31214 cbt phase II report

Thoải mái (Make yourself at home.) CbT Development Review Phase I and Working Proposal Phase II Sài Gòn/ Đồng Hới, 3rd September 2012 Content Figures and Tables ii Introduction Objectives and Methods Feasibility of CbT Activities 3.1 Community Awareness Raising 3.2 Site Assessment – A Summary 3.3 Market and Market Validation 3.4 Stakeholder Engagement – Initial Steps 10 3.5 Summary Phase I and Site Selection 11 Planning 13 4.1 Permissions 13 4.2 Working Plan Phase II 13 4.3 Funding and Personnel (Internal Use Only) 13 Bibliography 13 i FIGURES AND TABLE Figure Phase I: summary of surveys carried out Figure Map of PNKB NP and the northern bufferzone Figure Detailed maps of the pilot areas in Dân Hóa and Trọng Hóa Figure Involved and potentially involved stakeholders of CbT in the PNKB NP buffer zone (based on Sansiri, 2003) 10 Figure Stakeholders involvement and roles 11 Figure Implementation steps of CbT activities development 12 Table Summary of conducted surveys/ interviews ii INTRODUCTION Within the scope of the GIZ’s project on ‘Nature Conservation and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources in the Phong Nha-Ke Bang National Park Region’, the development of the buffer zone through the integration of local livelihood activities has been delineated as one of the focal points for intervention within the sustainable tourism development component (GIZ, 2011; STDP, 2010) Herein, the development of particularly handicrafts and of Community-based Tourism (CbT) has been identified to hold a medium to high potential to facilitate and/ or strengthen income opportunities for buffer zone communities and to thereby provide alternative, legal ways for income generation This is the second planning document of a potential series of documents written in the scope of the CbT development process supported by the GIZ in the Minh Hóa district The findings and future planning proposal of these developments are fundamentally based on the preceding ‘initial working proposal’ The planning phase of this proposal started in June 2012 The Annex document (rf separate attachment) as well as this working proposal for Phase II finalize activities carried out during Phase I This working proposal for Phase II addresses the first two steps (‘site assessment’ and ‘community awareness raising’) out of a range of steps which have been proposed within the initial working proposal Furthermore, issues relating to ‘stakeholder engagement’, ‘local organisation’ as well as to ‘market validation’ are also partially covered in here Details on the results of the surveys as well as on the assessment of the area, however, can be consulted with the Annex document During Phase I, major efforts have been made to carefully observe and recognize current potentials for CbT development in the two pilot communes, Trọng Hóa and Dan Hóa Yet, an argument will be made herein to initially concentrate on only one of the two communes Consultation with the respective chosen commune of Trọng Hóa and explanation for the decision to not yet include Dân Hóa (at least not for overnight visits) still has to be made with the two communes Although the project is still in its initial steps, the authors would already like to acknowledge the kind participation of tour operators and visitors in the survey as well as the welcoming and supportive nature of the commune staff, the village heads and the households interviewed and visited OBJECTIVES AND METHODS This document shall facilitate an overview over community and market potentials as well as over current support received by the local commune and by the local community and, generally, over the stakeholders involved in the process so far Indeed, its main objective is then the evaluation of findings for the development of a working plan for the upcoming Phase II The below figure illustrates the surveys carried out during the course of the Phase I working plan in order to outline a site and a feasibility assessment The former provides a tourism inventory, including a general overview over the population, distances, infrastructure and access, attractions and activities, images, customs and traditions as well as potential obstacles The latter generally describes households’ infrastructure and perceptions, expectations and experiences of tour operators and domestic and international visitors Both assessments may not be comprehensive, however, they allow for a good enough insight for future decision-making concerning site selection and steps forward tour operators commune commune site assessment feasibility assessment visitors project staff households Figure Phase I: summary of surveys carried out The surveying phase took place between the mid of June and the beginning of August In total, 10 days were spent