Partnerships for Poverty Alleviation

and Mainstreaming
Dr Sarah Li, ADB Tourism Management Workshop, Guilin, China
April 2017
WHAT IS - COMMUNITY BASED TOURISM (CBT) ?

IS IT MEANT TO ALLEVIATE POVERTY ?

IF SO, HOW DOES IT BENEFIT LOCAL PEOPLE ?

HAVE YOU HEARD OF CBtT (COMMUNITIES BENEFITING through

TOURISM) ?

WHAT IS THE MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CBT AND CBtT ?

SUMMARY OUTLINE
1. A brief overview of Pro Poor Tourism (PPT) and
characteristics of attempts to utilize Community Based
Tourism (CBT) for poverty alleviation/reduction

2. The problem of scale and why a CBT project only

reaches a few households (say, one community, one
village) rather than many hundreds.

3. Moves towards harnessing tourism more effectively

for poverty alleviation through PUBLIC / PRIVATE
SECTOR / COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS,
mainstreaming, and a rigorous business model.

4. Tourism as a system and the resultant opportunities to

expand from orthodox CBT to CBtT Communities
Benefitting through Tourism.
Pro Poor Tourism (PPT) and Community Based Tourism (CBT)
For about twenty-five years community-based pro poor tourism
development has been pursued as an effective means to lift people
out of poverty by numerous agencies
e.g. the UN World Tourism Organization through its ST~EP
programme (Sustainable Tourism as a tool for Eliminating Poverty)
and the UK Overseas Development Institute which initiated its Pro
Poor Tourism program 15 years ago.
The Asian Development Bank, the World Bank, the European
Community and many other institutions have supported a large
number of CBT projects in many countries.

Talagatujah Homestay
Village Tourism,
Trang Province,
southern Thailand
 Poverty and Tourism
In 1999 the concept of Pro Poor Tourism was formulated by the
UK Department for International Development (1999) - Tourism and
poverty elimination: untapped potential. This gave a whole new push
to seeking better ways to use tourism for poverty alleviation.

There is now a large body of research and evidence from the field
on different aspects of Pro Poor Tourism, a key point of which to
note is that it is not a new kind of tourism but
rather an approach to Tourism generated income tourism which aims to
distribute benefits specifically to poor
communities -

Share for the poor - sharing the cake.

See appended reference list for a number of these studies.

Community based tourism all around the world is performing poorly.
There are examples of successful CBT but the majority of cases in
many countries have failed to reach expectations - or failed completely.

CBT has had some success in generating village-level jobs and

income but large scale poverty reduction is difficult to achieve
using a village-by-village approach.
An ODI review of 218 pro poor community based tourism projects in
Africa (2008-2009) concluded that in terms of sustainability indicators
the great majority (190) had not met expectations: they had failed
within three years.
While on the one hand there
were a few welfare benefits
related to small
improvements in basic
education, some-times in
basic health and hygiene,
(such as improved solid and
liquid waste management),
on the other hand income
generating capabilities and
environmental benefits were
often minimal.
A lack of business acumen was a common factor in many of the failed
ventures.
The common problems identified by Mitchell & Ashley (2009) in a
series of evaluations and lesson-learning exercises based on a
comprehensive survey of several hundred CBT enterprises included:

Commercially unsustainable products that are isolated from the

private sector and thus the market and viable flows of tourists;
Reliance on a collectivist (community cooperative consensus)
approach to business management, rather than an
entrepreneurial one;
Requirements for long-term and expensive inputs for a product
that can only ever generate a tightly constrained benefit flow
for one community;
Difficulties of access, poor transport links;
Inadequate market access, advertising and communications
 A traditional intervention
Example: South Africa Wild
Coast community-based
tourism project 2000-2005.
The project developed community-
based accommodation (lodges &
campsites) at three sites along this very rural
stretch of the South African coast.
Supported hospitality training; craft
development; community empowerment; hiking
trail development; environmental management;
and tourist promotion.
Established
community
trusts to
manage
receipts from
tourists.
South Africa Wild Coast community-based tourism project 2000-2005.

