines has been greatly influenced by Spanish and American colonialism, contributing to its popularity with Western tourists. The Greater Mekong Region A Tourism Joint Co-operation Plan was signed between Cambodia, Laos PDR, Myanmar and Vietnam was signed in Ho Chin Minh City in September 2012.4 The Agreement looks at attracting 25 million foreign tourists from 2013 to 2015 and to look examine a singled tourist visa scheme for citizens of the CLMV scheme. It is also hoped to encourage Thailand to be the fifth partner in the visa scheme. Foreign tourists to CLMV countries increased by 14.5% from 2010 and in 2011 the CLMV received more that 12.3 million visitors. ASEAN Tourism Strategy Based on the discussions at the ASEAN Tourism Forum (ATF 2010) in Brunei Darussalam six overarching principles were adopted that would guide the development of the ASEAN Tourism Strategic Plan (ATSP): 5

• Integrated and Structured Tourism Development • Quality Tourism Products • Sustainable and Responsible Development • Service Excellence • Wide Ranging Stakeholder Collaboration • Distinctive and Interactive Experiences

Siem Reap – Angkor Wat, Cambodia This destination is probably one of the must see in the GMR and the numbers of visitors certainly reflect its popularity in Cambodia. Since the reestablishment on democratic institutions in the Kingdom of Cambodia tourism has significantly increased. In 2011, an estimated 2,800,000 tourists visited Cambodia, of which 1,600,000 or 60% visited Siem Reap. According to the 2012 Statistics from the Ministry of Tourism 30% of international visitors arrive at Siem Reap Airport, compared to 20% for Phnom Penh. Arrivals by other land and waterways account for 51% of arrivals, these can be Thailand and Vietnam visitors in particular.

                                                                                                               4  http://elevenmyanmar.com/tourism/917-four-mekong-countries-eye-on-25m-tourists-by-2015, Wednesday, 10 October 2012. 5 www.aseansec.org/documents/ATSP%202011-2015.pdf

  6  

The key issue in the protection of Angkor Wat lies in the two-fold protection under the APSARA Authority and as a world heritage property under the UNESCO WHC. The listing under the 1992 nomination to the WHC reads:

Angkor is one of the most important archaeological sites in South-East Asia. Stretching over some 400 km2, including forested area, Angkor Archaeological Park contains the magnificent remains of the different capitals of the Khmer Empire, from the 9th to the 15th century. They include the famous Temple of Angkor Wat and, at Angkor Thom, the Bayon Temple with its countless structural decorations. UNESCO has set up a wide-ranging programme to safeguard this symbolic site and its surroundings.

Criterion (i): The Angkor complex represents the entire range of Khmer art from the 9th to the 14th centuries, and includes a number of indisputable artistic masterpieces (e.g. Angkor Wat, the Bayon, Banteay Srei). Criterion (ii): The influence of Khmer art as developed at Angkor was a profound one over much of South-east Asia and played a fundamental role in its distinctive evolution. Criterion (iii): The Khmer Empire of the 9th-14th centuries encompassed much of South-east Asia and played a formative role in the political and cultural development of the region. All that remains of that civilization is its rich heritage of cult structures in brick and stone. Criterion (iv): Khmer architecture evolved largely from that of the Indian sub-continent, from which it soon became clearly distinct as it developed its own

  7  

special characteristics, some independently evolved and others acquired from neighboring cultural traditions. The result was a new artistic horizon in oriental art and architecture.

The site has specific legislative protections. Protection and management requirements The property is legally protected by the Royal Decree on the Zoning of the Region of Siem Reap/Angkor adopted on 28 May 1994 and the Law on the protection of the natural and cultural heritage promulgated on 25 January 1996, the Royal Decree on the creation of the APSARA National Authority (Authority for the protection of the site and the management of the Angkor Region) adopted on 19 February 1995, the No. 70 SSR government Decision, dated 16 September 2004 providing for land-use in the Angkor Park: “All lands located in zone 1 and 2 of the Angkor site are State properties”, and the sub-decree No. 50 ANK/BK on the organisation and functioning of the APSARA National Authority adopted on 9 May 2008, specifically provided for the establishment of a Department of Land-use and Habitat Management in the Angkor Park. In the 1990’s was placed on the “in danger” list. The successful conservation of the property by the APSARA National Authority, monitored by the ICC-Angkor, was crowned by the removal of the property from the World Heritage List in danger in 2004. The management of the Angkor Site, which is inhabited, also takes into consideration the population living in the property by associating them to the tourist economic growth in order to strive for sustainable development and poverty reduction.6 Two major contributions supporting the APSARA National Authority in this matter are:

