Is Gorilla Tourism Sustainable?
Although nature tourism has been promoted as a sustainable, important
and necessary "tool" for conserving species, it is now often
viewed as a growing conservation problem. The number of well-documented
cases linking nature tourism both to the loss of species and degradation
of natural habitats is growing rapidly.
Promoters of tourism on habituated, free-ranging gorillas state that the
gorillas and their ecosystems will benefit if tourism generates significant
revenues. This is an emotionally appealing, high-profile activity that
can generate substantial revenue. It also appears to nicely bridge the
gap between conservation and economic and social development objectives.
Thus, ape tourism has been an "easy sell" to almost everyone,
not only politicians, donors and the public, but also conservationists.
The several serious problems inherent to tourism based on habituated,
free-ranging gorillas are less publicised.
In a recent paper, we examined the benefits, problems and risks of gorilla
tourism, and assessed whether this kind of tourism is likely to be a sustainable
activity as now practised. Here we summarize the findings and conclusions
for three of the topics examined in our review. These are: (1) the information
base for the implementation and development of gorilla tourism; (2) the
ability to control tourists and guides; and (3) the role of money and
politics in gorilla tourism.
Research and Information
The sustainable use of natural resources requires the accumulation and
assessment of information on the impact of use on the target population
and ecosystem.
Since 1978, millions of dollars have been provided by donors to develop
and support gorilla tourism. It is surprising, therefore, that little
research has been conducted on the effects of tourism on gorilla behaviour,
ecology, health and survival. This is especially so as all five current
gorilla tourism programmes are based on small, restricted populations
of 240-340 individuals that are already particularly vulnerable to extinction.
Here is one of numerous examples of the problem of insufficient data.
There has been a sizeable loss of gorillas from one of the two tourist
groups in the Bwindi-Impenetrable National Park, Uganda. The Katendegere
group has declined from 9 gorillas to 3 as a result of emigration and
death (also, a tenth gorilla was born and died during this decline). In
addition, this group now ranges 10 km east of where it occurred in 1993
prior to visits by tourists. Disturbance, stress and disease (scabies)
related to tourism may be responsible for the decline in the size and
considerable change in home range of this group. Unfortunately, the research
vital to assessing the contribution of tourism to these changes was never
undertaken.
The continued expansion of gorilla tourism in the absence of scientific
information is not unique to the programme in the Bwindi-Impenetrable
Forest. While there has been a long-term, extensive research programme
on the gorillas of the Virunga Volcanoes, this work has focused almost
solely on groups that are not part of the tourism programme. Nonetheless,
the number of gorilla groups habituated for tourism in the Virungas increased
from none in 1978 to 10 in 1997. Further, the official number of tourists
visiting some groups has increased from six to eight, and an increase
to 10 or more is being considered. This increase in the size of tourist
groups was made despite strong recommendations by scientific advisers
to keep group size limited to six people.
In addition to insufficient research data, all gorilla tourism programmes
suffer from a total lack of comprehensive and independent risk assessments,
environmental-impact studies, and programme evaluations. Under these circumstances,
no one can advance models for sustainable gorilla tourism, or be confident
that the gorilla tourism programmes are not now, or will not become, detrimental
to the gorillas or their ecosystems.
Control of Tourists and Guides
Sustainable use will not occur unless effective regulatory structures
are adopted and enforced. Gorilla-based tourism is exceptionally difficult
to control, particularly over the long-term. That adequate control over
gorilla tourism is often lacking is most clearly demonstrated by the many
statements, photographs and videos of tourists and guides close to, or
touching gorillas. In some cases, tour operators and tourists pressure
and bribe park staff to ignore the rules. In other cases, tourists are
actively encouraged by park staff to break the rules and have more of
a 'gorilla experience' than the regulations allow. The benefit to the
guide is a larger gratuity at the end of the day.
Infringements of the regulations have been documented in all gorilla viewing
programmes. The main concerns are physical contact between gorillas and
tourists, extended visits with the gorillas (far beyond the 1 hour limit),
large numbers of people in the tourist groups (up to at least 32 people),
twice-daily visits to groups of gorillas, visits by obviously sick tourists,
and unauthorised visits to non-tourist gorilla groups.
Money and Politics
The wide-spread perception is that gorilla tourism is guided by science
and by concern for the survival of gorillas. A closer look, however, reveals
that science frequently has little presence (see above) or influence,
and that conservation is often relegated to a place behind politics, power
struggles and short-term financial gains.
For some politicians and tour operators, gorilla viewing is a bonanza
from which to reap as much profit as possible. Not surprisingly, those
calling for more science, for impartial evaluations, and for greater caution
and restraint in the development and operation of gorilla tourism programmes
have been routinely ignored, and sometimes targeted for attack by those
bent on suppressing the problems in order to make political and monetary
gains. The high demand to see gorillas, and to obtain the money that gorilla
tourism brings, are two extremely powerful and destabilising forces that
seriously hamper efforts to make gorilla tourism sustainable.