Cost: Funded by EU at cost of 12.9m

Impact (& ROI return on investment)
Created 87 jobs for the 3 years the project was running none sustainable
- 32,000 cost per job per year (2+ million per year);
Generated about 15,000 in a community trust much of which did not
benefit anticipated beneficiaries (pocket money for chiefly elite);
Private sector concessions collapsed due to community conflict and local
government resistance.
The main beneficiary was the urban, affluent Irish consultancy company -
3.6 m in fees (Anna Spenceley, pers. comms 2010).
 Poverty and Tourism
Another problem is that in many cases the real costs of establishing a
pro poor community based tourism project - even when successful -
work against replication.
Example: Navorro Falls, Bouma, Fiji, hailed as the most successful
pro poor tourism community based venture in the South Pacific, has
absorbed more than USD$1 million in NZ Aid, WWF and other NGO
inputs over a 25-year period reaching an annual turnover of approx
$80,000 after 20 years for 135 families in four land-owning
communities. (3500 visitors p.a., average per capita expenditure of
USD$20-$25) . Average family tourist-generated income: $592 p.a.
(Farrelly 2011).
Where is Fiji ?

CHINA

FIJI
Navorro Falls, Bouma, Fiji: Eco/cultural tourism and Homestay
Many of its costs are disguised and not counted, e.g. grants, time and
fees of consultants, volunteers, etc.
The 4 communities have not had to find the capital costs or repay any
loan. Building costs of facilities, upgrading of houses, installation of
toilets, training costs, etc have not had to be met by the community
itself, but by various aid donors.
The trail from Bouma village to the waterfall alone
cost more than $200,000 (5km into the mountns)
The cash income generated from the venture has
made a major contribution to lifting the
communities out of poverty: but -
Conflict over distribution of funds has caused many
problems, and in the first seven years the trail
was shut down several times , once for more
than a year, because of internal disputes and
conflict over sharing the benefits.
 Poverty and Tourism
Bouma would not be sustainable as a business if it had to cover
operational costs and to repay the investments in its establishment.
It has been founded on grants and is sustainable only because the
normal start up business costs AND ongoing operational costs
have been covered by a range of donors.
For example, when a bridge on the trail has needed replacing (e.g.
after a monsoon flood) , instead of the community utilizing its own
resources to rebuild it, they have sought and received another
grant from another sympathetic aid donor or NGO (now replaced
three times!).
 Poverty and Tourism
It has required a continuing (25+-years) input of free outside
assistance to keep it going, although with linkages into several
major tour operators (e.g. Fiji Adventures) and Lonely Planet it is
now more or less self-supporting. Bouma even has an entry in
Wikipedia!
Without major investment (e.g. to build a large resort), Bouma
can never generate an income large enough to lift all of the 135
land-owning families out of poverty.
And the private sector will not invest $1+ million for a gross
annual turnover of about $80,000 with little or no profit margin
above operating costs.
Earnings $1 million invested in a Bank deposit OPPORTUNITY COST
at 5% p.a. for 20 years (compound rate of interest)
Year Capital Interest p.a. Total 5-yr earnings Actual est. 5-yr earnings
1 1,000,000 50,000 1,050,000 2000
2 1,050,000 52,500 1,102,500 2500
3 1,102,500 55,125 1,157,625 1300
4 1,157,625 57,881.25 1,215,506.25 5000
5 1,215,506.25 60,775.31 1,276,281.56 276,281.56 8,000 18800
6 1,276,281.56 63,814.08 1,340,095.64 0
7 1,340,095.64 67,004.78 1,407,100.42 6000
8 1,407,100.42 70,355.02 1,477,455.44 10,000
9 1,477,455.44 73,872.77 1,551,328.21 14,000
10 1,551,328.21 77,566.41 1,628,894.62 628,894.62 18,000 66800
11 1,628,894.62 81,444.73 1,710,339.35 25,000
12 1,710,339.35 85,516.97 1,795,856.32 31,000
13 1,795,856.32 89,792.82 1,885,649.14 36,000
14 1,885,649.14 94,282.46 1,979,931.60 40,000
15 1,979,931.60 98,996.58 2,078,928.18 1,078,928.18 48,000 246800
16 2,078,928.18 103,946.40 2,182,874.58 55,000
17 2,182,874.58 109,143.73 2,292,018.31 75,000
18 2,292,018.31 114,600.92 2,406,619.23 76,000
19 2,406,619.23 120,330.96 2,526,950.19 77,000
20 2,526,950.19 126,347.51 2,653,297.70 1,653,297.70 80,000 609800
Luang Nam Tha homestay and ecotourism project, Laos,
One of most quoted success stories in pro poor tourism
academic literature is this project in Lao PDR (e.g. Harrison D &
Schipani S. 2007. Lao Tourism and Poverty Alleviation: Community-
Based Tourism and the Private Sector. Current Issues in Tourism
Volume:10 Number:2-3: pp.194-230.)
2001: the UN Development Award
for Poverty Alleviation in Lao PDR.
2002: British Airways Tourism for
Tomorrow Awards, National Parks
and Protected Areas Category.
2006: Equator Prize
for Poverty Alleviation.
Luang Nam Tha homestay and ecotourism project, Laos,
It has been successful but an analysis of its inputs since it began
in 1996 shows even more costs than for Bouma in Fiji.