1. The Angkor Management Plan (AMP) and Community Development Participation Project (CDPP), a bilateral cooperation with the Government of New Zealand. The AMP helps the APSARA National Authority to reorganize and strengthen the institutional aspects, and the CDPP prepares the land use map with an experimental participation of the communities and supports small projects related to tourist development in order to improve the income of villagers living in the protected zones;

2. The Heritage Management Framework composed of a Tourism Management

Plan and a Risk map on monuments and natural resources; a multilateral cooperation with the Government of Australia and UNESCO. Preliminary analytical and planning work for the management strategy will take into account the necessity to preserve the special atmosphere of Angkor. All decisions must guarantee physical, spiritual, and emotional accessibility to the site for the visitors.

                                                                                                               6  http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/668  

  8  

However one of the key issues that confront those inquiring into the protection and management of a site that attracts upwards of 1.6 million visitors per annum who pay a park fee that generates a minimum of $US42 million is where those funds are going. Some governments have established funds-in-trust to ensure that funds are spent in accordance with donor’s wishes. The Australian Funds-in-Trust, established in August 2008 between the UNESCO World Heritage Centre and the Australian Government, has been increased. A sum of $AUS830,000 has been added to the Australian Government's first generous contribution of $AUS2.5 million. From the Funds-in-Trust, $AUS1.13 million will be used to support the development of a conservation and management plan for the World Heritage property of Angkor, Cambodia, through a project called Heritage Management Framework. The framework is designed to strengthen the technical expertise and governance of the Cambodian Government managing agency, APSARA, so that the benefits of tourism and development at Angkor can be shared fairly while ensuring environment protection. The Funds-in-Trust was created to support World Heritage-related activities in Asia and the Pacific region, with a particular priority to projects in the Pacific region, which is still one of the least represented regions on the World Heritage List. The Funds-in-Trust will also support the organization of a workshop on the future direction of the World Heritage Convention to be held in February 2009. This workshop, requested by the World Heritage Committee, is meant to reflect on global strategic issues, key challenges, trends and opportunities facing the World Heritage Convention in view of its upcoming fortieth anniversary in 2012.7 The APSARA Authority The APSARA Authority is the short name for the Authority for Protection and Management of Angkor and the Region of Siem Reap. It was created in 1995 and is the Authority tasked with the protection and management of the Angkor Archaeological Park. APSARA was created by Royal Decree in 1995. A second additional Royal Decree reinforced its authority in January 1999. Today, APSARA is placed under the double supervision of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers (technical supervision) and the Ministry of Economy and Finance (financial supervision). APSARA's Director General is President of the Administrative Board, assisted by several Deputy Directors General. APSARA, in collaboration with other governmental agencies, is responsible for: - Protecting, maintaining, conserving and improving the value of the archaeological park, the culture, the environment and the history of the Angkor region as defined on the World Heritage List.

• Refining and applying the master plan on tourist development according to the five zones, defined in 1994 in the Royal Decree on the protection and management of Siemreap-Angkor and taking action against deforestation, illegal territory occupation as well as anarchy activities in Siemreap-Angkor.

• Finding financial sources and investments.

                                                                                                               7  http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/476

  9  

• Participating in the policy of cutting down poverty of the Royal Government in Siemreap-Angkor.

• Cooperating with the Cambodian Development Council on the investments of all the projects that are involved with APSARA Authority’s mission.

• Cooperating with ministries, institutions, funds, national and international communities as well as international governmental institutions and non-governmental organization on all projects related to APSARA Authority.

The territorial authority of APSARA is clearly specified in Article 5 of the Law on the Protection of Cultural Heritage promulgated in 1996. The term "Siemreap-Angkor" is defined in the Royal Decree establishing Protected Cultural Zones, with five degrees of protection in the region. Backed by these legal tools, APSARA is mandated to represent the Royal Government before all international partners concerned with cultural, urban and tourist development of this region. The Authority thus presides the Cambodian delegation to the International Coordinating Committee (ICC), and its Technical Committee.8 There is also an Angkor-Archaeological Fund that is under the control of the APSARA Authority. There are 5 zones in the Angkor Wat area:

Zone 1: Monumental Sites Zone 2: Protected Archaeological Reserves Zone 3: Protected Cultural Landscapes Zone 4: Sites of Archaeological, Anthropological or Historic Interest Zone 5: The Socio-economic and Cultural Development Zone

