Development of Cultural And Ecotourism in the Mountainous Regions Of Central and South Asia Theme: Capturing and Sharing Results Report of the Fourth Regional Workshop Leh and Ulley Topko, Ladakh, Jammu and Kashmir, India, August 26-30, 2003 UNESCO The Mountain Institute, Snow Leopard Conservancy Table of Contents 1. Program Background ................................................................................................................4 2. Workshop Outline ......................................................................................................................6 3. Monitoring and Indicators ........................................................................................................7 4. Monitoring in Practice .............................................................................................................11 5. Sharing Results/Dissemination ...............................................................................................14 6. Challenges in current projects (Challenge Hat) ..................................................................18 7. UNESCO Evaluation Discussion ............................................................................................20 8. 2004 Activity Planning Schedule ............................................................................................22 9. Evaluation of UNESCO Workshop .......................................................................................23 Annex 1 ............................................................................................................................................24 Annex 2 ............................................................................................................................................31 Acronyms ACTED Agency for Technical Cooperation and Development AKRSP Aga Khan Rural Support Programme APPA Appreciative Participatory Planning and Action CAMAT Chitral Association for Mountain Area Tourism ITTO Iran Travel and Touring Organisation KMF Kazakhstan Mountaineering Foundation NT Nepal Trust PLA Participatory Learning and Action PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal RSPN Royal Society for the Protection of Nature SLC Snow Leopard Conservancy TMI The Mountain Institute UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation NIRLAC Namgyal Institute for Research on Ladakhi Art and Culture SECMOL Students Education and Cultural Movement of Ladakh LEDeG Ladakh Ecological and Development Group 1. Program Background Participating Countries (Regions): Kazakhstan (Tien Shan/Alatau), Kyrgyzstan (Issyk- Kul), Tajikistan (Murghab), Nepal (Humla), Pakistan (Chitral), India (Ladakh), Iran (Masouleh) and Bhutan (Phobjikha) Brief Description of the Program The purpose of this inter-disciplinary project is to promote community-based cultural and eco-tourism in selected mountain areas, with a specific focus on poverty eradication, reduction of rural-urban migration and the preservation of cultural and natural heritage in those areas. The project‘s first phase will assess prospects for sustainable tourism development in selected mountain regions of Central Asia and in the Himalayas, identify potential difficulties and promote best practices. The aim is to help avoid the spread of tourism in an haphazard or ad hoc way, and to help ensure that the local communities benefit from it. The project will also seek to set up links and to establish co-operation between local communities and national NGOs on the one hand and international NGOs and tour agencies on the other, with a view to involving the local population in income-generation activities related to tourism. Such activities could include the training of tour guides, the production and sale of high-quality craft items, the promotion of home-stays and of bed and breakfast type accommodation, as well as the development of traditional dance and music, etc. As the project advances, recommendations, tour guidebooks and web sites will also be produced. Justification and background Tourism is one of the fastest growing industries in developing countries, notably in mountainous areas, which are often rich in traditional and minority cultures, as well as in biological diversity. Many mountainous regions, infact, are safe-havens for traditional cultures, architecture, religions, beliefs and traditional knowledge. In addition, they are also important in environmental terms, since they are havens of biological diversity and conserve much rare or endangered plant and animal species. The greater part of the world‘s renewable clean water resources are formed and stored in mountain areas, and such regions are often areas of great scenic beauty, making them prime tourist destinations. There is, therefore, a need to assess prospects for the development of culturally and ecologically sustainable tourism in the mountainous regions of developing countries. This project will identify the tourist potential of a selected number of mountain environments, will develop cultural and eco-tourism in these regions, and will promote best practices in this regard. Specifically the project will explore forms of sustainable tourism that could provide income-generating activities in the tourism sector, including in pilgrimage tourism, so as to contribute to poverty alleviation and provide valuable sources of employment for the poor. Project areas could include among others, the important cultural and natural heritage sites and/or ―Biosphere Reserves‖ included in the Man and Biosphere (MAB) Programme. About 40% of all natural World Heritage Sites and over 42% of all biosphere reserves are located in mountainous regions or include mountain areas. Mountain areas included in the present project are: Tien Shan in Kazakhstan, Lake Issyk-Kul in Kyrgyzstan (a Biosphere Reserve), the Himalayan regions of Ladakh in India, Humla in Nepal, and Phobjikha in Bhutan, Chitral in the Hindukush in Pakistan, the Pamir region in Tajikistan and the mountain areas in and around Masouleh in Iran. Program Objectives The project will work with interdisciplinary teams from the main participating countries. These teams could include representatives of local NGOs, community leaders, INGOs, UNESCO field offices and National Commissions, as well as of appropriate foundations, research centers and tour agencies. The main objectives of the project are: To identify potential areas for culturally and environmentally sustainable tourism in the mountainous and rural areas of Central Asia and the Himalayas/Pamirs, rich in traditional and minority cultures as well as biodiversity; as well as to promote best practices in the areas concerned; and To explore sustainable tourism practices that conserve natural and cultural heritage and provide income-generating activities in the tourism sector so as to contribute to poverty alleviation of mountain populations. Project Titles (2003-2004) ACTED Ecotourism in East Pamir - Tajikistan CAMAT Cultural and Ecotourism Project for Chitral (Pakistan) ITTO Development of Community-based Cultural Tourism in Masouleh, Iran KMF Mountain Eco- and Cultural Tourism Professionals: A Training Initiative for Central Asia (Kazakhstan) Nepal Trust Ecotourism and Trekking Promotion, Limi Valley, Humla, Nepal Novinomad Development of Ecotourism in Issyk-Kul Area, Kyrgyzstan RSPN Ecotourism for Conservation and Development of Phobjikha Valley, Wangduephodrang District in Western Bhutan TMI/SLC Himalayan Homestays in India 2. Workshop Outline The workshop was designed to address issues of monitoring and evaluation in both the overall program and specific projects. However, Day One was given over to an open session with Ladakhi participants and opportunities for everyone to learn about tourism in Ladakh and within the UNESCO program (see Box 1 and Annex 2). Field trips were included in the program, and these included: A guided tour of Leh town and bazaar with a architect working in cultural conservation; A visit to the Students Education and