Year Organizations Costs

1996-97 UNESCO/LNTA feasibility study $50,000
1999-2000 NZ and Japan thru IFC, World Bank Ecotourism project $600,000
2003-2007 NZ and ADB Mekong Tourism Development Project $280,000
2008-2013 ADB Mekong TDP $250,000
2012-14 NZ Aid $500,000
Total $1,680,000

These are the contributions made through formal agreements.

At least another $1 million can be attributed to the un-costed value
of volunteers from five or six NGOs and the constant involvement
of officials from LNTA and other government ministries such as
PWD, plus numerous donations from tourists and other sources
over a 20-year period.
Luang Nam Tha homestay and ecotourism project, Laos,

Tourists Participating in Homestay & Eco-tourism

Activities
8000
6000
4000
2000
0

Source: Somsavath NAMINTHA

Head of Marketing & Promotion, Luang Namtha ICTD
ADB Workshop on Tourism Management, Sept 2013, Guilin.

The 65 families participating in the project have

been lifted out of poverty, and annual incomes in
2011 exceeded US$20,000, although the
decrease in 2012 reduced that to just $12,000.
Luang Nam Tha homestay and ecotourism project, Laos,
As with Fiji, many of its costs are disguised and not counted,
and while it has successfully alleviated poverty, it cannot be
replicated.
We simply do not have $2+million for every impoverished
village in a similar situation.
Changing the terms of engagement
A diverse set of organisations (including multilateral and bilateral
aid agencies, non-governmental organisations and research
centres) are re-evaluating their approach to pro poor tourism
along the lines of new thinking to link communities into
mainstream tourism because it can provide many more
opportunities for poor people than small CBT projects.
They are taking the goals of community-based tourism and
changing the extent and terms of engagement between tourism
and the poor to a more market-led demand-side approach with a
range of different partnerships instead of just focusing on
community ownership.
They are developing interventions that
consider the entire tourism supply chain
in order to boost market access of the
poor in much larger numbers than just
one community.
The ADB, the World Bank and many aid donors conclude that
if a broader socio-economic impact is to be achieved then it is
essential to try and capture or harness substantial existing
tourist flows where economies of scale offer the opportunity to
engage/employ many more impoverished people than
otherwise.
This can be achieved by mainstreaming - - linking
impoverished communities into large and/or high yield
tourism flows. Supply chain and value chain analysis
provide tools to identify opportunities for such communities
to benefit from existing tourism flows.
Mainstreaming
Mainstreaming takes two principal forms:
i. Mass tourism flows, where benefits are achieved through
high volume on a relatively large scale; and
ii. Targeting high-end/up-market visitor segments where
high yield has the capacity to expand the potential for
poverty alleviation, even if numbers are not large.
Mon Mon from Myanmar gave us one example of
mainstreaming for poverty alleviation in Myanmar. This is the
village of Myaingng.
It is not isolated in the mountains like many of the CBT projects
in Laos and other countries which are able to attract only a few
hundred visitors per year, but
Because it is located close to Bagan, Myanmars major tourist
attraction, it is able to draw visitors from this mass tourism
destination site as an add-on place to visit.
Mainstreaming
Tidar gave us another example from Indonesia, and this was
his Type 2 CBT the village of Candirejo which is located
close to the WHS of Borobudur that attracts more than 3 million
visitors each year.
The village is not an attraction in its own right, but its proximity
to one of Indonesias most famous attractions means it can
milk the visitation from there to its own advantage and develop
a range of tourism-oriented businesses with farm stay, river and
mountain activities.
Mai Chau village in north Vietnam is just a few hours drive from
Hanoi as Duong noted in his Vietnamese CBT example, and it
too is able to link into mass tourism (the capital city received
more than 10 million visitors last year).
Any village which has the opportunity to link into large existing
tourism flows will have far greater prospects for successful CBT
than those that are located in isolated regions.
CBtT Communities Benefitting through Tourism
Additionally, when value chain analysis is applied to tourism as a
system, the scope for intervention for poverty alleviation is
greatly expanded.
One of the main problems of past efforts at utilizing tourism for
poverty alleviation is that unless a village had a resource of some