in the field Table summarizes the conducted surveys/ interviews Table Summary of conducted surveys/ interviews   Initial visit to local authorities in Trọng Hóa and Dân Hóa Survey piloting in households in Trọng Hóa, hamlet leader survey was piloted  Launch meeting with local commune staff, hamlet leaders, the Women’s Union, the Youth Union, Van Xuan Hanidcrafts, PPMU representative, DPDA representatives, GIZ CTA and project staff  comprehensive commune staff interviews n Dân Hóa Trọng Hóa Hamlet leaders Households n Hanoi Dong Hoi Phong Nha 1 Tour operators n Domestic International 38 10 Visitors Following the advice of Sansiri (2010) and other examples of CbT developments elsewhere in the world, the authors would like to make the reader aware that CbT does indeed hold many opportunities, but it may not be considered a one-off solution to community problems If not carefully planned, many downsides can come along with it Therefore, the communities, villages and households who are to participate in community-based activities in the Minh Hóa district should be chosen cautiously Additionally, should negative impacts which cannot be managed come along, then stakeholders need to be willing to modify or to withdraw from CbT activities/ developments Yet, the project staff is very confident about some of the ‘things seen, experienced and told about’ during Phase I Furthermore, a major strength that the authors would also like to draw attention to once again is the combination of activities and of resources of handicraft and of CbT developments Nonetheless, there are many challenges ahead; some will be pointed out in section 3 FEASIBILITY OF CbT ACTIVITIES The following section reviews the findings of the Annex document with particular reference to community awareness raising, site assessment, market validation and stakeholder engagement 3.1 COMMUNITY AWARENESS RAISING Initial field visits, the launch meeting as well as following informal conversations reassured that community members of the potential pilot communes are willing and eager to participate in CbT activities in the future Yet, a number of issues arose with which they not feel comfortable with: generally, it deemed very difficult to most to describe what ‘tourism’, in fact, is, nor were many able to point out ‘beautiful’ or ‘attractive’ places for visiting This seemed simply, because they hardly needed to think about these terms with reference to nature or culture to date Furthermore, concerns over communication and visitors expectations arose Many of the surveyed households or community members, thus, not yet feel ready to fully commit to receiving visitors However, all these issues can and will be addressed during the upcoming Phase II and with the interest and enthusiasm for participation which the community members have already expressed, CbT activities, despite the challenges coming along, seem very promising At the same time, developments should be implemented with great care, neither causing ‘too much’ or ‘too fast’ of a change Accommodating visitors for a fee is a very new concept which yet needs to be understood by the community members ‘Have what eat what’ is a phrase often mentioned by the villagers, referring to an overwhelming hospitality Great care must be taken that this hospitality is not being exploited A few issues and ideas are highlighted which need to be elaborated upon or which need to be clarified for community awareness raising during Phase II:  commune, hamlet leaders and project staff should select relevant stakeholders of future CbT activities to join the field/ study trip (max number of participants and study site to be announced; only those are to join who are involved in the target site for future CbT development)  organize the field/ study trip with involved stakeholders and chose an appropriate study site (in close collaboration with handicraft development team)  pre-study trip meeting with the participants: expectations on the study trip and delineation of tasks + follow-up meeting/ activities and expectations on participants (e.g think/ question: success factors, obstacles, changes to come, comprehension of tourism and CbT, community organisation, similarities and differences between the community visited and the  post-study trip: organize a full-day workshop for the participating villages/ villagers and relevant stakeholders either at the hamlet leader house or at the CPC building, topics should include (these should be initially thought about and decisions should be made after the field trip):  to develop an objective/ one common goal with and for the involved CbT communities  waste management awareness raising  consensus building between the parties  responsible/s in the village  community organisation  community or joined the field trip, type