                                                                                                               8  www.autoriteapsara.org/en/apsara/about_apsara/history_organization.html  

  10  

This last zone, is the largest zone to which protective policies apply. This comprehensive zone covers an area of 10,000 square kilometers including the Phnom Kulen, the shores of the Tonle Sap and the Angkor plain. It conforms largely to the catchment area of greater metropolitan Angkor during the ancient period and is rich in remains of both prehistoric and historic civilization. The region also contains important natural areas which are to be protected and others to be protected and others to be developed in a sustainable manner. The region is to be managed as a multiple-use area with an emphasis on economic and social development of cultural tourism. Development activities which could potentially damage the archaeological, the natural, or the social heritage harbored in the province are regulated by comprehensive coordination policies. Archaeological and environmental impact assessments are to be carried out in advance of any project proposed in the region. The intention is not to hold back development but to ensure that it be appropriately located and directed, at all times taking into consideration the requirements of heritage conservation.9 Archaeological Zone concession fees A concession contract was signed between the APSARA Authority and Sokha Hotels on 31 August 2000 for the collection and distribution of the Archaeological Zone Fees. This was a renegotiated contract from an earlier contract the subject of much criticism. As reported in the Phnom Penh Post in the August 18-31, 2000 issue, the new deal provides for 50% of all income to the first $3 million dollars to be handed over to the government and 70% of all sales over the $3 million mark.10 Based on these figures Ang Choulean has projected that roughly 28% of all park money will go directly to the temples and 31% will go to park maintenance and construction of much needed infrastructure. So for the time being approximately 59 cents of every dollar is landing in the proper hands, a vast improvement over a couple of years ago when that figure may have been as low as 5 cents of every dollar.11 A new concession contract was granted to Sokha Hotel Company in 2005. However it is difficult to confirm the income and expenditure of the APSARA Authority as no financial statements are posted on its English language website. According to non-official web-sites in 2008 the revenue from the sale of tickets was about $31 million. It was reported: Following the subtraction of the sales tax, revenue from the ticket sales is divided between Sok Kong’s Sokha Hotel Co. and the Apsara authority as follows: the first $3 million revenue is shared 50%-50% between Sokha Hotel and the Apsara authority. For the remainder of the revenue, 15% goes to a development chest for the Angkor

                                                                                                               9  www.autoriteapsara.org/en/apsara/about_apsara/legal_texts/decree3.html 10 "Sokimex and Government revisit Angkor deal." Phnom Penh Post, 18-31 August 2000 11 www.talesofasia.com/cambodia-sokimex.htm

  11  

area, 68% goes to the Apsara authority, and 17% is kept by Sokha Hotel Co. The Apsara authority portion of the revenue goes directly to the state coffer.12 It is not possible to find any official confirmation of these figures. However the Official Report buried in the Report of the 18th Plenary Session of the ICC-Angkor13 in December 2011, held at the Sokha Angkor Resort, showed the following:

2-2. Office of Statistics and Tourism Promotion:

• 1,442,611 international visitors bought tickets to the Angkor Park in 2011, representing an increase of 24.90 per cent compared to 2010. The total income for 2011: US$42,185,300 (a 27.4 per cent increase compared to 2010).

• 7,360 days/delegates and 73,866 days/researchers visited and worked in the

Angkor Park in 2011.

• The average number of international tourists visiting the four main temples in Angkor Park per day was the following:

o Angkor Wat: 4,634 visitors

o Ta Prohm: 3,397 visitors

o Banteay Srei: 1,909 visitors

o Pre Rup: 857 visitors It also provided a copy of the income/expenditure of the APSARA Authority. Income was approximately $US11.4 million from public fund subsidies. Expenditures on maintenance and repair of buildings and monuments totaled $2 million. With staff and cleaning costs also being significant expenses. It is difficult to reconcile the US$42 million revenue from ticket sales to the US$11 million income to APSARA or 25%. It is very clear that the APSARA Authority is conducting itself in a world-class manner and has received significant praise from UNSECO, including the Paris Declaration and the removal of the “in danger” listing. This is no doubt a tribute to the Chairman of APSARA, HE Dr Sok An, Deputy Prime Minister. However In 2001 and 2002 an Anukret (Sub-Decree) was passed concerning the Hotel zone. This prevents any transfer of land in the Zone and turned the management of the area to the APSARA Authority as a hotel zone. A Phrakas (Regulation) was also made in relation to the Anukret. Threats and concerns

                                                                                                               12  http://ki-media.blogspot.com/2009/01/tourist-number-increases-but-revenue.html 13 http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002164/216460e.pdf