sort that could become a tourist attraction (e.g. a waterfall, a
pristine jungle, wildlife, or beautiful natural physical features)
suitable for home-stays, small ecotourism ventures, cultural
performances, handicraft production, and guiding, that community
was judged to lack tourism development potential and ignored.
Linkages through the supply chain were disregarded and no
attempts were made to identify non-attraction resources that
could be utilized by the tourism industry for the benefit of the
community concerned.
There are in fact hundreds of indirect possibilities hiding in the
supply chain and the tourism system as a whole.
CBtT Communities Benefitting through Tourism
For example, a deforested hill of granite under local land ownership
could be cut and transformed into polished pavers for resorts,
hotels and landscaping with appropriate low cost technology if
value chain analysis indicated that this source could be competitive
(in price and quality) with alternative, pre-existing sources of paving
stones.
In such a case the community might never see a tourist but its
entre into the monetized economy would be via the tourist dollar
as it supplied material (granite blocks and pavers) for tourism
infrastructure (Halim, 2014).
CBtT Communities Benefitting through Tourism
A second example is a hill tribe community in Thailand growing
orchids for Thai Airways, hotels, resorts and restaurants.
The community has no particular resource to attract tourists; its
natural environment is degraded, its cultural heritage has been
eroded, its impoverished village is depressed, unattractive and
unsuitable for home-stay ventures. Thus under the orthodox
approach to Community Based Tourism it would not be
considered as a recipient of tourism development assistance
and would be ignored.
CBtT Communities Benefitting through Tourism
But because it has the right environment altitude, soil, climate
for growing orchids which are in demand by the tourism
industry, then tourism value chain/supply chain analysis will
identify the opportunity for horticulture and a successful and
sustainable orchid-growing business can be initiated.
The community might never see a tourist but its cash income
will be derived from the tourism industry and it will thus become
integrated into the tourism system.

This broader approach where

tourism value chain/supply
chain analysis identifies such
opportunities has been termed:
CBtT Communities
Benefiting through Tourism.
(Sofield 2005; Xu, Sofield & Bao,
2008; Sofield 2010).
CBtT Communities Benefitting through Tourism
Yesterday we had an interesting variation of this approach from
Indonesia Tidar outlined Indonesias National CBT Tourism
Development Plan with three types of villages eligible for
Government assistance:
1. The village as an attraction itself;
2. The village situated in or near an attraction; and
3. The village could support tourism to Type 1 and Type 2 villages.
Type 3 villages could be a form of CbtT
But note that thousands of villages all over Indonesia would not
benefit from the national policy because they are not an attraction
themselves or they are not located near or in an attraction.
In other words the policy is still restricted to the narrow, orthodox
approach and it could be expanded to look at the entire supply
chain of tourism to involve thousands of other poor villages that
might have resources needed for tourism but not able to attract
tourists.
CBtT Communities Benefitting through Tourism
Christie from the Philippines gave us another example of CBtT
combined with mainstreaming, even though she did not use these
terms to describe the intervention.
This was her outline of tourism development in Compostela Valley,
with its beach resort tourism very highly developed and attracting
very large numbers of domestic tourists as well as international
visitation.
In terms of the local fishing village, tourism was used in two ways
to engage the community in productive income earning activities.
The first was to train fishermen as tour guides (a viable alternative
because of overfishing that had reduced incomes) a form of
mainstreaming.
The second was to train fishermens wives to become involved in
horticulture growing and selling plants and flowers from stalls set
up at the entrances to all the different resorts a form of CBtT.
 Poverty and Tourism
Building market access for the poor requires the private sector,
practitioners and poor people, together with government, to
work together on mainstreaming.
A number of different models for public/private /community
partnerships are outlined in this presentation.
In these partnerships the Government (public sector) has four key
roles:

