A Comparative Analysis of Community-Based Tourism in Uganda and Kenya

1. IntroductionAs pointed turn up by Tasciet al (2013), the component made by touristry to the growth of the economy hind end be enormous. Given the great potential of the touristry sector, several models extradite been developed everywhere the past few historic period. partnership-establish touristry, developed in the 1990s by authors including Pearce (1992) has been suggested to provide for sustainability in the sedulousness (Beeton 2006). conjunction- found touristry (CBT) can be defined as a bottom-up approach that ensures the involvement of the hookical anesthetic communities in the planning process (Koster 2007). Given the potential of CBT, umpteen country-bred reads atomic number 18 increasingly re deceit on touristry as an alternative to sparing teaching, replacing their former reliance on woodlandry, mining and culture (Lopez-Guzman et al. 2011). boorish beas ar considered fundamental tourist terminal figures as they appeal to numerous tourists (Butler et al. 1998). This radical conducts a comparative analysis of association base touristry in the midst of Uganda and Kenya. The tenders report will first define the impression and then explore the demographics and history of tourism in Kenya and Uganda, and finally examine the socio-economic and environmental impacts. A comparative analysis will be done between the deuce countries by highlighting similarities and disputes. 3. alliance- ground touristry Model Overview The nonion of CBT can be traced back to the alternative approaches developed in the 1970s which were concerned with issues beyond the strictly economic (Tefler 2009). During this period, victimisation in the tourism sector began to reduce to a greater extent on club-based initiatives and stressed more on the plane sectionicipation of the topical anaesthetic various(prenominal)s (Giampiccoli & Kalis 2012). The concept brought together issues of sustainability, topical anesthetic anaesthetic em forcement and self-reliance. CBT has come about overdue to the desire for a more inclusive approach to planning that incorporates topical anesthetic anesthetic values (Koster 2007). The concept of CBT has suffered from competing and ill-thought-out definitions. For example, Suansri (2003) and Ramsa & Mohd (2004) view CBT as a tourism surmisal wholly managed by the topical anaesthetic anaesthetic communities. On the other hand, Scheyvens (2002) and Mearns (2003) ar habituated to see it as involving a degree of participation or league with other stakeholders playing a part.Perhaps the problem with defining the concept can be attri hardlyed to the fact that CBT may mean unalike things to different flock. Despite debate over meanings, the CBT framework utilize in this paper is that initiated, planned, control guide, owned and managed by the local people with the aim of meeting the ask of the entire fraternity. Private enterp climb ups at the micro-level can be considered as part of the definition if the focus is on communal well-being rather than individual profit. The benefits should accrue to the local familiarity and CBT should respect and preserve local culture.2. cathode-ray oscilloscope to touristry in Kenya and Uganda Demographics, History, Socio-Economic Considerations andenvironmental SustainabilityTourism plays an distinguished role in Kenya, accounting for 10% of GDP and 9% of commerce. It is as well increasingly profitable with a 17.9% rise in earnings from the sector between 2009 and 2010 (Ndivo et al 2012). Amongst African countries, Kenya is shortly ranked 5th for multi bailiwick tourist visits, with approximately 1.5 million inter internal tourists in 2008 (Bunyere et al. 2009). Because it has the potential to generate workout and prosperity, it has been given(p) an increasingly strategic role in interior(a) socio-economic agendas, with a number of get wind policies and strategies created including the field Tourism Mas ter Plan (Ministry of Tourism Kenya 2009), Tourism Policy (Government of Kenya 2010) and Tourism Bill 2005 (Ndivo et al 2012). Although there is potential to develop tourism rough the country, historically interest has centred on the beaches of the south coast, national positions and lame reserves (Ndivo et al 2012). match to a survey conducted by the EU, 63% of EU visitors in Kenya chose coastal beas as their tourist destination (Kibicho 2004). Wildlife is excessively a familiar attraction, with70% of the tourism earnings in Kenya coming from wildlife-based tourism (Bunyere et al, 2009). Given the fine importance of the tourism sector in Kenya, it is exceedingly vital to harbor and conserve these significant resources. Indeed, saving policies and collaborative schemes develop been already been put in place. There is a large area of protected land, and 10% of Kenyas land has been