  12  

Although Angkor Wat has a very significant management regime in place it is still suffering from the increase in tourism numbers. More temples are being opened up for visitation. But with 4600 people per day visiting Angkor Wat itself (on average) this is a significant impact on the fabric of the temples. Further the impact through hotels and waste and transport all create significant impact. The key issues facing Angkor Wat still relate to visitor numbers, and whether some temples will restrict number of visitors, and also whether more funding can be made available to preserve and protect the temples and the environment. Access to information about the management plans and future plans for Angkor Wat is also very important. Furthermore given the potential increases in tourism numbers, there is also an opportunity to promote the use of Strategic Environmental Assessment for developing the tourism sector in Cambodia and Angkor Wat as a part of the tourism strategy.14 Strategic Environmental Assessment can:

• Safeguard environmental assets for sustainable poverty reduction and development;

• Build costly mistakes by alerting decision-makers to potentially unsustainable development options at an early stage in the decision-making process;

• Simplify project-level environmental impact assessment (EIA) requirements thereby speeding up subsequent implementation of projects and programmes;

• Facilitate trans-boundary co-operation around shared environmental resources and contribute to conflict prevention;

• Identify the policy and legislative gaps needed for sustainability.15 Some of the results of SEA implementation on a regional level include:

• Better integration or inter-sectoral objectives and considerations in each plan; • Better inter-sectoral co-ordination among the different agencies that intervene

in domains that are be nature multi-sectoral, such as tourism; • Increased incorporation of stakeholders’ views at an early stage of planning,

ensuring better programme buy-in by local authorities and communities; • Enhanced incorporation of environmental aspects that are often disregarded in

sectoral plans, such as energy efficiency, green building and vulnerability to natural disasters;

• Increased incorporation of social considerations into development plans, this increasing the development effectiveness of aid investments.16

SEA may provide a useful opportunity in each of these three sites. In particular there is a very important need to integrate each of these special sites into a greater countrywide experience.

                                                                                                               14  See for example Strategic Environmental Assessment in Development Practice, A Review of Recent Experience, OECD, 2012.    15  Strategic Environmental Assessment in Development Practice, A Review of Recent Experience, OECD, 2012, p.18.  16  Strategic Environmental Assessment in Development Practice, A Review of Recent Experience, OECD, 2012, p.25.  

  13  

Luang Prabang , Lao PDR The IMPACT Publication from UNESCO identified that tourist numbers since 1988 in Lao PDR have increased from 600 to 636,000 in 2003. It was expected to increase to 923,000 in 2005.17 Official Lao PDR numbers indicate that numbers grew to 2,513,000 in 2010 outpacing predications with 85% still arrival from the Asian region.18 Non-ASEAN (+2) was about 15%. The Official Statistical Report also includes a breakdown on international arrivals to Lao DPR from 2006-2010. 79% reported that holiday was the purpose of the visit. 79% also visited the capital Vientiane and 73% visited Luang Prabang. The IMPACT Report also estimated the tourist numbers to Luang Prabang increased from 20,000 in 1995 to 90,000 by 2002.19 The number of guesthouses grew from 29 in 1997 to 135 in 2003. By 2009 this had grown to 253 establishments with 2900 rooms. Waste disposal was formally implemented in 1997 by UNDP, funded by the Norwegian Government. By 2010 over 375,000 were arriving at Luang Prabang airport. Luang Prabang was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1995. It is this ‘Town of Luang Prabang’ which was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1995 under criteria (ii), (iv) and (v). At the time of inscription, a full statement of Outstanding Universal Value, referring to each of the criteria retained, was not required. In its evaluation document, however, ICOMOS stated that:

Luang Prabang is outstanding by virtue of both its rich architectural and artistic heritage and also its special urban development, first on traditional oriental lines and then in conjunction with European colonial influences. This is uniquely expressed in the overall urban fabric of the town. It may therefore be considered to be a unique combination of a diversity of communities – rural and urban, royal and religious – within a defined geographical area (ICOMOS, 1995). In establishing a comparison with other historic towns of South East Asia, ICOMOS went on to state that Luang Prabang’s main quality was:

to have preserved almost intact the evidence of its pre-colonial urban structure, which is not the case for the majority of other cities in the region (ICOMOS, 1995).20

The challenges faced by Luang Prabang have been indentified for a number of years.21 The IMPACT report from UNSECO noted:

The rapid increase in visitors to LuangPrabang has resulted in a correspondingly

                                                                                                               17 IMPACT, Effects of Tourism on Culture and the Environment in Aisa and the Pacific, Luang Prabang, Lao PDR, UNSECO, 2004, p.59. 18 2010 Statistical Report on Tourism in Lao PDR, National Tourism Authority. 19 IMPACT, p.60. 20 MISSION REPORT, Reactive Monitoring Mission to the Town of Luang Prabang World Heritage Property, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, 22 - 28 November 2007, UNSECO, p. 7 21 IMPACT: The Effects of Tourism on Culture and the Environment in Asia and the Pacific:Tourism and Heritage Site Management in Luang Prabang, Lao PDR. UNESCO, Bangkok, 2004.