Cultural Movement of Ladakh campus in Phey; Basgo Heritage Site with the Basgo Welfare Committtee and NIRLAC; and Renewable energy use at Ulley Topko Tented Camp. Box 1 - Day One – Ladakh and International Presentations Welcome – Snow Leopard Conservancy, UNESCO – Headquarters, India. Ladakh Presentations Tourism Status 2003 – Mr. Urgyan Lundup, Department of Tourism, Jammu and Kashmir Governmment Wildlife and Tourism in Ladakh – Mr. Jigmet Takpa, Wildlife Department, Jammu and Kashmir Government Tourism and Disability, Cultural Monument Conservation in Ladakh – Ms. Tundup, Namgyal Institute for People with Disability -NIRLAC, and Ms. Delden Angmo, Namgyal Institute for Research on Ladakhi Art and Culture Handicraft exhibition International Presentations Bhutan Kyrgyzstan Nepal India Tajikistan Iran Vote of Thanks Welcome Dinner hosted by NIRLAC at Stok Additionally, participants also spent time discussing the UNESCO Evaluation scheduled for late 2003. The topics covered during this five-day workshop included Monitoring – why, how, when, where, by whom Indicators Dissemination of results – why, how, with whom, when and where UNESCO Evaluation Planning for 2004 This outline builds upon the workshop discussions at Issyk-Kul, Kyrgyzstan 2002. A detailed workshop plan is given in Annex 1 as are notes distributed to participants prior to the workshop. As in the previous workshop in Chitral, sessions were designed to address current and emerging issues in the program as well as to provide practical techniques for participants. This report focuses on the internal workshop for UNESCO participants and invited guests. In Annex 2, there are summaries from two of the presentations from the Open Session 3. Monitoring and Indicators Examples of Everyday Monitoring (based on brainstorming) – highlights that everyone monitors on a daily basis using a variety of indicators and methods to help manage a range of resources and conditions, as well as understand a changing world. Time Weather Food needed Accommodations Answer machine, email Health, temperature Expenditures, money in bank Clothes – if clean Water availability News A working definition of project monitoring: ―Ongoing information gathering over project lifespan which leads to regular assessment of objectives and enables adjustments and refinements to be made.‖ Indicators What is an indicator? – Indicators should always be linked to objectives and do not ―stand alone‖. Similarly, they should also be linked to baseline data. Indicators are a measure of change and are neutral. They are not targets and should not be defined as ―increase in… ― or ―decrease in…‖ but should indicate whether there is an increase or decrease. Indicators are variables that help to “indicate” whether progress towards project objectives is being made or not. Indicators should be… Quantitative and qualitative Minimum but sufficient (not too many indicators, but enough to tell the right story) Specific (who, where, etc.) Verifiable/Measurable Appropriate (in terms of scale, resources, time) Relevant to all stakeholders Indicators for the UNESCO program Participants were divided into three groups and each given one of the UNESCO program objectives. Each group was asked to develop indicators for these objectives bearing in mind the above characteristics, and to distinguish between those that they considered their best indicators, and those that were thought to be less appropriate. These were reviewed by all the participants, and the ideas taken into the field exercise. One clear observation by almost everyone was the need to be much more specific about the objective, e.g. specifying what we mean by poverty within the projects and in the program as a whole (income, access to resources and so on), migration (seasonal, permanent, etc.,) as well more realistic about the target, e.g. can nature conservation be achieved and accurately be measured over the life of a two to three year project. As the discussions in the Chitral workshop showed, poverty is varies according to countries and regions with much depending on local historical and cultural conditions. Furthermore, it was agreed to accept a broader interpretation of poverty beyond low income to include a poverty of options due to caste, age, ethnicity, location, etc. Participants also noted the need to be much more specific about indicators and their description – what is the variable: number, quality, ratio, etc. Another key discussion point was the need for participatory monitoring, and the inclusion of project stakeholders in the monitoring and evaluation process – from deciding on indicators to how to share results. Common Indicators for UNESCO Objectives – Participants felt that while there is a need to be specific about project targets under each UNESCO objective, there is also a need to use common indicators across projects. Although, choosing indicators at this stage of program development is not ideal, it is still worth pursuing before and during the evaluation planned for 2003, and discussing further in the next workshop. UNESCO OBJECTIVE INDICATORS SELECTED MEANS OF MONITORING Conservation of cultural and Natural heritage: natural heritage through cultural (Best indicators) Observation over time, and ecotourism. Size of forest/number of trees, number of species Transects, Number of sightings of species ―x‖ Visitor surveys, Proportion of young and old trees Mapping, Number of signs of animal ―x‖ (e.g., footprints, droppings, Sighting records, nests, carcasses) Repeat photography Amount of funds allocated for nature conservation Surveys, interviews, register, minutes of meetings Number of community members participating in program (*Define participation) Visitor satisfaction/perspective Survey questionnaire, (Less good indicators) Interviews, Number of poaching cases Business/financial records, Number of prey species (many factors) Guest-books, Number of tourists‘ visits to see wildlife News review Availability of field guides, books, articles, stories Number of people breaking rules/regulations Cultural heritage: (Best indicators) Number of documented sites (e.g., registered historic buildings) Number of revived customs, festivals, events Amount of funds allocated for cultural conservation Number of community members participating in program Visitor satisfaction/perspective Number of vandalism cases (Less good indicators) Number of restored sites Number of trainings in cultural conservation awareness Number of signs and information boards, posters, leaflets Poverty alleviation through (Best indicators) cultural and ecotourism Number of families benefiting from tourism income Village survey, administration records, Feeling of well-being (qualitative indicator), e.g., number of Business records, customer survey, people engaging in community activities Trainee tracking, skills testing Confidence (e.g., number of people gaining self-confidence) Surveys, Number of people gaining employment Interviews, Number of people gaining new skills in tourism Statistics review Number of people gaining opportunities (e.g., disabled Observation people) Reduction of rural-urban (Best indicators) migration through cultural and Number of young people in village Survey before and after, specify age, review ecotourism. Availability of resources (e.g., food sufficiency) statistics, village meetings Number of available jobs (Less good indicators) Access to tourism-related facilities (Define ―jobs available). Survey of Condition of vegetation/natural resources vis a vis rural businesses/employees, interviews, review data, population review newspaper, focus groups, stakeholder meetings 4. Monitoring in Practice Participants were divided into two groups for the fieldwork. Each group was asked to develop indicators and methods of measurement for the UNESCO objectives but based on the ideas and discussions emerging from the field visit. While in some cases these indicators are specific to the operations visited, many, if not all, could be used selectively by the UNESCO projects