Since tourism is one of the fastest growing industries in the world, it has potential to increase opportunities in improving the livelihood of people living in poverty for developing countries like Nepal. The current visitor arrival trends in Nepal indicate potential for more tourists in the future. Recent political developments also favour tourism which suggests the sector has the potential to contribute in improvement in the livelihood of the people of Nepal. However, it is difficult to calculate the contribution made by tourism for poverty alleviation in Nepal. The scale of tourism benefit varies across and between different economic groups. According to the Millennium Development Goals (UN, 2000) people living on less than a US dollar a day are considered extremely poor. However, the population who live in geographically remote areas are an economically marginalised group in the context of Nepal. As a consequence, people who run lodges or teashops in rural areas may not necessarily be rich, but financially, they may be better off than local farmers who are at the very bottom of the local economy. Therefore, the people from marginalised groups, who have slightly more resources to run tourism enterprises, are more likely to benefit more from tourism than those considered ‘very poor’ (DFID,
1999b). In this context, it can be fair to say that tourism has benefitted the people who have relatively more resources.
Though the PPT concept emphasises increasing tourism benefits to the poorest people, it does not necessarily contribute to poverty alleviation unless there are strategies to extend tourism benefit to the economically lowest tier of society. It is also important to consider that the majority of the population who live in remote areas have limited access to social and economic resources and have few political opportunities. The findings from this research show that the benefits of tourism are not equally distributed among local residents in Junbesi and Pattale. Lodges and teashops are two major tourism related enterprises in rural areas. Comparatively, wealthier people in both Patale and Junbesi villages are involved in lodge and teashop business. Therefore, the gap between ‘the haves’ and ‘the have nots’, indicates that tourism has afforded more benefit to better-off people in the community, than to the poorest people. This indicates that one of the key aspirations of the PPT concept was not achieved. According to Ashley, et al. (2001), the government should take the leading role in collaboration with NGOs and the private sector to promote PPT by developing effective policy and organising local communities in order to better involve them effectively in tourism.
Another important point to be considered for PPT is the number of tourists visiting a particular destination. Approximately 600,000 tourists visited Nepal in 2010, but these visitors were not evenly distributed across the country.For example, Annapurna,
Sagarmatha and Chitwan in total received the major portion of tourists arrivals (MoTCA, 2010). This study suggests that developing PPT in new destination requires more efforts than the areas already developed for tourism. External supports (financial and technical) are essential to empower local communities and build their skills in order to establish, and sustain tourism as part of their livelihood options. As a way to spread the benefits of tourism more equitably, the Tourism for Rural Poverty Alleviation Project (TRPAP) introduced new tourism attractions such as the Dudhkunda Pikey Cultural Trail, with the objective of increasing the number of tourists in the lower Solukhumbu region. However, those newly promoted destinations receive only a small number of tourists. As a result, local people have not received adequate benefits from tourism. However, there are
possibilities of increasing the number of tourists on this trail, for which the promotion and development of facilities need to be emphasised. Since this trail passes through various settlements in lower Solukhumbu, tourists can experience local culture and nature intact in rural settings. Currently, as mentioned in Chapter 2, tourism is a seasonal activity for both Junbesi and Pattale communities, normally lasting six months in a year (i.e. March to May and September to November). Therefore, tourism generates supplementary income for these communities, but tourism is yet to be developed as a major economic activity to maximise local benefits.
Local residents in Junbesi and Pattale are supportive and optimistic for further development of tourism in their region. There are two main reasons why these communities remain hopeful: (1) Since 2006, the security situation in the country has improved dramatically. The number of tourists travelling along the Dudhkunda Pikey Trail and the Jiri Everest Trail could not increase during the period when Maoist rebels were active. (2) There has been a remarkable improvement in road and trail network, making these villages more accessible. The road network is increasing in major places of the lower Solukhumbu region. Pattale is already connected to a road, and there is a plan to connect Junbesi. However, the road development will have both positive and negative impacts on local tourism. Therefore, proper tourism planning is important to minimise negative