of tourists, issues evolving when hosting domestic and international visitors) 3.2 SITE ASSESSMENT – A SUMMARY After ensuring the support from the community members, a site assessment was carried out Detailed information on this assessment are compiled in the Annex document as a tourism inventory, including basic facts on infrastructure and access, an evaluation of current and potential ‘attractions’/ activities as well as a compilation of traditions and customs (e.g marriage, funerals, events) and of daily life activities of community members A short summary is provided in the following: Access/ Infrastructure So far, tourist arrivals to the bufferzone area of the Minh Hóa district are limited Although border crossings from Laos have increased in recent years, only few travelers or tours lose their way to sites of Dân Hóa or Trọng Hóa, let alone the few travelers who strand in the communes to stay overnight Yet, the communes have much nature, history and rich ethnic minority cultures on offer The Minh Hóa district is largely untapped by tourism despite its attractiveness, largely due to its distance to core sites of the National Park Yet, there are a number of attractions along the way to Dân Hóa and Trọng Hóa which make an ~90km journey, around a 60-75mins drive by car, northwards from these major sites much worthwhile Furthermore, the attractions spread along the way offer good opportunities to combine different routes or activities The Dân Hóa commune is located around a 75mins car drive from Phong Nha township It is the westernmost commune of the Minh Hóa district and encompasses 12 villages/ 670 households (most of which are located along or close to Highway 12A) The Trọng Hóa commune is located around a 60 mins car drive from Phong Nha township (rf Figure 2) It is the northernmost commune of the Minh Hóa district and encompasses 16 villages/ 640 households Unlike in Dân Hóa, many of the villages are yet located off the Highway 12A, with Lom K Chom possibly being the furthest off with around a 30-40 mins drive by car In March 2012, major road constructions were finalized connecting the formerly more secluded mountain villages to the Highway 12 Figure Map of PNKB NP and the northern bufferzone While the highways are of a good quality, some of the villages may lie a bit off the beaten track, requiring the use of a 4-wheel drive vehicle There are a few critical access points when entering some of the villages However, these can be easily passed with slow and careful driving Access to some of the villages may furthermore be restricted during the rainy season Water access and connectivity to a grid and the mobile network are, with exceptions, generally given in the two pilot communes:  villages either feature 6-7 public taps, including a pipe system If no public tap systems is used, community members access upstream river water (streams usually within an acceptable walking distance) Water shortages may arise due to reduced water levels for those villages with a pipe system in the dry months 3-7) In several villages, the public tap was broken and plans often existed for repairing or upgrading the system which was not yet realized due to a lack of financial resources  In Trọng Hóa there are around villages which are not connected to the grid and which feature weak mobile phone signals due to the location in the valley Only few households may have been able to afford hydro-generated power  Besides, none of the villages has a waste water treatment system in place (and many households not feature an earth toilet) Attractions/ Activities The bufferzone area of the Minh Hóa district features a rich nature The following is a selection of natural and historical attractions available in the communes (Figure 3): Dân Hóa  Walking paths to the fields and along mountains slopes  Night views on the illuminated villages  Po Muc/ Dream Waterfall  Community Forest  Bai Dinh Historical Site  Hill 35/37, Historical significance  Heaven’s Gate  En Cave/ Swallow Cave  Local market taking place on every 3rd, 13th, 23rd, 8th, 18th and 28th of the lunar month Trọng Hóa  Walking paths to the fields and along mountains slopes  Night views on the illuminated villages  Khe Laat La-An waterfall  Khe Tèn waterfall  Community Forest  Nice river scenery  Pa Choong Cave  Capi Cave  Y-Rang mountain peak 23 1 Cha Lo Historical Site Heaven’s Gate Historical Site En Cave Bai Dinh Historical Site Po Muc/ Dream Waterfall 1 Y-Rang Mountain Peak Waterfall Viewing points and waterfalls Viewing point and stream Figure Detailed maps of the pilot areas in Dân Hóa and Trọng Hóa Customs/ Traditions and Households Dân Hóa and Trong Hóa are considered to be (almost) 100% ‘ethnic’, i.e all villages comprise of ‘ethnic minority households’ only, with exception of a few Kinh