for their purposes. Furthermore, some could be common across all projects giving greater insight for management and adaptation, as well as into the underlying hypotheses of the program. However, it is critical that the number of indicators is kept to a minimum but yet be sufficient to assess progress and assist management. Poverty alleviation (based on Ulley Topko Tented Camp) Indicators Means of Measurement Number of women employed in tourism Interviews, observation, survey Amount of income from seasonal or permanent Interviews, observation, survey, questionnaires and tourism work records (payroll) Amount of supplementary income to seasonal Interviews, survey, questionnaires tourism income Number of people who gained new skills that could Interviews, (employer/employees) survey, lead to better jobs in future observation and testing Number of people using new skills in their job Interviews, observation, survey, questionnaires Number of tourist groups in camp/hotel at one time Check occupancy records, guest bills, count tips, vis-à-vis level of contact between guests and staff interviews, observation, survey, questionnaires (re: amount of tips) Well being (clean clothes, general level of health, Interviews + interaction with staff, observation, happiness and confidence, number of sick days) survey, photography (repeat), employment and attendance records Number of people participating in co-financing Interviews with employees, observation, survey, training programs questionnaires and check certificate of level of education Rural to Urban Migration (based on Ulley Topko Tented Camp) Indicators Methods or Means of Measurement 1) Number of people (age 14-35) living in that Observation; census survey; questionnaire; community at least 3-4 months a year who work interviews; participatory exercise outside seasonally in tourism 2) Number of tourism-related work in the As above AND employment records community (seasonal & permanent) 3) Number of people born in the community who Same as No 1 & interview with families in have set up permanent residence for tourism related community work 4) Ratio of tourism income in households (from Interviews; questionnaire; surveys within community o sent from urban area) 5) Availability (amount & number of persons) of Interviews with community and bank managers; investment capital in the community for tourism survey; questionnaire related enterprises The level of education is not a good indicator for Pheyang because both educated (matriculated) and non- matriculated must migrate to urban areas for employment Eco- and cultural-friendly services and operation (based on Ulley Topko Tented Camp) Indicator Means of measurement Amount of non-sustainable fuel Survey, interview, No. of tourists/ weather wood use Amount of/ ratio of alternate energy Observation, Interview, Expenditure records, photos sources No of CFL bulbs used (low wattage bulbs) Amount of Garbage. Observations, photos, Interviews Amount of Recycled non - do - biodegradable waste Amount of organic waste Amount of kitchen waste composted Cultural & Environment friendly Observations, interviews and Laboratory testing. food Amount of organic food used % of traditional/indigenous food served Amount and quality of Visitor Observations, interviews, visitor interviews, information & Interpretation materials / signs Level of visitor satisfaction Visitor survey Visitor use / no of used beds per day Book of records, interview of agents and operators Conservation of Cultural Heritage (based on field trip to Basgo Heritage Site) Indicators Methods of Measurement 1) Number of local members in conservation Membership records committee & level of participation from community 2) Time contribution Register 3) Financial & in-kind contributions (local) Register; bank account 4) Amount of external funding Accounts 5) Number & quality of sign boards & leaflets Observation 6) Number & Type of visitors (indirect) Register 7) Number of local artisans used Records of payment 8) Number of presentations for public Report / feedback 9) Plan for sustainability Report 10) Amount of traditional materials used Observation, photo & records Lessons learned about monitoring (based on the field visits) Pay attention to the role of communities, how communities benefit, use indicators and how to create common understanding among stakeholders Indicators must be specific and understandable Stakeholder input is needed in identifying indicators Clarity re: Objectives of cultural and natural conservation (e.g. setting targets) Objectives – unreachable (change), more work is needed on indicators and methods with everyone. Importance of participatory monitoring in building better understanding of projects. Requirements of good monitoring are time consuming. Focus on participatory monitoring/evaluation, greater interaction. Importance of monitoring, use of local knowledge, materials, not achieving results in time. Indicators must be specific, time bound, stakeholder participation. Defining and getting consensus on definitions, e.g. what do we mean by community, migration. Asking hard questions – measurable impacts – objectives and indicators linkage, qualitative indicators, direct/indirect. Making better use of resources and people. Involve communities, who are participating in tourism. 5. Sharing Results/Dissemination Planning for how results will be presented, shared and used makes it more likely that they will be incorporated into project decision-making and achieving objectives. The way that results are displayed – arranged and presented – influences how this information is understood and interpreted. How information is will also depend on the audience. For example, when sharing with local communities there will need to be adaptations to different levels of literacy, and when sharing with audiences such as donors and policy makers, numbers may be more powerful. However, certain donors are often more moved by the personal and more immediate impact that their resources have on the lives and choices of beneficiaries. Regardless, of the strategy adopted it should be noted that if projects engage in participatory monitoring evaluation then all those involved in the process are partners and have a right to the results. A brainstorming session examined the following questions regarding the sharing of results: Why, With whom, What to Share, How to Share and When and Where to Share? These results are given in the table below where those items in italics are those that emerged later during the field visit to Ulley Topko Tented Camp. Other findings are the result of the group brainstorming. The second table shows some of the findings after visiting the Basgo Heritage Site project, and as such is a brief summary of a short visit. The box below summarises some of the key advantages of participatory monitoring and evaluation. While this exercise was not conducted in the workshop, it does capture a great deal of the workshop discussion around how to conduct monitoring and evaluation in the projects. Why use a Participatory Approach to Monitoring and Evaluation Creates ownership Provides timely, reliable and valid information Builds consensus Builds skills and confidence Utilises local knowledge Is cost effective Dissemination of Monitoring or Evaluation Results Why Share With Whom What to share How to Share When/Where Get customers Staff members Profit and benefits Local languages When needed and useful Keep staff Clients Statistics Participatory to the extent Immediately after For improvement Shareholders Vision/Principles possible monitoring Prove our success Service providers Tourism relevant Reports Regular intervals (before, Build self confidence Homestay operators information Presentations during and after) Lessons learned Parachute Committees Financial information Stories and narratives Twice a year Sustain cooperation Other villagers Difficulties and challenges Free discussions Before, during and after Inform ourselves Wildlife department How to achieve poverty Exhibitions and films