  14  

rapid and largely unplanned expansion of transportation infrastructure and accommodation facilities. In addition to the stress placed on the town’s public utilities – electricity, water, sewage and garbage collection -- the construction boom has created a demand for land within and around the town’s historic core. This combination of development pressures has placed critical stress on both the environment and the historic cultural resources of Luang Prabang, and threatens to overwhelm them.

Luang Prabang’s residents have very quickly taken advantage of the economic benefits of tourism by finding work in many new tourism-related enterprises. However, traditional skills and long-established ways of life are at risk of being abandoned and ultimately forgotten. With the loss of the unique cultural values and practices of Luang Prabang, the attractiveness of the place as a cultural tourism destination will also fade.

It is important, therefore, to ensure the cultural survival of historic Luang Prabang and to protect the serenity and beauty of this unique place, part of ‘humankind’s common heritage’. 22

A Report by the Mekong River Commission highlights some of the impacts on the explosion of tourism in the GM Region.

Soon after Lao PDR started to promote tourism in the1980s, Luang Prabang became a highly popular destination. From 62.300 visitors in 1997 (49% foreign), in 2008 there were 344,000 (67% foreign), and 2,426 rooms in 36 hotels and 236 guesthouses, mainly small and Lao owned. Foreign visitors are European (40%), American (25%) and Asian and Australian (12%). Visitors are attracted not only by the temples, but also to the Haw Kham Royal Palace Museum, French colonial architecture and the Night Market. Use of water and related resources includes trips along the Mekong to the Kuang Si Falls and Pak Ou caves, and to traditional villages and, in April, the three-day water festival heralding the start of the Lao New Year. Speedboats and ferries go from Luang Prabang to Pak Beng and Houay Xai.23

Luang Prabang world heritage area has been noted by UNSECO as being in danger. At the time of listing a Heritage Protection Zone (ZPP) was created. Working with the city of Chinon, France, the PSMV - Plan de Suvegarde et de Mile en Valeur (Plan of Safeguard and Getting Value) was created. The PSMV composed the master plan of Luang Prabang city and the heritage preservation area. The PSMV established a complex regulatory system, and related land-use provisions, structured around four main zones:

a) Safeguarded Zone (Secteur sauvegardé – ZPP-Ua, 67.12 ha); b) Protected Zone (Secteur protégé – ZPP-Ub, 151.32 ha);

                                                                                                               22 IMPACT, ibid, p.9. 23  An  Assessment  of  environment  impacts  of  tourism  in  the  Lower  Mekong  Basin,  Mekong  River  Commission,  December  2010.    

  15  

c) Natural and Landscape Zone (Secteur naturel et paysager – ZPP-N, 545.66 ha); d) Monasteries (Secteur des Monastères – ZPP-M, 16.43 ha). 24

Area: Covered by the PSMV. Under the direction of the vice prime minister, the Committee of National Heritage conferred with UNSECO for the Improvement of the Luang Prabang Master Plan 2010 and also the establishment of buffer zone plan.25 The Territorial Development Pan (2004) takes in a large area than the current World Heritage property.

                                                                                                               24 MISSION REPORT, Reactive Monitoring Mission to the Town of Luang Prabang World Heritage Property, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, 22 - 28 November 2007, UNSECO, p.11 25 A presentation delivered by Mr. Adisack Sithideth from the Ministry of Public Work and Transport  

  16  

Many issues have arisen as a consequence of Luang Prabang as a living city. Tourism still comprises only a fraction of the total economic activity of the town. The population is approximately 50,000 with 400,000 in the province. Some of the identified issues include:

1. high investment in services and tourism 2. increasing population in the city 3. lack of compliance with building regulations and restrictions 4. environmental pollution – noise, air and water 5. changing livelihood

Work on the Masterplan for Luang Prabang included the development of a suitable buffer zone. However certain projects were also being proposed by the national government, including a new bridge over the Mekong River, an expansion of the airport and the detour of the national highway. Two major project that were proposed were a university and a major 900ha golf course by a Sough Korean company. In 2007 UNSECO sent a Mission to Luang Prabang . Of great concern to the 2007 Mission was a proposal “with Chinese financial backing, is for the construction of a major city expansion on the right bank of the Mekong opposite the historic town. No compelling reasons were advanced to the Mission for this massive development; to the contrary, the view was put by some interviewees that there are viable alternatives