designated as national park and game reserve land (Akama et al., 2011). Critical biodiversit y areas and the rich ethnical coastal region form the flourishing tourism sector in Kenya. Although measures to protect Kenyas ecology remove been put in place, there are concerns over sustainability, and the country continues to throw accelerated decline and wipeout of critical biodiversity areas. There has been a decline in wildlife population in national parks and game reserves at rates similar to non-protected areas, indicating the states inability to protect critical biodiversity (Akama et al., 2011). Moreover, coastal tourism which has for decades reign has experienced a rapid decline in the recent years owing to the tribal clashes that have erupted (Cheung 2012). Kenyas coastal tourism persistence experienced a period of unprecedented dismal performance with 56% of the hotels closing in 2008 (Akama et al., 2011). Although more than of the violence that occurred was tribal in nature, findings signalise that want of corporation participation and involvement in tourism activities in the coast was a have factor contributing to these heathen clashes. Had the local communities been involved in the tourism activities, such ethnic flare-ups would have been averted. The ethnic flare-ups, land use conflict between local communities and wildlife managers, threats of extinction of species and the patent inability of the state to protect critical biodiversity areas have led to a invigorated realization of the importance of fellowship based tourism in Kenya (Korir et al 2013). Considerable effort has now been made to provide hold to CBT enterprises including conferrer reinforcement. Further, a framework that gives impetus to victorious and sustainable trading operations of CBT ventures has been linked into the overall national polity (Akama et al. 2011). History of Ugandan tourism sector and socio-economic contributions Tourism in addition has a role to play in the Ugandan economy. Similar to Kenya, main tourist products in Uganda are nature-ba sed and are linked to wildlife game reserves, woodland reserves and national parks. Other attractions embarrass cultural heritage, conjunction development, eco-tourism and faith-based tourism (Paul, 2004). The importance of involving the local communities in tourism activities is also evident in Uganda. Conflicts between the locals and the government have by and large been due to their lack of involvement in planning and development activities. For example, aft(prenominal) the judicature of Bwindi Impenetrable issue parkland in 1992, conflicts arose between the locals and the park. The conflicts that led to the burning up of 5% of the park by the local familiarity was evidence enough that the park would not be protected without accept and local support (Mujuni et al. 2003). A collaborative management plan was so further stigmatize up which promoted participation of the locals in park management and gross sharing. As a result, conflict ended and the locals committed them selves to protect and preserving the park. The experience showed the importance of local club of interests involvement in tourism activities. Uganda used to be a key dealerer in tourism in the past. In the early, 1960s Uganda used to be the main tourism destination in East Africa(Frederic, 2011). However, the unprecedented turmoil of the 1970s and early 80s led to a decline in the tourism perseverance (Paul, 2004). As a result, Uganda lost its position as a top tourist destination in East Africa to Kenya. However, the government that took over in the mid 80s restored peace and stability (frederic, 2011). Since then, the sector has been steady increasing despite lagging behind Kenya in terms of its contribution to GDP. inappropriate in Kenya where tourism contributes around 10% of the GDP, Ugandan tourism industry is estimated to contribute 4% of the total GDP(Sanchez-Canizares, 2013). Nonetheless, there has been an increasing abbreviate in tourism with the number of internation al tourist visits increasing from 468,000 in 2005 to over 940,000 in 2010 (Paul, 2004). Given that two countries are still developing, it is worthy to examine some of the similarities and differences between the two countries. Comparative analysis of union based tourism between Kenya and Uganda SimilaritiesSocio-economic impactThe two countries share indisputable things in common starting with the embracement and recognition of connection based tourism as an important whoreson for reducing pauperisation. two countries have embraced and given emphasis to development of participation based tourism as an important tool for poverty reduction (Sanchez-Canizares, 2013). There are several participation based tourism take cares in both Kenya and Uganda. Some of the popular community based tourism projects in Kenya are the Kimana community