season with homestays Inform colleagues Travel operators alleviation objectives Photos Convenient to villagers External critique Tourism department Successes and what could Media Staff visits Make amendments Local agencies be improved UNESCO website In village with broader Build ownership and Colleagues What works for you and Newsletters community sustainability Partners why Workshops In city where policy- Get better understanding of Community What other people tell you Conversations makers reside what activities and actions CBOs about the project Public meetings Continue after the project are working Local authorities Success stories and Role playing exercise Financial and technical Most effective in meeting Donors quotations from Distribute reports to all reporting could be stakeholders different desired objectives Other projects levels Learn from each project Discoveries Exchange visits In keeping with our Governments participant Results, not detailed Websites schedules New ideas and suggestions Lessons learned Input from peers Increase participation Research and surveys Radio Transparency Achievements and Postcards for donors Discuss with communities recommendations Study tours on what we did wrong and Shortcomings and gaps Registers what to do next Local stories in local Notice boards for service Impact words providers Accountability Qualitative Impacts Cyberspace Legal requirements Next steps Celebrate success Initiatives Build relationships Standard indicators Empowerment Quotes and testimonies Dissemination activities of the Basgo Welfare Committee (based on visit to Basgo Heritage Site) With Whom Why What How When Where Local community(BWC) Transparency Progress report General member 3 times a year In village Moral obligation Financial report meeting or Once a year ownership verbally Festivals Through Goba Working committee(No Management Verbal progress Meetings Once a week Village women members) Supervision representation Technical input Financial monitoring and response International donors Financial obligation Progress report Reporting Four times a Financial report through year Repeated NIRLAC photography No direct Donor visits financial report to donor (ext.) Site visits Once a year Onsite NIRLAC Technical advise Input to above Close Prepare proposals collaborations Fund raising Regular visits Share result with other partners District Government Required by funding Finance report Written report Yearly On site contract Funding request Annual visits, District office meetings Hemis Monastery Institutional Entry fees obligation (Rs.10/-) Progress Missing audiences Domestic donors Media Tourists Lessons learned about and ideas for dissemination or sharing results Can and should choose a strategy appropriate for each project Dissemination outline helps thinking about what to share, content, etc Need to share with policy-makers as part of obligation but be careful of the costs (financial and otherwise) of doing this There is a need to create visibility about project and program results internally in UNESCO Encourage networking within project partners and find friendly and technologically appropriate ways to do this among project participants – Every two to three months select a topic, then circulate picture and caption to go with it to all project partners illustrating successes in this area Posting requests and questions to all projects via email, and sharing responses similarly Housing training resources and other useful materials for sharing on the UNESCO website (but bear in mind not all projects have easy and reliable access to internet) Examples of successes and results in dissemination NGO/Government meetings – finding out what is happening on the ground (checking to verify who is doing what) UNESCO/Government sharing reports with Ministry of Culture on artifact trade Sharing result of fence built by villagers leading to time to build school and then telling government of need for teachers Sharing results of problems with sea buckthorn business with local government Sharing challenges and seeking advice from permanent clients Sustainable Tourism Network – Nepal Sharing results by RSPN with Government UNESCO – website- encouraging debate and generating inquiries 6. Challenges in current projects (Challenge Hat) “In the middle of difficulties lie opportunities” (Himank sign in Leh) Challenges Opportunities Suggestions Lack of experienced staff Funding, training opportunities, Grant proposals, funding training in eco-tourism/lack of training monitoring training opps, on the job training, publication, TAN-training assessments Exchange between projects, TOTs Project reports are boring; only Reports; how to share results re What format? technical; give little information impacts/qualitative results to Identify success factors; use of about community participation (if community quotes & stories; qualitative required), and what impact will it monitoring; use photos; what have on the people/society works and why (or doesn‘t work) To find a qualified education Find & retain Env. Ed. Person for Advertise; contract with partner program coordinator in Ladakh SLC to do job; offer incentives & who wants to make a advancement opportunities commitment to SLC (not take a govt. teaching job) (job involves developing indicators & monitor progress How to achieve poverty How to share opportunities and Community to decide who to alleviation objective of the benefits of homestay with poor benefit project. Rich families are too rich Contribute percentage of income and poor are too poor to to community fund manage/do homestay Develop different economic opportunities for different families Do market assessment of demand on homestay Getting communities to think Build community awareness more about conservation; e.g. through games rangeland for endangered prey Involve religious leaders species Build upon indigenous local groups Enhance fodder resources for livestock Subsidize conservation - govt provide fodder Address through ICDP approach- conservation commitment Challenge of replication and Be realistic about objectives constraint of small staff (with Give small grants to communities many other obligations) to replicate, using blueprint How to exponentially expand Train others in process corral predator proofing yet insure the process is highly participatory - essential for building ownership - maintain reciprocal cofinancing Challenges cont. Opportunities Suggestions Economic alternatives for Eg, credit scheme from gov‘t. Go on strike seabuckthorn farmers with low interest, invest in Unionize farmers development of agriculture, start Share pricing information with business opportunities, start farmers homestay activities Explore other economic opportunities eg, ecotourism (use CBT planning approach to develop long term vision) Look at sustainability of SBT production What kind of materials and ?? technology are useful in watershed management Lack of time Lower expectations Participation in UNESCO See Day 4 Evaluation Evaluation TORs/Guidelines How to get sustainability in Monitor what working/now school clubs working Develop local leadership capabilities Look at fund raising opportunities for clubs Organize competitions, festivals, tourist events Review objectives Look for partners to contribute to continued support Tourist donations Impart employment skills through clubs Explore income generating options 7. UNESCO Evaluation Discussion What is Evaluation – Retrospective assessment of a project‘s performance and achievements at a particular time during or after the completion of the project What Feedback do partners want from 2003 Evaluation? Feedback on homestay site assessments/evaluations of homestays o Use of criteria o Relevance to UNESCO poverty alleviation (within implementation limitations) Marketing advice and support (re homestays) Poverty alleviation impacts Efficiency (rate and cost at which activities lead to outputs) and effectiveness (performance in relation to objectives) How effective in project in meeting