  17  

for low-density, low-rise development for at least 30 years.”26 Other major tourist complexes were proposed in the region. The Mission’s view of these intrusive developments were clear:

“It is the view of the Mission that such development should be avoided at all costs”.27

The Provincial Government adopted the following strategy for Luang Prabang :

1. Preserve and sustainability of Luang Prabang world heritage city: 2. Encourage Luang Prabang to be the centre of natural tourism and the

greatest national culture: 3. Encourage Luang Prabang to be liveable city: 4. Establish Luang Prabang to be the central research center of Laos national

culture. The Mission Report found that despite the excellent work carried out over the past 12 years by the Lao PDR authorities, “increasing pressure from development poses significant risks for the future and has already led to a deterioration of the state of conservation of the World Heritage property”28 In particular the numerous proposes developments such as a gold course and large hotel developments (above 18 rooms) and also the illegal building activity within the town area. Infill building in particular has decreased the intrinsic value of the town. This includes loss of tree cover and threats to the stability of the riverbanks.

“The impacts of non-compliance include the demolition of listed buildings and the construction of unsympathetic buildings that do not support the inscribed built form in terms of typology, materials and decoration. There is a gradual replacement of the traditional two-storey timber houses by concrete or timber and concrete two-storey structures. In some cases these capture some of the typological characteristics of the traditional Lao residences but often they adopt French colonial forms as well as decorations.”29

The Mission called for a moratorium of all major new developments and also compliance with existing building regulations and requirements. Bagan, Myanmar

                                                                                                               26  MISSION REPORT, Reactive Monitoring Mission to the Town of Luang Prabang World Heritage Property, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, 22 - 28 November 2007, UNSECO, p.18 27 MISSION REPORT, Reactive Monitoring Mission to the Town of Luang Prabang World Heritage Property, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, 22 - 28 November 2007, UNSECO, p.18 28 MISSION REPORT, Reactive Monitoring Mission to the Town of Luang Prabang World Heritage Property, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, 22 - 28 November 2007, UNSECO, p.2 29 MISSION REPORT, Reactive Monitoring Mission to the Town of Luang Prabang World Heritage Property, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, 22 - 28 November 2007, UNSECO, p.19

  18  

Tourism in Myanmar until 2010 was a highly controlled activity. In the 1980’s and 1990’s the 7-10 day visit enable a foreign tourist to see the top sites in Yangon, Mandalay, Bagan and possibility Inlay Lake. But it was tightly controlled with stays in government hotels and government controlled travel. Today there are new airlines and new hotels and new places to visit. But already the tourist capacities are struggling to meet future demands. New carriers are flying to Yangon and Mandalay. According to Tripadvisor, Bagan has 28 hotels/guest houses and Yangan has 49 hotels/guest house. This is compared to Siem Reap with 303 hotels and 219 in Phnom Penh and 188 in LUANG PRABANG and 129 in Vientiane. Number of tourists In 2012 it was reported that 357,159 tourists visited Myanmar from January to September. Aside from Thais (60,000), and Japanese (30,000), the others are Chinese (28,000), Koreans (23,000), Americans (22,000), Malaysians (20,000), French (17,000), Singaporeans (16,000), and German (11,000), according to official figures from the Ministry of Hotels and Tourism.30

Existing capacities Myanmar now has about 25,000 hotel rooms across the country. Most are three- to four-star establishments, while five-star ones account for 5 per cent. Research done by property consultant Colliers International Thailand reported that the downtown, inner city and outer areas of Yangon have 1,730 upscale hotel rooms. .31 The Yangon urban development strategic project includes a plan to build new hotel zones between Yangon International Airport and the upcoming Hanthawady International Airport. Hanthawaddy International Airport is to be built in the Bago Region, about 80km (50 miles ) away from Yangon. Existing hotel zones in Myanmar are Yangon, Mandalay, Bagan, Taunggyi, Chaungtha, Rakhine, Mawlamyine, Golden Triangle, Bago, Ngwehsaung and Nay Pyi Taw. A new hotel zone is now being established in Inlay region in the Shan State of northern Myanmar and near Mount Popa, an extinct volcano situated 50km southeast of Bagan.32 It should be noted that it is estimated that the contribution of tourism to the Myanmar GDP is about 2.5% in 2011 and 2012 and forecast to remain the same until 2022. 33                                                                                                                30  http://elevenmyanmar.com/tourism/936-myanmar-sees-increase-in-japanese-travelers, Friday 12 October 2012. 31 http://elevenmyanmar.com/tourism/956-new-hotel-zones-planned-near-yangon, Sunday 14 October 2012. It is estimated that cities such as Bangkok have more than three times this number 32 http://elevenmyanmar.com/tourism/956-new-hotel-zones-planned-near-yangon, Sunday 14 October 2012.    33  http://www.wttc.org/site_media/uploads/downloads/myanmar2012.pdf. World Travel and Tourism Council, Travel and Tourism, Economic Impact, 2012, p.3