Wildlife Sanctuary, Mwaluganje, Sera Conservancy and Kalacha Bandas in Marsabit among umpteen other(Tang, 2013) Similarly, Ugandan ministry of tourism has laid emphasis on the importance of community based tourism in the country. The idea of community based preservation has become the focus of the industry. Perhaps this has been driven by the recognition of the benefits of involving the local community in tourism development including poverty reduction, decline in conflicts with the ministry over land used and reduced poaching activities (frederic, 2011) Some of the successful community based projects in Uganda include Lake Nkuruba Nature Sanctuary, Buhoma union Restcamp, Mgahinga Community Campground, Busingiro and Kaniyo Pabidi community project, Ruboni Community Campground and Bigodi Wetland Sanctuary(Zeppel, 2006). Participation of the locals in these projects is high. For example, in Bigodi Wetland Sanctuary, the local people are involved in community-guided walks and bird watching tours (Zeppel 2006). Both countries seem to be embracing community tourism as an important tool for reducing poverty. Another similar ity can be seen with the patronage of these projects. Most of these projects are giver funded. Kenya is heavily reliant on conferrer funding. In fact, al around 100% of community based tourism development activities in Kenya is sponsor funded. For example, funds from USAID and humans Bank were used to set up an electric fence around the Kimana Community Wildlife Sanctuary (Jonathan et al. 2013). Mwaluganje, other community based tourism development activity, was establish through donor funding. Sera Conservancy that was formed to empower the local Samburu communities in Kenya was established with funds from USAID. The EU has also contend a major role in funding community based tourism development in Kenya. In 2000, a massive grant of 5.5 million Euros was released by the EU which saw the establishment of 16 community based tourism developments in Kenya (Ruhiu 2007). Other key players funding CBT in Kenya include international bodies such as the UNDP, preservation based NGO s such as AWF, Pact Kenya and WWF and national agencies such as Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) and Kenya Forest Research Institute (KEFRI) (Jonathan et al. 2013). It is clear that donor funding has played a major role in the development of community based tourism in Kenya. The governments role has scarcely been the provision of an enabling environment such as security, programme coordination and policy formulation (Ruhiu 2007). Similarly, Community Based Tourism Enterprises (CBTEs) in Uganda rely predominantly on donor funding. The Mgahinga Bwindi community project was established with funds from the World BANK (Mujuni et al. 2003). Moreover, the two major associations Uganda Community Tourism Association (UCOTA) and (NACOBTA) in charge of promoting community based tourism in Uganda by providing loans and rearing to the local communities are predominantly donor funded. NACOBTA is 99% donor funded whereas UCOTA is 44.8% donor funded (Elisa et al., 2001) UCOTA empowers the local Ugan dan communities to improve their livelihood through participating in sustainable tourism development activities. The association helps the local communities by aiding in the sale of handcrafts, providing accommodation, and tour guiding.Furthermore, both countries have witnessed improved livelihoods due to community based tourism activities. For example, the Mgahinga Bwindi Community Project in Uganda has improved the livelihoods of the locals backing around Bwindi Impenetrable National Park. Many of the local population keep nearby have been employed as park rangers and porters (labourers). The community has also benefited through improved infrastructure including roads, education and health facilities. About 60% of the Mgahinga Bwindi Impenetrable Forest Conservation Trust has been devoted towards development of local community projects (Adams & Infield 2013).The local communities in Kenya have also benefited from employment and improved livelihoods. The locals aliveness near Mw aluganje, Sera Conservancy and Kalacha Bandas in Marsabit have benefited from schools, clinics and boreholes which have been built by these projects (Ruhiu 2007). Further, pro- distressing tourism have assisted women with pearl making through provision of platform for selling their products. Whilst these benefits are encouraging, participation of the locals in both countries is still far from enough. Although some of the locals have managed to secure jobs and improve their livelihoods, most of them are paid low salaries, an equivalent of 30 pounds per month (Ruhiu 2007). This sure enough doesnt really improve their livelihood that ofttimes. In fact, critics have argued that community based tourism and tourism in general should not