objectives; how to achieve project goals Sticking to within time allocation/what is timeframe of project Assessing how effective was the homestay training What does the community think of the program/What issues and needs do the community see as important? Effectiveness of the activities, re: are the activities and results relevant to the community needs and within the site‘s potential How effective is the underlying hypothesis that tourism can alleviate poverty, especially in mountain regions? What Methods should be used in the Evaluation? Open meetings with evaluators, project staff and stakeholders/community members to reformulate questions and to seek stakeholder input in evaluation Site visits Meetings with villagers Participatory methods – open meetings, focus groups, etc. Provide input to planning 2004 activities with a view to optimizing efficiency and effectiveness Team approach, with external evaluators, project staff and stakeholders Interviews/discussions of individuals and public (stakeholders) Interviews with village leaders Observation Interviews/discussions with project beneficiaries (e.g., trainees) and project staff, NGO partners Invite local community input re: what benefits they are getting from project Clear terms of reference Agreed upon schedule, with sufficient time for the evaluation Keep in mind local conditions and limitations Use tourist feedback form responses when available Review reports Focus on what is being achieved with UNESCO support (especially where UNESCO activities are part of larger project that have multiple funding sources) Guidelines/TOR for Evaluation (Summary of above) Feedback is needed on: How well are we achieving poverty alleviation objectives, within limitations Effectiveness of training/effectiveness of homestays Relevance of activities to objectives and local needs within objectives Recognition of limitations and variable emphases on different objectives (e.g., define ―disadvantaged‖ target groups) What is community perception Strategies toward sustainability Realistic objectives/targets Re: evaluation of project planning and management (effectiveness, efficiency, including staff capacity needs and institutional development needs within scope of project) How to increase motivation of project partners Use of technology Market support/advice Input re: effective and sustainable institutional structures Suggested Methods (summary from above): Evaluation should be participatory within a continuum of participation TOR should be transparent among project staff, partners and stakeholders TOR should specify main and project-specific questions if evaluation Team approach, including project staff, NGO partners, gov‘t (if relevant), community representatives, external evaluator (select team members to represent stakeholders) Evaluation costs (eg daily expenses, translation) will be covered by UNESCO The upcoming evaluation should be considered a capacity-building exercise for stakeholders. Therefore, there should be an effort to document and share the evaluation process and results with partners, especially experiences in participatory monitoring and evaluation. Preparation for UNESCO Evaluation 2003 An informal Evaluation will be conducted with most of the UNESCO projects by the end of 2003. Main Evaluation Questions: To what extent have the 2003 project activities have been achieved, and how well in terms of effectiveness and efficiency? What are the lessons learned? How well are UNESCO Objectives are being achieved? Input for 2004 activity planning (within the 2004-05 perspective reflected in 2003-05 Proposals and workplans) In addition to the Main Evaluation Questions, Project Specific Questions will be developed to address main issues for which partners wish feedback through the evaluation process. Project partners should submit suggested 4-5 Specific Questions to David Tresilian by Sept. 15. In preparation for the Evaluation: 1. Project partners should prepare for the End of 2003 Evaluation by collecting data (written and published documents) that addresses the 3 Evaluation Questions (above) re: Project Indicators, and monitoring results re: progress toward 2003 activities and UNESCO/project objectives 2. Select Evaluation Team as soon as possible, based upon dates of evaluation and within Participatory standards developed in the Evaluation Terms of Reference 3. Prepare Evaluation budget re: expenses re: Evaluation team travel, per diem and translation expenses to David Tresilian by Oct. 15 4. Conduct preparatory participatory monitoring and evaluation meetings with stakeholders before Evaluation. 5. By end of Sept., UNESCO will inform partners whether or not an evaluation will be conducted of your project, and if so, when and the duration. 8. 2004 Activity Planning Schedule Proposals for 2004 Activities due to David by January 30, 2004 Contracts will be issued by March 30, 2004 Money will be sent out in April David will confirm project budgets by mid-November (most projects will receive $25,000 for 2004 and $25,000 for 2005, provisionally), issued within annual contracts Planning for Fifth UNESCO Regional Workshop, Bhutan 2004 Dates of Workshop: During last 2 weeks of March 2004 Dates of workshop will be confirmed by Nov 30 2003 Participant Names for Workshop Names, passport information should be given to RSPN by Nov 30, cc to David Flight Schedules Chencho will inform UNESCO participants of flight schedules into Paro from Delhi, Calcutta, Kathmandu and Bangkok by Nov 30. Flight bookings Participants must make flight bookings to Delhi, Calcutta, Kathmandu or Bangkok by Dec 15, based upon flight schedules to Paro, Bhutan. Flight bookings into and our of Paro will be done by a Bhutan travel agent* (Chencho will confirm this). Daily Expenses in Bhutan Chencho will get quotations for participant expenses in Bhutan (eg, hotel accommodations, meals, transportation) ands inform UNESCO participants by Nov 15. 9. Evaluation of UNESCO Workshop What was useful? To see working projects and community participation (eg Bazgo, SECMOL, etc) To clarify definitions / Importance of consensus on definitions Importance of regulator monitoring and having clarity about indicators To get common understanding of indicators To know how evaluation will be done To receive information re: future activity planning To discuss sharing results of monitoring, with whom, why, when, etc. Discussions/interaction among project partners helps with communication, clarifying questions, breaking barriers; exchanges of ideas and experiences Realization that donors and partners should be realistic about objectives/discussion of indicators helps projects focus on realistic objectives That participatory evaluation is essential Clarity on indicators, identification of reliable indicators, re: SMART; how to measure success/monitor Addressing how tourism can contribute to poverty alleviation Addressing limitations, difficulties of project implementation Developing closer relationship between donor and partners Monitoring and evaluation methods/understanding evaluation process Good for retrospection: we should do this more often Value of participatory sharing in formulating actions to address difficult questions (Challenge Hat is a great process/method to use because it seeks and values everyone‘s resources, ideas and opinions) Having resource persons in workshop Annex 1 Fourth Regional Workshop Program (August 25-30, 2003) Day 1 Leh, Opening Welcome – Snow Leopard Conservancy, UNESCO – Headquarters, India. Ladakh Presentations Tourism Status 2003 – Department of Tourism, Jammu and Kashmir Governmment Wildlife and Tourism in Ladakh – Wildlife Department, Jammu and Kashmir Government Tourism and Disability, Cultural Monument Conservation in Ladakh, Namgyal Institute for Research on Ladakhi Art and Culture Handicraft exhibition International Presentations Bhutan Kyrgyzstan Nepal India Tajikistan Iran Vote of Thanks Welcome Dinner hosted by NIRLAC at Stok Day 2 (August 26) 8-11:00 Travel to Ulley Topko 11:00 Introduction to