The most recent and extensive data indicate that the 300-350 gorillas
on the Virunga Volcanoes are the only representatives of the mountain
gorilla subspecies - Gorilla gorilla beringei and that the gorillas
of the Bwindi-Impenetrable Forest do not belong to this subspecies. One
critical concern now is the suggestion to convert some or all of the three
research (Karisoke) groups of gorillas in the Volcanoes National Park
to tourism groups and/or to increase further the numbers of tourists visiting
each group. If all three research groups become tourist groups, Rwanda
would have six groups of gorillas available for tourism. This could increase
to eight groups if the two habituated groups that emigrated to the Virunga
National Park in the Democratic Republic of the Congo expanded their range
back into Rwanda. Under those circumstances, nearly all of the gorillas
in the Volcanoes National Park, and about 70% of the world's remaining
mountain gorillas, could be visited daily by more than 100 tourists, and
by a similar number of guides, porters and rangers.
Whatever the risks associated with tourism on this small population now,
these risks would be increased considerably. In addition, the valuable
and well-known long-term research on these three groups would be severely
restricted and jeopardized. Perhaps most importantly, the concept of gorilla
tourism as a sustainable activity contributing to the survival of the
Virunga gorillas would undoubtedly lose much credibility and support,
not only from the international conservation community, but also from
those tourists who thought they were benefiting gorilla conservation through
their visits.
Another concern now involves the two new groups of gorillas under habituation
for tourism in the Bwindi-Impenetrable Forest. The home range of both
groups lies entirely, or almost entirely, outside the "tourism zone"
as agreed upon widely in the Tourism Plan and in the Bwindi Impenetrable
National Park Management Plan (1995-1999). Indeed, these groups live within
a controlled research area where data on unhabituated gorillas were to
be collected for use in assessing the impact of tourism on gorillas. This
research and monitoring program, which according to the Tourism Plan was
to begin in 1992, has not been initiated.
The expansion of the gorilla tourism programme in the Bwindi-Impenetrable
Forest without sufficient baseline data, and without the benefit of professional,
independent evaluation, is particularly worrying in light of the circumstances
surrounding the decline of the Katendegere group (see above). This suggestion
calls into question not only the sustainability of this programme, but
also the veracity of one of the Tourism Plan's guiding principles, that
"tourism is secondary to conservation."
Conclusions and Recommendations
In our review paper we conclude that tourism based upon gorilla viewing
is not the conservation panacea that many people believe. There is too
much emphasis now on generating revenues, while far too little attention
is given to either demonstrating or ensuring the long-term sustainability
of any of the five current gorilla tourism programmes. Tourism on free-ranging,
habituated gorillas has been in effect for two decades, yet the recognized
cornerstones to ensuring that this activity is sustainable have not been
laid. There continues to be enormous disparity between what needs to be
done and what the implementing governments, managers and supporting international
conservation bodies are willing or able to accomplish.
Tourism based on small populations of gorillas is likely to be sustainable
only:
- Where gorilla conservation is always given priority over economic and political concerns.
- Where decisions affecting gorilla tourism are based on sound and objective science.
- Where the regulations governing this activity are enforced rigorously.
- Where the conservation benefits from gorilla tourism monies are considerably greater than at present.
If these basic pre-requisites cannot be met, then tourism on small populations
of gorillas should be stopped until they can be met.
We are particularly concerned that all five of the established gorilla-viewing
programmes are based on small populations of gorillas. Given the many
problems and the management deficiencies observed, we suspect that gorilla
tourism, as practised today, is likely to be sustainable only where gorilla
populations are large. We suggest that limited tourism on the large lowland
population of gorillas (14,550 gorillas) of the Kahuzi-Biega National
Park and adjacent Itebero-Kasese region of eastern Democratic Republic
of the Congo would do little damage.
While tourism may contribute to the survival of some of these small
populations of gorillas, it is at the same time undoubtedly putting
them at additional risk. As a conservation priority, therefore, each
of these programmes should be reviewed and evaluated thoroughly by multi-disciplinary
teams of independent and impartial professionals. The teams should assesss
whether these programmes can be made sustainable and specify how this
might be achieved. Such an undertaking would bring to light more facts
about gorilla tourism and further address the arguments, both for and
against, that gorilla tourism has raised.
Thomas M Butynski
Dr. Thomas M. Butynski has conducted wildlife research in Africa since 1971. From 1978 to 1993 he studied primates and worked on rain forest conservation in Uganda. Now he works for Conservation International and in addition for the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group. Since 1995 he has made surveys in endangered montane forests in eastern Zaire/Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Photo: Sylvia Wladarz
If visitors come close, diseases can be transmitted