inescapably be relied on as a tool for poverty alleviation. According to them, tourism does not compete well with sectors such as agriculture which have higher potential of reducing poverty.Environment impactAlso, community based tourism in both countr ies have led to confirming impacts on the environment. For example, in Uganda, KAFRED has created awareness among the local communities bordering wetlands about the importance of defend and preserving the environment (Adams & Infield 2013). This has led to a reduction in shock and eucalyptus planting in the wetlands. Further programs such as the National Wetlands syllabus and Semliki conservation project which have risen from CBT activities have established village by-laws governing the use of wetlands (Adams & Infield 2013). Environmental education has played a role in ensuring sustainability of tourism. Similarly, in Kenya, involvement of the local people in tourism activities has led to reduction in wildlife poaching and destruction of forests. Community wildlife and conservation ventures in Kenya have played a major role towards protecting the environment and preserving wildlife (Jonathan et al. 2013). Environment degradation has reduced and conservation measures build uped with the help of the locals who are employed as park ranges and porters. Community based tourism and eco-tourism have led the way towards responsible buy the farm with important environmental benefits.DifferencesHaving highlighted the similarities, it is important to identify some of the differences in community based tourism between the two countries. One particular difference relates to the extent to which community based tourism is promoted. CBT in Uganda is only confine to areas within or on the forest reserves and national parks. nigh all of the community projects are within or along the forest reserves and national parks. For example, the Buhoma Community Restcamp is within the impenetrable Bwindi Forest national park. The Mgahinga Community Campground project lies next to Mgahinga Gorilla National Park (Zeppel 2006). Others including the Bigodi Wetland Sanctuary, Busingiro and Kaniyo community project and the Ruboni community campground are located along or near national parks and forest reserves (Zeppel 2006). Community based tourism activities in Uganda continue to be modified to areas lying within or along the national parks and forest reserves. This has been echoed by Industry operators who have highlighted limited efforts to promoting community tourism at the national level as one of the main concern of tourism development in Uganda.In stark contrast, community based tourism is promoted at the national level as evident with the opening up of new areas of possibility such as sports tourism, eco tourism, adventure safaris, horse and camel safaris, walk tours, and cultural tourism among many others (Cobb 2006). Further, programs such as the Enterprise knowledge Program have been implemented across the country to build the local message and integrate communities into tourism development activities. Such programs ensure the mobilization of the community through seminars, debates, regional workshops and participatory trainings (Ruhiu 2007). Furth er the local communities are provided consultative services on product development and market access which helps strengthen growth of their enterprises (Cobb 2006). This has been driven by the realization of the potential of community based tourism to reduce poverty, and multiplier effects of the tourism sector as a whole in driving the economy. Perhaps another difference that can be pointed between CBT in Kenya and Uganda relates to the coastal attraction. While community based ecotourism ventures along the coastal region form the flourishing tourism sector in Kenya, Uganda being a landlocked country does not have any coastal attractions (Mulinda & Wilbert 2009). Coastal attraction features provides Kenya with an edge over Uganda(Wilbert, 2009). Beaches, sun-basking, the aquatic life at the coast and rich culture that includes performances, dances and the coeval ways of living of the coastal people make it a popular tourist destination. Another difference is related to the selli ng and promotion of CBT activities. Unlike Uganda, Kenya has invested more in marketing and promotion of tourism activities. For example, last year, Kenya budgeted $34 million dollars for tourism promotion and marketing. This is in stark contrast with Ugandas budget of only $90,000 (UIA 2014). While this may be seen as impacting on development in the overall sector, community based enterprises are also affected in terms of the number of visits and revenues generated from sale of products. Ugandas funding of the sector mud very low despite the potential of suitable a multi-billion sector. The slow pace of tourism in Uganda can be attributed to