Workshop Outline of Workshop (Do*) Self introductions (name, title/what do, hobby) Group introductions: Stand up if you… Workshop Norms 11:30: What is Monitoring Everyday Monitoring Develop ―working definition‖ of Monitoring (eg ongoing information gathering over project lifespan which leads to regular assessment of objectives and enables adjustments and refinements to be made) 11:45 Why Monitor Brainstorm with post-its, cluster and add anything missing Tracks progress toward project objectives Provides timely information for decision making; better project implem. Helps identify problems as they come up (before becoming crises) Allows for adapting to changing circumstances/Assess new opportunities Provides essential information/lessons for project evaluation Measures/tests (conservation and poverty alleviation) impacts 12:30-1:30 Lunch 1:30 Review of Project Objectives (by (3?) participants) 1:45 Indicators: What are Indicators (we present) ―Measure of change‖ to indicate progress toward project objectives SMART: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound Direct and Indirect Indicators 2:00 Indicators for UNESCO Objectives (group exercise: 1 obj/group) Group work (30 min), write Indicators on post-its, Present and put on 3-column chart* (Objectives, Indicators, Monitoring Methods) (prepare chart) 3:00 Tea break 3:15 Empty your pockets/Why Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation Discuss why use PME (chart*: WHY, FOR WHOM, WHO DOES IT) WHY Creates ownership Provides timely, reliable information, Measures impacts Builds consensus, sharing Builds skills and confidence, empower Utilizes local knowledge, for learning value/new skills Is cost effective, efficient Accountability, sustainability FOR WHOM Partners Stakeholders Donors Project Others (media…) WHO DOES IT External consultants Joint external/internal team Project staff Stakeholders Organization 3:45 How Monitor (Methods) Combined with Indicator Development 4:30 Field Instructions (2 groups) Visit 2 sites, Basco and Ulley Topko compound and natural surroundings Identify Key Indicators and Monitoring Methods (re 3 UNESCO Objectives) Basco addressing cultural conservation and poverty alleviation/reduce migration UT/nature site re nature conservation & PA/migration Think about 2-3 lessons learned/ideas re: application to own project Prepare for presentation on Indicators, Methods 5:00 Finish Day 3 August 28 8:30 Depart for field work 12:30-1:30 Lunch 1:30 Presentations from Field Work Indicators and Monitoring Methods Individual lessons learned/ideas re application to own projects 2:45 Tea 3:00 Monitoring vs Evaluation (dropped) What is the difference between M & E (see above Monitoring definition) Evaluation: Retrospective assessment of a project‘s performance and achievements at a particular point during or after the completion of project. Looks at efficiency, effectiveness, relevance of project, impacts within stated goals, and sustainability 3:15 Dissemination: Why Share and With Whom Chart* with Why, With Whom, How (and What?/) Share, When/Where Participants use Post-its to write 3 for each column* Discuss, cluster: think about what suits own project, realistic (maybe not all) 4:30 Prepare for Field Work Switch sites, think about What to Share, With Whom, When/Where, etc Prepare matrix for site Think about 2-3 Key lessons learned for own project Think about 1-2 Successes when you shared monitoring results (with whom, how, when) and what the results were (everyone, UNESCO too) 5:00 Finish Evening Presentation on Snow Leopards Day 3 August 29 8:30 Depart for Field Sites 12:30-1:30 Lunch 1:30 Present Field Work Matrix on What to Share, With Whom, etc Lessons learned for own projects 2:45 Tea 3:00 Share successes of sharing/disseminating monitoring results from projects Discuss, note lessons learned 3:30 Challenges in Current Projects Challenge Hat 4:30 Finish Evening slide show of Chitral workshop Day 5 August 30 8:30 Developing Guidelines for UNESCO Evaluations (Review Evaluation definition and Why PME) TOR for Evaluation: Brainstorm (general issues, will define for own projects) How Evaluation can be useful to you (specific feedback needs) What Questions do you want to have answered Methods to use in Evaluation Who to participate and with whom to share results What is role of project staff and outside evaluators How to prepare for evaluation Schedule for Evaluations —in time for 2004 planning (Opportunities for learning from each others‘ projects (visiting other sites?) 10:00 Planning for 2004 Proposals Timing of proposals Guidelines (budget, focus) 10:30 Workshop Evaluation 10:45 Planning for Next Workshop When, where, what Roles, avoiding last minute travel bookings, etc 11:15 Other UNESCO Announcements/Discussion UNESCO - Development of Cultural and Ecotourism in the Mountainous Regions of Central and South Asia Fourth Regional Workshop – Capturing and Sharing Results Ladakh, India, August 26-30, 2003 Background Notes for Participants Based on the results of previous workshops and on-going project activities and planning cycles, the fourth regional workshop will focus on what and how we capture as results and impacts in our projects, plus what and how we can share this learning with others that would benefit us and themselves. The workshop will be in two parts: 1. August, 26, 2003 - An open day with Ladakhi participants to learn about tourism in Ladakh, and to share our work with them. The morning session will be given over to learning about tourism development and impacts in Ladakh with four short presentations and question and answer sessions. In the afternoon, each of the UNESCO projects will give 10 minute presentation on their projects focusing on: A very brief background on the context of your project – basically why are you doing the project Impacts and results so far in the three UNESCO objectives – poverty alleviation (remember our discussion on the diverse nature of poverty in Chitral), migration to urban areas (difficult but see what you have done, and if there is nothing to report then discuss a little about how difficult this issue is), conservation of cultural and natural heritage (show results and impacts if you can) Challenges that you are facing – two key ones Please keep this to 10 minutes and prepare powerpoint presentations in English. Access to computers in Leh will be limited, so try and prepare them before you come. If you cannot, then prepare flipcharts (three are probably enough for 10 mins). Your presentation will be followed by a 5 minute question and answer session. We are also trying to have a small exhibition of handicrafts during this day. Please bring 6 items from your country and we will display them. If we cannot, then please bring them anyway so that we as a group have a chance to see handicrafts from other countries. Along with the handicraft display, we would like all of us and those in Ladakh to learn about how the UNESCO projects are working with local communities. Please prepare a poster (as you did in Chitral) that shows how communities are involved in your project – their role, benefits that they obtain (you can use the “Beautiful Tree” game to think more about this) – and also how they could participate and benefit more. Instructions are as before – one large piece of paper and lots of creativity! You can bring your materials to Leh and prepare it there, or have it ready before you arrive. 2. August 27-30, Field-based workshop at Ulley Topko on the banks of the Indus River. This is a permanent tented camp with toilets and bathrooms, and a meeting hall. There‘s no need to bring sleeping bags, etc. Also there will three Ladakhi participants with us and a representative from UNESCO-India. Since the focus of the remainder of the workshop is on how we capture and share results, we ask that you think carefully before you come about: 1. What is considered success in your project? 2. How do you measure progress in your project? 3. When do we make best use of the results of monitoring and evaluation? 