  19  

Myanmar Legislation The Myanmar Tourism Law of 1990 was revised in 1993. The law focussed on the registration of tourism enterprises and hotels. It also included sections requiring people who wished to operate “tourist transport business” or work as “tour guides” to be properly registered. In the case of tour guides it was necessary for a person to have passed a guide training course by the Myanmar Hotels and Tourism Services or another suitably recognised training course.34 Prosecutions for offences were under the Criminal Procedure Law.35 On 27 September 2012 the Myanmar Responsible Tourism Policy was launch after public and private stakeholder consultations.36 The policy is currently before the Cabinet for approval. The Responsible Tourism Policy is described as an “approach to managing tourism, aimed at maximising economic, social and environmental benefits and minimising costs to destinations…It is designed to achieve the three principal aims of sustainable development – economic growth, environmental sustainability and social justice.”37 The Vision adopted by the Policy is:

“We intend to use tourism to make Myanmar a better place to live in – to provide more employment and great business opportunities for all our people, to contribute to the conservation of our natural and cultural heritage and to share with us our rich cultural diversity. We warmly welcome those who appreciate and enjoy our heritage, our way of life and who travel with respect”.38

The MRTP sets out nine aims as a guide39:

1 Tourism is a national priority sector. 2 Broad based local social-economic development. 3 Maintain cultural diversity and authenticity. 4 Conservation and enhancement of the environment. 5 Compete on product richness, diversity and quality – not just price. 6 Ensure health, safety and security of our visitors. 7 Institutional strengthening to manage tourism. 8 A well trained and rewarded workforce. 9 Minimising unethical practices.

                                                                                                               34  Tourism  Law,  section  14.    35  Tourism  Law,  section  36.    36  http://www.tourismtransparency.org/news-­‐and-­‐reports/myanmars-­‐new-­‐responsible-­‐tourism-­‐policy  37  MRTP  2012  p.  4  38  MRTP  2012,  p.6  39  MRTP  2012,  p.8  

  20  

The Policy creates action points around the aims. However it does not specifically deal with any sites in particular. Bagan Bagan is one of the exceptional tourist destinations within the Region if not the world. From the 9th to 13th centuries the city was the capital of the Kingdom of Bagan. It is estimated that during the kingdom’s great period from 11th century over 10,000 temples, pagoda and monasteries were constructed in the Bagan plains. It is estimated that over 2200 temples and pagodas still survive in various forms today. It should also be remembered that Bagan is still a religious centre and some of the pagodas have been rebuilt over the years. Bagan is located in an active earthquake zone with over 400 recorded earthquakes between 1904 and 1975, The last major earthquake occurred on 8 July 1975 which damaged and destroyed many temples, including the Bupaya. The Military government restored many of the temples, often over the concerns and objections of professional conservation bodies. It was the creation of the new highway that led to UNESCO’s departure from Bagan and Myanmar. The Bagan Archaeological Area and Monuments were submitted to the WHC for listing in October 1996. The description reads:

Capital city of the first Myanma Kingdom, the site measures 13 by 8 km and contains more than 2500 Buddhist monuments (temples, stupas, monasteries, etc) built from the 10th to the 14th centuries AD. Several of these monuments are still highly venerated by the population, and attract numerous pilgrims and devotees from all over the country, particularly at festival times. Other are in various states of conservation and maintenance. The large corpus of contemporary stone inscriptions have been the most reliable source for the history of the Kingdom. The mural paintings inside more than 300 temples constitutes a unique corpus of paintings of that time in southeast Asia.40

Since then other buildings have impacted on the Archaeological Zone, including the building of the 61m tall Nan Myint Tower in 2005. The Bagan Archaeological Zone, defined as the 13 x 8 km area centered around Old Bagan, consisting of Nyaung U in the north and New Bagan in the south, and lies in the vast expanse of plains in Upper Burma on the bend of the Irrawaddy river. It is located 290 kilometres (180 mi) southwest of Mandalay and 700 kilometres (430 mi) north of Yangon. In 1990 the government forcibly relocated the population of Old Bagan to a site 3km to the south, now named New Bagan.