households who often maintain (informal) businesses in the villages Most of these belong to the Khùa (a sub-group of the Vân Kiều) and to the Mày (sub-group of the Chứt) The culture of these minority groups is rich, despite the influence exerted by the Kinh at times Potential visitors could observe or engage in activities like story-telling, handicraft production and events like the Lễ côt tay (‘lucky praying ceremony’ or the Lễ Giáng Sơn (‘nature praying ceremony’), or learn about the daily life and the moon calendar, farming and husbandry activities, about marriages, funerals, family and village structures and, indeed, about food and drinks The housing remained also fairly traditional and simple All houses are built on stilts and the floor plan is based upon a strict structure for the sleeping-berths, for the eating, sitting and visitor area as well as for the kitchen Toilet facilities (most often earth wholes) can be found, if available at all, separately from the house These may belong to the household only or may be shared A few issues and ideas are highlighted which need to be elaborated upon or which need to be clarified for the site assessment during Phase II:  Detailed maps of the potential CbT area/ village based on GPS data  Consider a map of the village and surrounding points of interest/ services  Consider a detailed map of the village households highlighting those involved in CbT activities  Consider a map of the area and points of activities/ attractions  Consider an assessment of hiking paths/ tracks as well as of attractions/ activities  Elaborate on interpretative material: particularly on information on the history of the area should be gathered (most of it is known by oral tradition), on villages and village structures, on the language and on the history of the minority groups in general (consultation of Department of Tourism, Province library, local knowledge)  Selection of suitable households by the hamlet leader, the commune, tour operators and project staff (rf also section 3.5.)  Capacity building workshops and field visits  Cooking/meals, hygiene, service  Hosting tourists  Waste management  Basic language training/ facilitation of simple translation hand-outs  Communication and networking  Environmental awareness and benefit sharing  Local tour guiding  Planning the day  Training through delivery!  Consider to support in upgrading simple facilities  Toilet/ earth hole facilities, including a privacy shield  Provide a fixed number of mattresses per participating household which are only to be used for visitors  Potentially some equipment to use for visitors to the village, e.g bikes (including repairing material), binoculars, walking sticks, bamboo mattresses, sleeping bags, mosquito nets, pillows or first aid kids 3.3 MARKET AND MARKET VALIDATION In the scope of Phase I, visitors as well as tour operators, i.e the direct potential ‘customers’ of the communities, were asked for their expectations, needs and/ preferences, if considering a stay or operating a tour to the area This is not only to prepare for the potential demands, but also to delineate whether or not communities are able to meet the requirements However, it must also be carefully considered, if they should and ‘need’ to comply with unrealistic expectations at all Those implementing activities should think beyond the ‘what’ can be sold to ‘what’ and ‘how’ the community wants to sell On the other hand, it must be ensured that a stable number of tourists arrives to the local communities and, thus, relationships with tour operators as well as the experience and according advice of these, play an important role during the CbT development Major points highlighted in the surveys: Tour Operators  selection criteria for homestay/ community-based tourism activities: scenery/ landscape, available activities, friendliness of hosts, bathroom and sleeping facilities (though demanded standards differ), safety, hygiene/ cleanliness, access, local culture, permissions, new/ unexplored/ authentic destination, family interaction  experienced difficulties in organizing homestays elsewhere in Vietnam so far (mostly during the beginning of the operations): local organization/ communication, cleanliness, meals, authenticity, access, diverging expectations and actual experiences, invoicing/ bookings  potential negative impacts which can arise: unequal distribution of benefits, changes in lifestyle and behavior of ethnic people, tourism dependency, copying tour operators, environmental degradation Visitors  the Park received around 350.000 visitors in 2011, around 5-7% are international visitors  survey results in the scope of CbT development activity:  reasons for visiting the Region: 1) visiting caves, 2) enjoying landscape/ nature, ¾) getting to know local