4. How do we share the results of our projects? 5. With whom do we share results and why? 6. What you would like to see as results from the UNESCO evaluation this year, and how you would use these findings? Please bring any reports, papers, etc., from your project that help to answer the above questions and that you think would be useful for others to see and learn about. We have designed the workshop to make use of the cultural and natural heritage nearby and the tented camp itself which has some interesting features. There will be at least two half-day field trips when you will be working in small groups. For these please bring good walking shoes, and binoculars if you have them. Workshop Participants Participant List and Information Surname First Name Address Designation Karabasheva Gulsara NoviNomad Co. General Manager Ap.12, 28 T-Moldo St Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan email@example.com Tresilian David UNESCO-HQ Cultural Tourism 1 Rue Miollis Project Manager 75015, Paris d.Tresilian@unesco.org Lama Wendy firstname.lastname@example.org Consultant Lama Nar Bahadur Nepal Trust l Project Officer G.P.O. 8975, EPC 4131 Chun Devi, Maharajgunj Kathmandu, Nepal email@example.com Jain Nandita The Mountain Institute Director 1828 L St., NW, #725 Washington D.C. firstname.lastname@example.org Jackson Rodney SLC –International Director 18030 Comstock Ave Hillard Darla Sonoma, CA 95476, USA Coordinator email@example.com Chenco Younten RSPN Program Officer Thimpu, Bhutan firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com Tale Masouleh ITTO General Manager firstname.lastname@example.org Shah Ambereen UNESCO-India Program Off. Delhi email@example.com Wangchuk Rinchen SLC-India Field Director-India Dadul Jigmet c/o Ibex Hotel, Leh, Ladakh Program Officer Tashi (J&K), India 194101 Program Officer firstname.lastname@example.org Invited participants to Ulley Topko Delden Angmo – NIRLAC and the Indian Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage Sonam Jorgyes – LEDeG, Program Officer Annex 2 Tourism and People with Disability This Brief presentation will show how people with Disability are involved in their own small ways to promote tourism that benefit local people and that are environment friendly. About the organization… The Namgyal Institute for People with Disability is the disability wing of Namgyal Institute for Research on Ladakhi Art and Culture (NIRLAC), an NGO registered in 1985. It has been active in this field for the past 3 years. So far we have covered 80-90 villages in Leh district. We believe… - That all people with disability have a right to good education, health, and work and to basically enjoy a good quality life. - As such we work towards promoting equal opportunities to all PWDs whether it is in the field of education, health or employment. - Therefore our main focus is to integrate and mainstream PWDs in the larger society. Our Environment… As far as environment is concerned we have taken up few initiatives such as: - We have a group of 30 PWDs who are involved in making paper bags as use of plastic bags is banned. The raw material i.e. newspapers is provided by the institute and is also marketed by us. On an average they earn Rs.400-500 per month and a maximum of Rs.1000.This is done side by side along with other domestic and field/agriculture work. - This has also started off the system of collecting waste paper from offices, schools, hotels, etc which was otherwise burnt .In this too a person with polio is involved. - We have recently set up a recycling paper unit at Choglamsar in which all the waste paper will be recycled and used again. In these small ways PWDs hope to contribute towards preserving the environment of Ladakh and help in the long run to keep Ladakh clean. In tourism… - We have two thukpa units :one in Nubra and another in Khaltsi block. By doing so PWDs are encouraging the consumption of local food. These groups are again a mix of disabled and non –disabled persons. - In Nubra we are trying to encourage and promote a PWDs in carpet weaving. In the pipeline… - To start pressurized boiled water at various trekking points. This will not only provide employment to PWDs at their own villages but also reduce use of plastic mineral bottles. - To start traditional goncha weaving by using local looms. Gonchaas are traditional Ladakhi dress worn by both men and women and are the best options during winters. Namgyal Institute for Research on Ladakhi Art and Culture Though this presentation would concentrate mainly on the Architecture – the Built Heritage of Ladakh, but the issues and problems whether it is related to environment, ecology, built heritage or any other socio, culture factors, are all inter connected. Therefore, the problems and issues that I have discussed below holds equally good for all the other topics mentioned above. Historic Buildings A historic building has architectural, aesthetic, historic, archeological, economic and social value. But the first impact that the buildings of Ladakh have is religious, spiritual and emotional. The Gompas or monasteries and palaces of Ladakh lend architectural splendor to the built heritage of Ladakh. These buildings conceal a treasure hoard of manuscripts, religious objects statuary and above all, exquisite wall paintings as well as sacred scrolls. These monasteries are ‗living monuments‘ which still maintain their authenticity of function, which needs to be respected. Issues and problems in the conservation of historic buildings in Ladakh Architecture is an irreplaceable cultural resource. However, decay is a law of nature. Cultural properties deteriorate and are ultimately destroyed through attack by natural and human agents. Climate changes The climate of this region is also changing. The annual rainfall in the region has increased phenomenally thus accelerating the erosion of the mud brick edifices and destroying the wall paintings of the monumental heritage. Impact of tourism Special features in the form of monasteries, palaces, Chortens, rich art and culture combined with natural setting and scenic beauty makes Ladakh a place of attraction for both the domestic as well as foreign tourist.With a limited 4-month tourist season, the population of the region almost doubles in this period. The success is that the local community is the stake traders in the tourist industry and thus clearly benefits from this. Tourist inflow has also resulted into expansion of trade and commerce and other related activities. Tourism has become an important asset to the backward economy of Ladakh. However, one cannot deny the significant environmental changes that had occurred due to this growing industry. In Leh especially, it has resulted into mushrooming of guesthouses amidst rich agriculture field, devouring already scarce agricultural land. One of the adverse impacts is that this has placed enormous pressure on the monumental heritage traditionally used only by monks for monastic activities, resulting in them being in a fragile, even precarious condition. The pressure caused by the recent developments, climate change and tourism were too enormous to avoid the architectural interventions in the region. Well-intended attempts were made with the urgency to conserve the historic buildings. This resulted in the most inappropriate and insensitive restoration of these buildings. All these changes and developments have adverse impact not only on the cultural built heritage but also on the environment, ecology and the landscape of the region. Keeping all this in mind, NIRLAC, is presently undertaking an Inventory programme on listing or identifying all notable buildings aged 50 years or more. Why Listing? Listing is the first step towards conservation. The process makes it easy to identify the most significant or critical structure, which requires immediate attention. This is followed by documentation and finally the restoration of the structure. Aim and Objectives The aim of the programme is to cover the entire Ladakh region