1. To provide the necessary infrastructure (e.g. roads for access,

power, water, etc);
2. To protect the interests of the local communities;
3. To protect the natural resources/environment; and
4. To enact enabling legislation and regulations, (e.g. if
establishing a new national park, or re-zoning to allow for new
activities/facilities), licensing, collection of taxes, etc.
The Private Sector
1. Carries the risk and provides the investment finance to
develop a site or a venture on a large scale beyond the reach
of a poor community;

2. Uses its knowledge of the tourism industry to tap into exist-

ing tourism flows, or to create a new large flow (mainstream) ;

3. Has a responsibility (prescribed by Government) to ensure

the local community benefits from the new development
through (a) profit sharing, (b) job creation and often (c) welfare
benefits such as a clinic, a village water supply, village amenities.

4. Has responsibility for marketing and promoting the new

venture (and thus ensuring a flow of visitors to the place); &

5. Meets legal requirements re safety standards, registration,

payment of taxation, etc.
Communities
1. Expected to contribute to the quality of the landscape and
conserve/protect their culture and environment: a combination
of self-interest, traditional custodianship and new economic
incentives through ecotourism business activities

2. Have exclusive rights to SMEs within the designated site

3. Be willing to act as hosts, either actively or passively, in a

display of aspects of their culture and their environment that
they are willing to share with outsiders (tourists).
Mainstreaming and Tourism Value Chain Analysis
Example of how VCA works in an Economic Corridor
There is an increasing number of examples where targeted
interventions of poor communities that are geographically close to
existing mass tourism destinations have been able to participate in
that tourism activity and benefit from the wealth generated by
thousands of visitors without the communities themselves actually
initiating development;
e.g. the Bahia Coconut Coast resort destination in Brazil, an
economic corridor initiated by the Brazilian Government 15 years
ago.

B R A Z I L

Bahia
 Bahia Coconut Coast, Brazil
The Brazilian Inclusive Tourism (IT) project, launched 2003 by the
Brazilian Govt and UN agency ITC, aims to improve the
livelihood of communities of thousands of people by involving
them in the supply and value chains of tourism resorts in Bahia,
which combined have more than 33,000 beds.
Communities have been able to share in the benefits from the
huge growth in hotels constructed along this stretch of coast.

Source: International Trade Centre, UN, Geneva

 Bahia Coconut Coast, Brazil
Value Chain analysis revealed opportunities for the resorts to cut
costs and at the same time involve the marginalized local
communities in their operations to mutual benefit.
By 2008, through a partnership with ten resorts, capacity building
activities resulted in 2000 local people employed in non-labouring
jobs.
Courses provided included Computer Science, English, Hotel
Business, Environmental Education, Civil Engineering, Organic
Agriculture, Arts and Crafts, Design and Apiculture.
Where previously resorts had to provide accommodation for non-
local employees their costs have been significantly reduced by
employing local residents.
Bungalows for non-local staff that were
originally an operational cost are now
available for guests for tourists and are an
income earning asset.
Source: International Trade Centre, UN, Geneva
 Bahia Coconut Coast, Brazil
500 local farmers are now involved in a
Cooperative, using 5 tonnes of organic waste
generated by 20 resorts each day for fertilizer,
improving production and reliability of supplies to
the resorts. At the same time the recycling of the
waste has had a significant environmental impact.
390 women have established a handicrafts cooperative, operating
out of a handicrafts and cultural centre provided by ten resorts in
the centre of the resort city. Increases in income have been
substantial: monthly incomes for the 390 local women artisans have
risen from US$40 to US$250.
As a result of the replication phase with an additional ten
hotels/resorts now under way it is estimated that an additional 2,172
direct jobs for locals and 1,216 indirect jobs for locals will be created
while local revenues will grow from zero to a respectable level in certain
sectors and increase by around 100% in the agriculture sector.
Source: International Trade Centre, UN, Geneva
A different example is of private companies operating in tandem
with communities and the government sector to assist
community based tourism development;
Example: Exotissimo, Laos.
A Community-based Tourism Program in Cooperation with eight
Akha Villages, Exotissimo, the Lao national tourism authority, and
the German Government international aid agency, GTZ, in Sing
District, Luang Namtha Province, Lao PDR.
Represents a new aspect of development assistance where a
government-funded project provides investment for a private sector
business to establish a sustainable village enterprise with the aim
of poverty alleviation.
Previous work by NGOs had established a moderate flow of visitors
to 8 villages but lack of private sector involvement had restricted
any further growth. They were failing.
Exotissimos Akha Experience is an experiential eco-
tourism trek in Laos that introduces you to the Akha way of life
in an authentic and responsible manner. Combining scenic
treks through pristine landscapes with homestays in Akha
villages, you will have an opportunity to participate in rural life
and feel the warm hospitality of these incredible people. This
Laos tour is highly recommended for travelers interested to
learn about Southeast Asias hill tribes and contribute to
sustainable tourism.