culture and rural life  Most visitors arriving to the area with a rental or private car/ van or with a tour bus  Most not stay overnight, but arrive mostly from either Dong Hoi, Hue or the Quang Tri Province, because it was not planned to stay overnight beforehand or the tour did not include an overnight stay  Most (domestic) visitors travel with other family members, domestic visitors tend to travel in middle-sized to bigger groups whereas international visitors also travel by themselves or in smaller groups  Visitors hardly engage in homestay or overnight-trekking activities, only very few knew that this was offered at all in the Park Region  Most important when staying in a traditional village house/ homestay for visitors: friendliness of the family household, spending time with locals, getting to know the life of an ethnic minority, access to running water, cleanliness of the family household, activities: most important to learn about the history of the area, to hike/walk and explore caves  Visitors indicated to not mind to drive another ½ hrs further into the bufferzone; they would be willing to spend around 2,2 nights on average at a local family household A few issues and ideas are highlighted which need to be elaborated upon or which need to be clarified during Phase II:  How can operators be involved in further contributing to local community development (besides ‘selling the product’)  Organization of a FAM trip I: familiarization with the area for potential operators involved in future CbT activities in Minh Hóa  Time, location, activities  Organization of a FAM trip II: participation of those operators interested and committed to sell CbT activities  Time, location, activities  Product development (product conditions):  comply with visitor needs  guarantee benefit sharing for the community  contribute to nature conservation  provide first-hand/ authentic experiences  learning/ education for/of visitors and hosts  (issues to consider: tailor the package to one sort of customer: e.g nature and added value of culture, travel times from A to B, type of transportation, type of activities, time spent on activities, levels of difficulty of activities, avoidance of expectation-experience gaps, allow for some relaxation time, calculate costs and estimate expected profit, discuss package with all stakeholders, season and climate, seasonal events, e.g harvesting period, ritual events, suitable times for wildlife watching, blossoming periods of plants, access to locations)  Provide information material for tourists (including visitor behavior)  Distribution channels (direct and indirect)  (for Phase III: organization of a pilot CbT visitor trip) 3.4 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT – INITIAL STEPS A support network of an array of stakeholders has been partially established during the course of the first field visits Yet, there is much to be done in Phase II to further involve stakeholders and to facilitate initial working relationships amongst these Figure points out current and future stakeholders involved in the CbT development process Quang Binh Province PMU PNKB other services providers (informal) supermarkets local guides (public) transport community institutions provincial level National Park local media GIZ commune communal level QB Border Army QB Province Police local tour operators local guides tour operators/ other tourism businesses Department of of Tourism tourism businesses households (informal) cafés, restaurants national level media tourists Figure Involved and potentially involved stakeholders of CbT in the PNKB NP buffer zone (based on Sansiri, 2003) 10 Besides defining who is, in one way or another, involved or somehow related to future CbT activitie in the bufferzone of the PNKB NP, it is vital to determine specific roles of the most relevant stakeholders Figure delineates an example for two pilot communes However, definitions and roles of the single actors need to be discussed in upcoming meetings What? How? Community National Park Tourism Businesses GIZ Local government own and manage tourism responsible for the natural resources from which the community benefits use the community as a tourism destination/ as a handicraft produce source facilitate development and management of CbT support developments to improve community’s quality of life making decisions and acting developing plans for sustainable use of natural resources and drafting rules and regulations in corporation with the community using community services such as food service, accommodation, local guiding, local services; using their knowledge, clarify CbT to tourists and clarify expectations/ behaviors, possibly also financial investment foster stakeholder network, inter and intravillage communication and exchange, organize