                                                                                                               40 http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/819/  

  21  

Role of UNESCO UNESCO was active in Bagan from 1978-1994. In 1994 the world body withdrew from Myanmar. In December 2011 it was announced that the Government of Italy had

  22  

granted 400 000 Euro to support a new project in Pyu and Bagan. This was the first UNSECO project in Myanmar for over a decade.41 In August 2012, the Director-General of UNESCO Irina Bokova accompanied by the Director of the World Heritage Centre Mr Kishore Rao, visited some ten temples and pagodas, a monastic complex and the excavated Palace site, as well as the on-site museum.42 Future of Bagan Official Statistics indicate tourism numbers in Bagan from 2002 to 2010 show a recovery from the 2006 highs that crashed following the events of the Saffron Protests in 2007. Total 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 201143 70440 68890 73922 73020 88240 80410 38135 55061 76831 71353 Arrivals by air have also seen a significant increase since 2001. All foreign passengers arriving by air pay a $US 10 Archaeological Zone fee on departing the airport. 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 201144 28852 34702 36641 40901 39485 50457 47994 24211 35461 51882 46871 As the popularity of Bagan and Myanmar increases so too will the threats from continuing development and human ecological footprint. In addition the lack of UNSECO and WHP protection is of great concern. One of the key suggestions is that support should be given for the nomination of Bagan to the register of World Heritage. This would then open up opportunities for international support, both in funding and technical skills to protect and manage the Archaeological Zone. Conclusions and recommendations There are a number of key lessons that can be learned from the experiences of Angkor Wat and LUANG PRABANG. Especially when one considers that there is likely to be a significant further increase in tourism in all three countries over the next ten years.                                                                                                                41  http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/825 42 http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/924 43 Up to October 2011. 44 Up to October 2011.    

  23  

Steps should be taken to support the nomination of Bagan on the World Heritage lit to more accurately reflect its outstanding universal values. Lao DPR predictions suggest numbers increasing from 2,660.000 to 4,099,000 by 2020. On current assumptions that 70% of people visit LUANG PRABANG, this would represent a significant increase over the next 7 years. The opportunity of a heritage zone fee could generate significant income for the protection of the town. In Myanmar, 71,000 arrived in Bagan out of 311,000 international arrivals. It is likely that this percentage will only increase with better air-travel. On current estimates it is a possibility that this number will increase four-fold by 2025. A US$10 entry fee this could return between US$2,00,000 and US$3,000,000 for the protection of Bagan Archaeological Zone. In Angkor Wat the number of tourist has generated approximately US$42 million and yet the APSARA Authority operates with public funding of US$11 million, with approximately US$2 million spent specifically on maintenance and repair of monuments and buildings. This is a matter than needs to be immediately addressed. A key action must be that any contracts for concession fees in Archaeological Zones should be transparent and open for public inspection. The ability to raise significant money from Zone fees cannot be underestimated as is the need for a significant proportion of that income to be allocated to the protection of the Archaeological zone itself. Secondly the use of Strategic Environmental Assessment could provide a great opportunity to prepare for the future of sustainable tourism in Bagan and Myanmar. The Espoo Convention 1991 on Environmental Impact in a Transboundary Context45 and the Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment46 provide a good basis for a consideration of both transboundary47 and strategic environmental assessment.48 Thirdly a moratorium should be imposed of development in each of these sites until the final management plans are developed. In particular there is a strong need to prepare a final plan for Bagan and Luang Prabang before further development is allowed. Fourthly legislation should be prepared to provide the Zone authorities with the power to enforce both any moratorium and future building codes.

Finally development that does not enhance the World Heritage character of the site and promote the outcome of the SIE should be prohibited. For example an 18-hole

                                                                                                               45  Both of these instruments were negotiated under the UN Economic Commission for Europe framework. The Convention entered into force in 1997. 46 The Protocol entered into force on 11 July 2010. 47 Text of the Espoo Convention: www.unece.org/env/eia/eia.html 48 Text of the Protocol of SEA can be found at www.unece.org/env/eia/sea_protocol.html

  24  

golf course and complex is inconsistent with Luang Prabang. Similar golf courses have negatively impacted on the heritage value of Angkor Wat. The long-term protection of the World Heritage values of these sites will ensure that they remain valuable to both the communities and the countries. There is simply no benefit in allowing short-term development that is inconsistent with those values. This requires that those institutions tasked with the protection and preservation of the World Heritage values must be given appropriate funding and sufficient power to achieve this objective.