the lack of identity at the international level. While Kenya has promoted their visibility at the international level, Uganda is still lagging behind in terms of investiture fully in promotion of tourism.While CBT in Kenya has grown much faster than Uganda, it has not developed as expected owing to many factors including in adequate funds fo r marketing and promoting tourism, transparency and governance issues, lack of marketing skills and absence of a system for ensuring equitable sharing of the opportunities and benefits accruing from tourism activities. For example, while Kenyas budget for promotion of tourism may be $34 million, the Kenya Tourism Board receives only $6 million.Further, funding remains a major problem in both Kenya and Uganda. Given that these countries are still developing, there are very limited financial resources for load-bearing(a) CBTEs. Even when these finances are incorporated in government budgets, they are often inadequate to support CBT developments (Ruhiu, 2007). As a result, community based tourism has often relied on foreign investment which may lead to the rise of neo-colonial structures discussed above as foreign investors seek control of tourism resources.Whereas Kenya may be ahead of Uganda in terms of pro-tourism development, it is still far from being developed as it is still pro ne to failures resulting from limited funding, poor infrastructure development, lack of formal education, political influences and inadequate copy of the locals. CBT in Kenya still remains very low with lack of local representation in the workforce. While the industry may boast of over 500,000 jobs, the employment opportunities remain inequitably distributed (Cheung 2012). Most of the local communities are missing out on employment opportunities as these are being taken over by the outside workforce. According to a survey conducted by Bruyere et al. (2009), 64% of the local community members found the employment opportunities to be insufficient. Kenyas community based approach to tourism development is still largely skewed to the interest of tourism (hotels, hospitality and service) with limited representation of the locals. There are also political considerations to take into account. For example, a neo-colonial structure has emerged within the industry as some foreign investors seek control of tourism resources. (Cheung 2012). This has resulted in social and political disempowerment of the locals as neo-colonial structures have made it increasingly concentrated for them to participate in the planning and decision making process. Although there outlive more opportunities for local entrepreneurs to invest in the industry compared to Uganda especially given the ongoing development agenda that encourages of the growth SMEs, a divide of power continues to disengage and disempower the local communities. The majority of Kenyans continue to live below the poverty line with the highest incidence of poverty occurring in tourist destination areas.5. proofThe above has looked at the notion of CBT with particular reference to the situation in Kenya and Uganda. From the analysis, both countries seem to share certain commonalities and differences as well. For example, community based tourism is embraced in both countries and recognized as an important tool for reducin g poverty. Also, both countries are heavily reliant on donor funding. Moreover, the locals in both countries have experienced improvement in their livelihoods through employment opportunities, and access to school and health facilities. Further, Pro-poor tourism has assisted women with bead making through provision of platform for selling products. Both countries have also seen improvement in their environments which has resulted due to community development projects and conservation ventures. In Uganda, programs such as the National Wetlands Program and Semliki conservation project have established village by-laws governing the use of wetlands. Community wildlife and conservation ventures in Kenya have played a major role towards protecting the environment and preserving wildlife. There are also sharp differences in CBT developments in both countries. For example, community based tourism activities in Uganda are limited to areas lying within or along the national parks and forest r eserves. In stark contrast, community based tourism in Kenya is promoted at the national level as evident with the opening up of new areas of possibility such as sports tourism, eco tourism, adventure safaris, horse and camel safaris, walk tours, and cultural tourism. Another difference is that Uganda being a landlocked country does not have coastal attractions. On the other hand, beaches, sun-basking, the aquatic life at the Kenyan coast and rich culture that includes performances, dances and the contemporary ways of living of the coastal people