Web site: laos.exotissimo.com/travel/tours

In this approach the importance of public sector support - Lao
National Tourist Authority and Germany (GTZ) - was fundamental in
engaging the private sector.
The private sector linkage was also fundamental. The expertise in
management and service quality, marketing & international travel
lies with the private sector.
Communities which have not previously been involved in tourism
will have little or none of this necessary expertise, and to ignore
the contribution that linkage
into the private sector will
make is to risk condemning
a community based tourism
venture to invisibility in the
market place, and therefore
unsustainability.
Another model is a 4-way partnership - Companies
operating in a four-way partnership with the community,
the public sector and the Third Sector I/NGOs;
Example: Eco Lodges Indonesia

Graphics courtesy Steve Noakes, Director, Ecolodges Indonesia

Eco Lodges Indonesia started seven years ago with five
investors, all veterinarians, who were interested in using
tourism and communities to save endangered species.
Working with National Parks of Indonesia they obtained
concessions to construct eco-lodges in villages outside
the entrance to national parks which were the habitat of
endangered species the Sumatran rhino, the pygmy
elephant, the komodo dragon, the orang utan.
They work with I/NGOs to train local villagers as staff and
guides and restrict expatriate staff to two or four per eco-
lodge.
They opened their fifth eco-lodge in 2014. All five village
communities report increased income, improved welfare,
education and health standards.
 Way Kambas Ecolodge, Sumatra: Example of partnership with government,
community, and Non Governmental Organizations

PARTNERS
1. Private investors
(5 veterinarians
from Australia)
2. Government -
National Parks of
Indonesia
3. Five villages
where each
venture is located.
4. I/NGOs

Graphics courtesy Steve Noakes, Director, Ecolodges Indonesia

China has approached community based tourism from a different
perspective. It is very strongly focused on achieving economies
of scale through mainstreaming.

Main characteristics are:

i. A large initial investment of US$10+ million to develop a site
or venture, often -
ii. As a joint public sector/private sector partnership or (as
China moves to embrace a market economy) a private
company investment, with -
iii. a monopoly on entry rights. This type of system where
major company earnings accrue through entrance fees is
common all over China and is called the ticket economy
( ).
Main characteristics are:
iv. Government provides basic infrastructure for the venture;
v. Mainstreaming is achieved either by linking the new venture
into an existing major tourist flow, or by an investment that is
large enough to create over time its own major flow.
vi. Community rights are protected by the Government granting
them exclusive rights to all SMEs within the designated
scenic area/venture site.
The development of Crown
Cave about 40 kms from Guilin
provides an example of
mainstreaming that has made a
significant impact on local
poverty in the nearby village of
Caoping.
The cave was developed as a
joint venture between the Guilin
Tourist Company (Government-
owned) and a private sector
foreign investor from Taiwan.

Crown Cave, Guilin, one

of the most famous
caves in China
 Guilin - Lijiang River to
Crown Cave and Yangshuo
Guilin is a major destination
with annual visitation of more
than 27 million.
The journey by boat from
Guilin to Yangshuo is one of
the two most famous river
cruises in China, (the other is
the Three Gorges cruise
down the Yangtze River).
The Provincial Government provided the basic infrastructure a
sealed road for 40 kms from Guilin to Caoping village.
This road was built specifically for the tourism venture, not for
opening up the rural area to modern transport.