that consists of five provinces: 1. Leh 2. Khaltse 3. Nubra 4. Dhurbuk 5. Nyoma This summer, Leh and its surrounding settlements were covered, that consists of more than 50 village settlements and around 450 cultural resources and cultural landscapes including the monasteries, palaces, stupas, rock carvings, rock inscriptions, pasture lands, high passes etc. The aim is to look into a settlement as a whole rather than concentrating on single structures. The idea is also to generate local expertise as the field survey was conducted by trained Ladakhi students. For this presentation, examples were taken from one settlement i.e. Shey village. It is 15 kms from Leh, and once it was the capital of Ladakh. Slide – 1 The ruin for can be seen above the present Shey palace. It was built by the first King of Ladakh Lhachen Spalgigon. Shey Palace was built by King Deldan Namgyl in the beginning of 17 th Century AD. It has a shrine that houses 3-storey statue of Lord Shakyamuni Buddha, made of copper gilt. Dedicated to his father Senghe Namgyal. This statue is the only of its kind in the region. Slide – 2 There are hundreds of stupas around the palace complex scattered all over the village. Chalung Khashor- one of the unique Chortens in Ladakh. It has unique shape and has a dome at the top, similar to the ones in Nepal and Tibet. Slide – 3 Chortens of different shapes and sizes that dots the entire landscape. Slide –4 Riksum Gombo – another form of stupa that house three smaller Chortens Yellow – Manjushri – represents wisdom White – Avalokiteshvara – represents Compassion Blue – Vajrapani – Strength It is usually seen over the entrance gates of residences. Slide – 5 View of the village settlement of Shey. Slide – 6 Rock sculptures collected from all over the village and placed under the rectangular structure. Slide – 7 Another group of Chortens Slide – 8 Rock carving with an image of a Boddhisatva Slide – 9 Rock carvings Slide – 10 Pond in front of the palace. The village‘s name is on account of the reflection of the palace that could be seen in the pond – Shel means reflection. It is a fish pond now also called holy fish pond Slide – 11 Shey palace with the fortress above is a national protected monument under ASI. Slide – 12 Thiksey monastery It is 17 kms from Leh. Built by Paldan Sherab, it is one of the well maintained buildings in Leh. Slide – 13 Stok palace 14 kms from Leh. Built in 1825 by King Tsespal Tundup, it is the seat of the present royal family and is well maintained. Slide – 14 Matho monastery 26 kms from Leh, it was founded in the 16 th century by Lama Tungpa Dorjey. Interesting building façade with punctuated windows. Slide – 15 Phiyang monastery 17 kms from Leh, it was founded by Chosje Danma Kinga in the 16 th century. Slide – 16 Lamayuru monastery 125 kms from Leh. It has a small shrine that dates back to 11 th century, built by the Great translator Lotsava Rinchen Zangpo. Later more structures were added and is now one of the most remarkable heritage sites in Ladakh. Slide – 17 Lamayuru complex with a new RCC structure. Old traditional gallery with elaborate wooden details and brackets are replaced with new concrete structures. Slide – 18 Alchi temple – 69 kms from Leh, it is one of the most famous and ancient of all the temples. It was built by Lotsava Rinchen Zangpo in the 11 th century. Modest temple buildings consist of exquisite wall paintings, life size stucco images, wood carvings of all Kashmiri Indian style. Slide – 19 Alchi Chorten with paintings on the interior walls. Slide – 20 Alchi – elaborate wooden details over the portico. Slide – 21 Alchi – one of the giant stucco images inside the shrine. Slide – 22 Leh palace - built by King Senghe Namgyal in the late 16th century overlooks the entire Leh settlement. Nine storey high structure, it exhibits a remarkable Tibetan architecture style. It is a national protected monument under ASI. The side wall of the palace had collapsed many years back, and ASI had carried out the repair work in the year 1998. Slide – 23 Slide – 24 Slide – 25 Various stages of repair work. Slide – 26 Tissuru stupa 3 kms from Leh town. King Grags-Pa-Bum-lde built it, since there was harmful occurrence like diseases in the region. ASI has been undertaking the repair work for quite sometime now. Slide – 27 Slide – 28 Slide – 29 Munshi house just below the Leh palace. It is one of the most imposing structures located at the centre of the entire Palace set up, with elaborate wooden frames and balconies. Slide – 30 Detailed wooden frames of the balconies with wooden lattice work, arches and wooden fascia. These are the few glimpses of the cultural heritage of Ladakh in Leh and its surrounding villages. It is not possible to cover the entire Ladakh region for this presentation. Finally, the term conservation has been introduced very recently to Ladakh. It ought to take some time to the people of Ladakh to become aware of the cultural heritage. For which we need to conduct more awareness programme, workshops and training programme. Development of Tourism in Ladakh By Mr Urgain Loondup Director of Tourism, Ladakh. Tourism development in Ladakh has been taking place for the last 30 years. Since 1974, 390,734 tourists have visited Ladakh. Out of this, 314,413 have been foreign and 76,321 have been domestic tourists. This year, until 24 August, 23,270 tourists have visited Ladakh. 12,766 have been foreign and 10,504 domestic. The average tourist spends about three to four daysin Ladakh and spends an average of Rs; 1372 / - per day for a double room on AP basis (full board) and Rs. 191 / - per day for EP basis (lodging) only. The hotels generally provide AP basis, whereas guesthouses provide EP basis. The total bed numbers are 4,427 in the Leh district. The mode of transport for travelling to Ladakh has been by air and by road. Air travel started in 1979. Travel by road from Srinigar started in 1974, and travel by road from Manali started in 1989. Till 1992, because of restrictions on visiting some areas of the central part of Ladakh, travel to Zanskar was restricted. In 1993, Dha-Hanu, Nubra and Changthang were de-restricted. Some parts of Changthang and the Nubra valley are still restricted, since these are border areas. Since Ladakh was opened to international tourists, two major developments have taken place. One is economic development, and the other is cultural development. Both economically and culturally Ladakh has developed by leaps and bounds. People are happy. This is the positive aspect of tourism in Ladakh. Another positive aspect of tourism development in Ladakh is that before 1974 the people of Ladakh led rustic, rural lives. The level of education in Ladakh at the time of the opening of Ladakh to international tourists was very low, but now the situation is different. People have become more educated. This is also because of the fact that tourism development has helped in improving the economic life of the people, which has ultimately helped the people in their education. Ecologically, Ladakh has become a very sensitive place. Littering is taking place everywhere, which needs to be stopped urgently. This is the negative aspect of tourism development in Ladakh. For waste disposal, NGOs in Ladakh can play a very important role. They should organise campaigns at the grass-roots level in which people from the travel trade and from the hotels and the community should be involved. For funding they should approach the government and the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council. Ladakh by nature is a gift of God. Its natural beauty, like the snow-capped peaks, valleys, rivers and mountains are all beautiful features of Ladakh. Its wildlife and endangered species, such as the snow leopard and black-necked crane, are the natural properties of Ladakh. Due to ecological imbalances, the life of these endangered species is now under threat. As such, we need to work hard for sustainable tourism development in which ecological and environmental threats are attended to.