make it a popular tourist destination. Additionally, Kenya has invested more in marketing and promotion of tourism activities compared to Uganda. While Kenya has promoted their visibility at the international level, Uganda is still lagging behind in terms of drop fully in promotion of tourism. While CBT in Kenya has grown much faster than Uganda, it has not developed as expected owing to many factors including in adequate funds for marketi ng and promoting tourism, transparency and governance issues, lack of marketing skills and absence of a system for ensuring equitable sharing of the opportunities and benefits accruing from tourism activities. Nonetheless, the future of tourism in both these two countries lies in community based tourism. The potential of CBT to reduce poverty and make the sector sustainable is enormous. Not only can CBT help in enhancing biodiversity conservation but it can also generate income and bring economic growth to the local communities.6. ReferencesAdams, W. and Infield, M. 2013. Community conservation at mgahinga gorilla national park, uganda. Institute for Development Policy and Management, Manchester. Akama, J. and Starry, P., 2000. Cultural tourism in Africa strategies for new millennium.Africa International Conference, Mombasa, Kenya. Beeton, S (2006) Community Development Through Tourism, USA Landlinks Press Bruyere, B.L., Beh, A.W. and Lelengula, G., 2009. Differences in perceptions of communication, tourism benefits, and management issues in a protected area of rural Kenya. Environmental Management, 43, 49-59 Butler, R., hall, C.M. & Jenkins, J. 1998. Continuity and change in rural tourism Introduction in R. Butler, C.M. Hall and J. Jenkins (eds) Tourism and Recreation in Rural Areas (New York Wiley) 3-17 Cheung, H., 2012.Tourism in kenyas national parks a cost-benefit analysis. Kenya Giampiccoli, A. and Kalis, J.H., 2012. Community-based tourism and local culture the human face of the amaMpondo, vol. 10 (1), pp. 173-188 Frederic, T., Grace, B, and Celestine, k. 2011. Opportunity memorize Uganda inclusive tourism. Jonathan, T. B., Nelly, J., and Nehemia, K., 2013. An examination of Kenyas outbound tourism to ugandan destinations towards re-thinking Kenyas tourism product development and marketing. Journal of Economics and sustainable Development 4(8). Kibicho, W., 2004. Community tourism a lesson from Kenyas coastal region. Journal of Vacation Marketing, V ol. 10, pp.33-42 Korir, J, Muchiri, J and Kamwea, J 2013. Wildlife Based Tourism, Ecology and Sustainability of Protected Areas in Kenya Journal of Natural Sciences Research 33, Koster, R.L., 2007.An evaluation of community based tourism development how theory intersects practice. Priarie Perspectives Lopez-Guzman, T. and Sanchez-Canizares, S. and Pavon, V., 2011.Community based tourism in developing countries a case study. An International Multidisciplinary Journal of Tourism, vol.6 (1), pp 69-84 Mearns, K., 2003. Commmunity based tourism. The key to empowering the Sankuyo community in Botswana. Africa Insight, 3329-32 Mujuni C.N., K. N., P. van de Kop, A. Baldascini and S. Grouwels 1., 2003. Community-based forest enterprise development for improved livelihoods and biodiversity conservation A case study from bwindi world heritage site, uganda. In World Forestry Congress. Canada, Quebec City. Ndivo RM, Waudo, J N and Waswa F 2012. Examining Kenyas Tourist Destinations Appeal the Pe rspectives of Domestic Tourism Market.. Journal of Tourism and Hospitality, 1, 103. OECD 2012.Tourism Trends and Policies, OECD Publishing, UK Paul, A. 2004. Tourism in a rural Ugandan village impacts, local meaning and implications for development. Pergamon, New York. Pearce, D. 1992 Alternative tourism concepts, classifications and questions, in Smith, V.L. and Eadington, W. R., (eds), Tourism Alternatives Potentials and Problems in theDevelopment of Tourism, New York John Wiley and Sons pp. 1830. Rihiu, J.M., 2007. Capital for drop in community based tourism (CBT) grants vs loans. National Ecotourism Conference Sanchez-Canizares, T. and Lopez_GuzmanL, 2013. Community based tourism in developing countries A case study Tourismos An International Multidisciplinary Journal Of Tourism 6(1)69-84. Scheyvens, R., 2002. Tourism for development empowering community. Harlow Prentice Hall Suansri, P., 2003. Community based tourism handbook.Responsible ecological social tour delay projec t, Thailand. Tasci, A.D., semrad, K.J. and yilmaz, S., 2013. Community based tourism finding the equilibrium in the COMCEC context setting the pathway for the future. Tang, K. 2013. Community based tourism. Singapore. Tefler, D.J., 2009. Development studies and tourism. In Jamal, T. and Robinson, M. (eds). The SAGE handbook of tourism studies, London SAGE Publications Zeppel, H. 2006. Indigenous Ecotourism Sustainable Development and Management. CABI.