https://www.naturekhabar.com/en/32300.html
Ekraj Sigdel
Environment and Tourism
Governance Specialist
Introduction
National Parks across the countries
are established for the common objectives of conserving globally significance
wildlife species and ecosystems together with promoting sustainable tourism. Chitwan
Naitonal Park (CNP), Nepal and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GSMNP),
USA are managing their natural resources successfully with different approach. Nepal’s CNP has followed inclusive and
participatory path while the GSMNP is still adopting exclusionary approach.
Based on the recent observation and interaction with local in GSMNP, I have
tried to analyze what lesson from GSMNP can be beneficial to CNP, Nepal
The Great Smoky Mountains National
Park
The GSMNP with an area of about 2108
km² was established in 1934 to protect an exceptional temperate hardwood forest
ecosystem, scenic landscapes and promoting recreation. Concerned about
extensive resource extraction and degradation of this globally significant
hardwood ecosystem, the U.S. National Park Service, together with other
authorities, acquired large areas of privately owned land, including holdings
of timber companies and land associated with local communities, while establishing
the park. Today, the GSMNP are internationally recognized for their extensive
hardwood forests, exceptional biodiversity, black bears, elk and outstanding
scenic landscape values. The park was designated as World Heritage Site in
1983.The park’s conservation vision was based on the premise that protecting
the Smokies’ forests, wildlife and natural beauty would generate greater
long-term public and economic benefits than continued large-scale resource
extraction.
Over time, conservation value has been enhanced through implementing scientific research, and ecological monitoring in partnerships with Friends of the Smokies. The Federal Government through USA National Park Service managed the national park with its own resources. The Park has not invested the federal government for community development adjacent to the boundaries. GSMNP is predominantly federally managed, with limited formal community participation. The Park does not raise money from tourists’ entry fee. The park offers diverse tourism activities, including historic Appalachian heritage, jungle drives, and family recreation, picnicking and hiking along the famous Appalachian Trail. The park’s distinctive “smoky” appearance, created by natural mist rising from its dense forests, has further strengthened its cultural identity and tourism appeal. Attracting about 11-12 million visitors annually, GSMNP has become one of the major tourism destinations and an important economic driver for surrounding gateway communities and regional development. Visitor spending supports local employment, businesses and income opportunities. The Smokies demonstrate how long-term biodiversity conservation, scenic and cultural values, recreation and tourism can be integrated to generate wider public and economic benefits.
Nepal's Chitwan National Park
Chitwan National Park (CNP),
covering 952.63 km², was established in 1973 as Nepal’s first national park and
has become an internationally recognized example of conserving globally significant
wildlife species, including Bengal tigers, greater one-horned rhinoceroses and
numerous other species and ecosystems. The Park was established to safeguard
forests from further encroachment from hill migrants. The government of Nepal
removed a village clusters while declaring the National Park. The park was
designated a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1984 for its outstanding natural
values.
CNP’s initial conservation approach was largely based on exclusion, with limited consideration of local communities and their resource needs. Over time, this approach has evolved toward landscape-level conservation that recognizes people as an integral part of the ecosystem. To strengthen community participation, the Government of Nepal established a formal buffer-zone system and allocates 30–50% of park tourism revenue to community development activities in buffer-zone areas, while the remaining revenue is retained through the government system to support conservation and park management. Dedicated park officials oversee both biodiversity conservation and buffer-zone development, reflecting an institutional effort to link conservation with community development.
Tourism, particularly wildlife safaris and other recreational activities, provides significant economic benefits to the government, private sector and local communities. With about 300,000 visitors annually, tourism has become an important source of employment, income and local economic activity. Despite these achievements, CNP continues to face challenges, including human–wildlife conflict, livestock and crop losses, injuries and deaths, inadequate research and monitoring, and limited institutional capacity to effectively integrate tourism development with long-term biodiversity conservation.
Compare and Contrast
The GSMNP and CNP of Nepal share
several important characteristics. Both were established primarily to conserve
important biodiversity and are managed through national-level protected-area
institutions supported by legislation, regulations and government employee.
Both have received international recognition for their outstanding natural
values, with the GSMNP designated a World Heritage Site in 1983 and CNP in
1984. Tourism and recreation are important components of both systems and
contribute to the economies of surrounding communities. Likewise, both protected-area
systems have evolved from relatively protection-oriented mindset. Despite these
similarities, the major difference lies in the historical context,
institutional capacity and integration of tourism with conservation. The GSMNP
was established in a landscape that was largely privately owned and heavily
affected by commercial logging, requiring extensive land acquisition and
relocation of traditional residents. In contrast, Nepal's CNP generally
established primarily on government-managed landscapes through forcefully
removing few settlements. Another difference is that the Smokies have developed
a highly specialized system of scientific research, long-term ecological
monitoring, visitor management, and recreation.
In CNP, on the other hand, biodiversity conservation remains the principle objective, while tourism development and visitor management are not always sufficiently integrated into protected-area planning. Instead, the CNP institutionalized community based organizations as buffer zone. CNP also faces more pronounced human–wildlife conflicts and livelihood-related tensions around protected areas. In contrast, GSMNP faces different types of human–wildlife conflict, but they are generally less severe. Despite being only twice the size of CNP, SMNP attracts approximately 35 times as many tourists. The park is federally administered, while state and local governments play important roles in the surrounding tourism and gateway economy, while sole responsibility has traditionally been given to the federal government in CNP.
Key Learning
Nepal can learn from GSMNP by
strengthening science-based conservation, long-term ecological monitoring, and
dedicated tourism management systems to build a more sustainable and equitable
protected-area model. The comparison demonstrates that no single protected-area model can be replicated across countries,
as governance and management must reflect each country’s historical,
institutional and socio-cultural context. Both parks have achieved notable
conservation success, as recognized through their World Heritage status. While
the Smokies offer valuable lessons in scientific management, tourism planning and
institutional partnerships, Nepal’s buffer-zone
and community-development approach provides an important foundation for
linking conservation with local livelihoods. Given CNP’s relatively low visitor
numbers compared with the Smokies, there is considerable scope to promote well-managed and responsible tourism
that generates employment, increases local economic benefits and strengthens
park–community partnerships. By combining these lessons with its established
community-based approach, CNP can
demonstrate how conservation, community development and sustainable tourism can
reinforce one another.