training and study trip, facilitate government policies and address and solve potential threats: fostering PPP’s technical, administrational and financial support? guarantee communities rights over land and natural resources Figure Stakeholders involvement and roles A few issues and ideas are highlighted which need to be elaborated upon or which need to be clarified during Phase II:  Determination of aims and goals of the single stakeholders (community, tourism businesses/ tour operators involved/ Van Xuan Handicraft, local government) + what type of tourists/ tourism does the community want to develop  Organization of community level inter-action concerning CbT activities (names, location, objectives, qualifications, roles and duties, term limits, budget?)  local tourism responsible at the commune level  hamlet leader as the tourism responsible at the village level  interaction with individual households and individual interpreters/ guides  discuss formation of a local representation group for CbT development to be established  clarify and confirm stakeholders’ roles  obtain feedback on circulated working proposal(s) 3.5 SUMMARY PHASE I AND SITE SELECTION All activities have been carried out according to the working plan outlined for Phase I (sensitisation) (GIZ, 2012), except for the final reporting (slightly delayed) The initially planned three phases are to be extended by one, making it four implementation Phases in total (rf Figure 6) 11 Site Assessment Community Awareness Raising PHASE I Stakeholder Engagement Local Organisation Product Development PHASE II Human Resources Development Testing the Product Gradually start up operations: closely monitored and supported Gradually hand over local management responsibilities to the community as they become capable, long-term monitoring (10.) Market validation and potential product feasibility assessment (11.) Setting of goals and preliminary activities to achieve these goals PHASE III PHASE IV Figure Implementation steps of CbT activities development Along with the finalization of Phase I, the project team has gained an overview over the area and got to know the local community While it was initially planned to choose villages out of each commune, the GIZ project staff does not feel very comfortable at this point in time to still follow this ambitious intention anymore Furthermore, the review of the Phase I (rf Annex document) delineated some important points considered (1) by operators in order to sell a CbT destination and (2) by visitors in order to be interested in visiting a CbT destination overnight, amongst these: access, scenery, basic bathroom facilities, authenticity, local culture, seclusion, and basic infrastructural facilities In the end, two villages - Ra Mai as well as Ta Vong (and bordering Do) - are proposed for inclusion in a potentially upcoming FAM trip (and, thus, for further overnight CbT developments), both situated in the Trọng Hóa commune Overnight visits in Dân Hóa not seem viable at this stage This is for several reasons:  all but a few villages of the Dân Hóa commune are located along the Highway 12A, the major gateway to the Lao border and, thus:  the setting is not suitable  traffic along the road diminish feeling of exclusivity and seclusion  atmosphere  if the setting was off the road: like in Ba Looc, access was difficult (and in combination with a village in Trọng Hóa, distances are too far between the villages) or if the setting was off the road: like in K’Ai, there seemed already be a progressing cultural influence on the Kinh  strikingly, many villages did not have any toilet facilities available in Dân Hóa at all or villagers are not used to use specific  Not to include Dân Hóa in overnight CbT activities does not necessarily mean that it will not be included in any activities (e.g one offering could include a visit to the waterfall in K’Ai, it could be stayed at the waterfall itself – not in the village – or 12 historical sites and En Cave can be visited, but visitors would return to the Trọng Hóa commune for the night) The Trọng Hóa commune also features weaknesses, but it is perceived that these weaknesses and the community’s ‘opportunities’/ external conditions in the respective villages can be strengthened The following challenges, particularly those which may arise within negotiations of operators/ businesses who recommend/ bring visitors to the area, need to be considered yet: water as well as electricity may not be always given and facilities like the ‘bedroom’ and the ‘toilet’ will remain simple On the other hand, surveys with the visitors have shown that these are not always thought to be amongst the most important things when staying with a local family household Based on a comment made by Sansiri (2003, p.19), the project team