The Ruwenzori is a very fragile environment and the WWF already view any further tourist development to see the mountain gorillas as a major threat. And the tourist numbers who go there now are tiny….so very little scope for any development.
Spent much time in the area? Yes, tourist numbers are relatively low, but income is large - a single person visiting the to see the Gorillas, for example, pays US $ 600 merely to join a trek to try to see the Gorillas, more for an additional treks, more more accommodation, etc.
This money
does trickle down to the poorest members of the local community, the village's health clinic for example was paid for by a portion of entrance fees, local persons are employed as forest guards and guides, yet more in services such as accommodation, etc. The local community views the forest as a resource to be protected, not logged or destroyed as was the case not so very long.
If you want to view the real threats that Mountain Gorillas face, yes refer to the WWF for their assessment -
click here and note tourism is not listed under the major threats that are listed. Further note that all the threats mentioned are occurring in Congo and, when the situation was less stable, in Rwanda - where, for obvious reasons, there are no tourists visiting. The increase in Gorilla numbers has almost entirely been in Uganda, where the project benefits from controlled tourism. With a marked improvement in security in Ruwanda, the Gorillas there are now also beginning to benefit as the areas are now also seen as an important resource and tourists are beginning to visit, thereby help the local communities and the greater environment.
Also note the WWF actively supports tourism projects, recognising the importance of this in the long-term protection of these crucial forests and populations of Mountain Gorillas, and of course all associated wildlife. For details
see here and specificaly note
"An important aspect of IGCP’s work is to strengthen links with the local communities who live alongside mountain gorillas and to develop sustainable tourism based on viewing the gorillas. The success of these conservation measures was revealed by a recent survey which found that mountain gorilla numbers in the Virunga Mountains have increased by 17% over the past 14 years, to 380".
Kill off tourism, kiss goodbye to the long-term survival of these forests.
The landowners presumably did it to make money for themselves. I don’t think that money is necessarily going to filter down to the poorer people who need it most. I always understood the scheme was instigated under the aegis of the AWF (and sponsored by Caterpillar Inc) in order to conserve in its own right and provide sustainable livings for the many people who live along the river. This scheme does not depend on tourism.
Now we are talking about the many landowners across Southern Africa who have converted their extensive lands into well-protected wildlife reserves. Yes, one of the primary reasons was clearly to make money for themselves, so what? The populations of rhino, the game- and bird-rich tens of thousands of hectares don't give a toss whether the land owner is a capitaist or whether they did it out of a passionate desire to protect for the sake of protection, the result is the same, land being actively protected and enhanced from an environmental angle.
And as for
'this scheme does not depend on tourism', erm yes the majority of the reserves set aside for conservation do. Many are luxury high-end concerns, wealthy clients paying exceptionally large sums to visit the wildernesses, others are private hunting reserves, the even wealthier clients paying even larger fees to hunt (whilst the idea of inviting tourists to shoot may be distasteful to some, the reality is it is controlled and still the environment is the benefactor, if compared to what came before).
And, at a wider scale, if the great national parks of Kenya, of South Africa, of Costa Rica, of etc, etc, did not attract tourists, did not generate vast sums of hard currency, how long do you believe it would be before the governments came under immense pressures to allow other exploitation of the lands, bit by bit or wholesale.
Incidentally, I'd be interested to learn where you are coming from. Do you have any personal interest in the bird or eco-tourism industry?
My only interest in the bird- and eco-tourism industries is as a tourist who willingly plays a part in supporting local initiatives, a total of over three years in Africa so far, endless months scattered across most of the other corners of the world.
At the end of the day, I will not criticise someone who feels they should not fly, that is a personal decision which is up to them. I will however counter an argument by someone who comes on a wildlife forum and tries to paint flying as an evil to be stamped out. Persons on this forum, by the very nature of their interests, are generally the very ones that are doing the most benefit when they fly abroad. Long may they continue to do so.