New road
from Guilin
to Crown
Cave
The private entrepreneur then built all the amenities to visit the cave.
1. Car park and reception area for visitors
2. A monorail for 1.5 kms to access the cave
via individual
self-drive,
two-person
carriages
with electric
motors.
Crown Cave
3. A pier below the karst peak for
access from the Lijiang River; plus
paths, tunnels, stairs, toilets, etc., and
4. A seven-storey high, glass-fronted
elevator inside the cave to take
visitors from a central cavern deep
inside the mountain to exit at the
summit.
The development of Crown Cave
An artificial waterfall also was constructed inside the cave with an
artificial underground river for a boat-ride inside the mountain. The
water was diverted from an irrigation dam originally built by the
government for farming. The joint venture has a policy of
employing local people wherever possible.

Total development expenditure since 1995 is more than RMB100

million (US$16.5 million).
The development of Crown
Cave near Guilin has provided
a range of opportunities for the
local community.
There are diverse activities
undertaken by local people:
Home-stays and small hotels
in the village
 Providing refreshments, kiosks, snacks, etc.
Making handicrafts and souvenirs for sale to tourists
Stalls in Caoping village owned
and run by local people,
catering to tourists.
5 restaurants in the village of Caoping, owned and run by local
households.
 Horse cart rides
Local community households providing transport and tours
Boat and raft river tours
Entrepreneurship inside the cave in a variety of forms:
Business is growing: setting up a new stall inside the cave

Selling souvenirs
 entrepreneurship inside the cave in a variety of forms: -
Selling local-made traditional wine which has been brewed
inside the cave for hundreds of years
 entrepreneurship inside the cave in a variety of forms:

Selling local-made traditional wine

 Entrepreneurship
inside the cave takes
a variety of forms:

Crown Cave has let

concessions for
photographic
opportunities inside,
just like caves all
over China.
 Survey of Mainstream tourism opportunities for
Caoping households, Sept 2012

No. owned Earnings for each

Type of business by villagers business - RMB p.a.
Souvenir stalls 30+ 36,000-100,000
Refreshment kiosks 10 50,000
Small hotel, homestay 4 60,000-112,000
Horse cart transport 40-50 30,000-35,000
Boat, raft river tours 50-60 40,000-50,000
Village Restaurants 5 100,000+
In addition to the businesses run by Caoping villagers, 150 local
people are employed by the Crown Cave Co, for an average wage
of RMB29,560 each p.a.

Surveys of Caoping village businesses over the last 2 years

demonstrate that tourism mainstreaming has transformed this
previously poor farming and fishing village into relatively wealthy
rural households, most of which have annual incomes of more
than RMB100,000 (US$16,000). Previously, pre-tourism, as
peasant farmers and fishermen, household incomes were about
RMB2,000 (US$285) maximum p.a.

Villagers employed by the Crown Cave company 150 USD$

Average wages p.a. each employee RMB29,560 4,690
Total wages to villagers paid by Crown Cave company
RMB4,434000 703,900

Average annual household income RMB 100,000+ 15,875

It is important to note that the development company has invested more
than RMB100 million into Crown Cave and associated amenities and
facilities, and that -
without this investment that generated mass tourism the village
households would have had none of the opportunities that have been
created and which have lifted them out of poverty.
in short, an environment for mainstreaming was the outcome.
Although the tourist activities take place in and around the village, the
cave visitation is not CBT since there is no local ownership.
Some of the village-owned activities are a form of CBT, but the overall
situation (especially through employment by the Crown Cave Co) is -
CBtT - Communities Benefitting through Tourism.
Summary
Recent more critical analysis of the orthodox approach to
Community based tourism, where the emphasis has been on
empowerment through local ownership, has called into
question the merits of many such ventures.
In most cases the costs in time and money have significantly
outweighed the benefits, and the failure rate has been very
high.
Public/private sector/community/partnerships have
demonstrated much greater prospects for success.
Mainstreaming has revealed greater prospect for success, with
many of the resulting SMEs being examples of CBtT -
Communities Benefitting through Tourism - rather than CBT, or
ventures within a community owned by local people.
Value chain analysis is the tool that has opened the door to
more opportunities for potentially successful CBTs and CbtT.
 END
Lake Sebu, Mindanao, Philippines