likewise believes that “a homestay should not focus merely on providing accommodation for profit while ignoring cultural exchange and respect for the host's culture Generosity and hospitality should be emphasized above providing ‘5-stars’ service To otherwise would devalue the host at the expense of the guest” However, it is recognized that small changes would be imperative A few issues and ideas are highlighted which need to be elaborated upon or which need to be clarified during Phase II:  Site selection needs to be discussed and communicated with the communes and hamlet leaders  pre-workshop meeting to present Phase I results (+ more practical CbT examples) and future planning + plan for a following pre-study trip meeting (with participation of other/ all stakeholders)  For future household selection, the following criteria are proposed for assessment (the list may not be exhaustive): number of family members should not exceed people, Vietnamese-speaking in the family, space, meals/ cooking, current cleanliness/ household organisation, willingness, access, determine total number of households to be involved) and following 13 PLANNING 4.1 PERMISSIONS During the course of the field visits and the surveying of (potential) CbT stakeholders, concern was repeatedly raised referring to appropriate permissions needed: for the households who would be accommodating visitors, for the tour operators/ businesses who would organize the homestay in the area as well as for the visitors who would be entering the border zone There is still a lack of information concerning the exact type of permissions needed and the administrational efforts and procedures in place Moreover, the commune highlighted that activities with ethnic minority involvement would have to comply with current governmental planning in the area and, thus, that CbT would need to be better integrated into the new Rural Community Plan The permissions/ approvals which need to be acquired:  visitors:  overnight registration with the commune and ‘civil/ local police’, including border access permission (PA 35 at the Immigration Office in Dong Hoi?)  households:  register family household as a homestay  tour operators:  proof of tourism license  introduction letter to the commune Commune leaders assured the feasibility of integrating CbT activities into the ‘Rural Development Plan’ and the willingness to facilitate/ handle permissions needed for visitors to access the area (also: that visitors/ tour operators will only need to report to one institution: either to the commune or to the border police) Remaining questions:  What are the administrational needs of single households when accommodating visitors?  Would the commune need additional support for any administrational procedures? A few issues and ideas are highlighted which need to be elaborated upon or which need to be clarified during Phase II:  Clarify procedures and difficulties of obtaining the necessary permissions for all relevant stakeholders 14 4.2 WORKING PLAN PHASE II In the following, a detailed working plan is provided, delineating tasks and implementations interventions for Phase II of the CbT development The working plan is closely aligned (or will be adjusted after consultation) to the next Phase of the handicraft development Phase II: coordination, capacity building and product development Deliver Annex document and working proposal Phase II GIZ Post-feasibility study meeting with relevant stakeholders in the commune (half day at the CPC Trọng Hóa) commune, hamlet leaders, GIZ, (NP, tour operator/s) Site selection 3.1 Finalization of participating villages and households 3.2 Permissions and approvals I Providing background information, obtaining internal and external feedback To inform all relevant stakeholders on the current process, including discussions on site selection and future planning, inform about household needs for selection, obtain feedback To obtain missing information and determine household participants villages and around participating households in each village commune, hamlet leaders, households, GIZ Commune, GIZ Obtain detailed information on permission procedures 15 4th week 3rd week 2nd week 1st week February 4th week 3rd week 2nd week 1st week January 4th week 3rd week 1st week 4th week 3rd week 2nd week 1st week 2nd week December November 4th week 3rd week 2nd week 1st week October 4th week 3rd week Expected outcomes 2nd week Activity 1st week September Responsible/ Involved Party/ies 4.2 Pre-Study trip meeting 4.3 Study trip 4.4 Post-Study trip and stakeholder meeting 4.5 Permissions and approvals II Commune, hamlet leaders, households, GIZ Dito + Van Xuan handicrafts, (NP, tour op.) Dito + Van Xuan handicrafts, (NP, tour op.) Dito + Van Xuan handicrafts, (NP, tour op.) Commune, border police, civil police, Immigrations, GIZ FAM trip I 5.1 Screen for potential activities and field visits to ‘pretest’ Commune, community members, GIZ Outline objectives and tasks Get to know real-life example, Set CbT objectives and roles for all stakeholders, local organisation To specify needs and procedures for all relevant stakeholders to invite tour operators and other potential sellers of future activities to the area Trip plan 16 4th week 3rd week 2nd week 1st week February 4th week 3rd week 2nd week 1st week January 4th week 3rd week 1st week 4th week 3rd week 2nd week 1st week 2nd week December November 4th week 3rd week 2nd week 1st week 4th week 3rd week October Real-life example and recognition of tourism needs and local organisation Study trip 4.1 Selection of participants Expected outcomes 2nd week Activity 1st week September Responsible/ Involved Party/ies 5.2 organize and conduct FAM trip I Capacity building in the selected households Infrastructural developments Community members, tour op., GIZ (expert?, GIZ?) GIZ? Product development 8.1 Workshop/ meeting 8.2 Development of relevant information/ interpretation material 8.3 Tourist information gaps Commune, hamlet leaders, households, tour op., GIZ, (NP) Tour op., GIZ (community for feedback) (community), GIZ Connecting stakeholders, triggering interest On-site training to obtain necessary skills for hosting visitors (e.g cooking, service, guiding, communication, waste management) To upgrade toilet facilities and provide hosts and village with basic equipment (e.g mattresses, first aid kid) Finalize offered activities and develop according information material for potential visitors Exchange of ideas and finalizing offered product(s), determine distribution channels Informative material (including maps) Close information gaps for touristic activities (e.g maps, history, GPS data on trails) 17 4th week 3rd week 2nd week 1st week February 4th week 3rd week 2nd week 1st week January 4th week 3rd week 1st week 4th week 3rd week 2nd week 1st week 2nd week December November 4th week 3rd week 2nd week 1st week October 4th week 3rd week Expected outcomes 2nd week Activity 1st week September Responsible/ Involved Party/ies FAM trip II 9.1 Screen for potential activities and field visits 5.2 organize and conduct FAM trip II Commune, community members, GIZ Community members, tour op., GIZ to invite tour operators who are committed to sell/ finalize tour programme(s) Trip plan to finalize CbT product Connecting stakeholders, commitment 18 4th week 3rd week 2nd week 1st week February 4th week 3rd week 2nd week 1st week January 4th week 3rd week 1st week 4th week 3rd week 2nd week 1st week 2nd week December November 4th week 3rd week 2nd week 1st week October 4th week 3rd week Expected outcomes 2nd week Activity 1st week September Responsible/ Involved Party/ies 4.3 FUNDING AND PERSONNEL (INTERNAL USE ONLY) Personnel Currently, there is two staff working on the CbT development process However, both are not yet fully committed to this process due to other activities demanding work input at the same time Moreover, one is to drop out at the end of December and ways must be found to replace potentially missing working hours for the CbT development Budgeting Furthermore, funding activities/ budget issues must be clarified:  Expenditures for  The study trip  The FAM trip  Capacity building  Local meetings and coverage of transport/ food expenditures for participants  Other expenses  Can infrastructural developments and basic equipment be funded by the GIZ (rf section 3.2 Site Assessment)? Preparation of a budget plan? 18 BIBLIOGRAPHY Brass, J (ed.) (1997).Community tourism assessment handbook Western Rural Development Center: Utah State University GIZ (2012) Community-based development in the bufferzone of the PNKB NP – Initial working proposal Prepared in June 2012, Phong Nha Sansiri, P (2003) Community-based tourism handbook Thailand: Responsible Ecological Social Tour – REST STDP (2010) Sustainable tourism development plan 2012-2020 in the PNKB NP Region Prepared by Tourism Resource Consultants, in collaboration with the KfW, the GIZ and the PPC of the Quangh Binh Province 19 ... preliminary activities to achieve these goals PHASE III PHASE IV Figure Implementation steps of CbT activities development Along with the finalization of Phase I, the project team has gained an overview... interventions for Phase II of the CbT development The working plan is closely aligned (or will be adjusted after consultation) to the next Phase of the handicraft development Phase II: coordination,... need to be clarified during Phase II:  Clarify procedures and difficulties of obtaining the necessary permissions for all relevant stakeholders 14 4.2 WORKING PLAN PHASE II In the following, a detailed