Before coming to Laos, my fiancée and I were elated to learn that nearly 15 years ago the UN had established an acclaimed program around Luang Namtha that minimized impact on the local villages, helped protect endangered primary forests, and maximized profits for the impoverished inhabitants. Naturally, given all the positives involved, we were more than willing to pay extra in the hopes that our dollars would have a positive effect. Unfortunately, we were great dismayed to discover that many, if not most, of the 'ecofriendly' treks in northern Laos appear to be only 'eco' in name.
QUOTED PRICES
Luang Namtha (3 people) – 3 day / 2 night
740,000 kip per person and up
(total = 2,220,000 kip)
Muang Sing – 110,000 kip per day for a guide
Nong Khiaw (2 people) – 3 day / 2 night
750,000 kip per person and up to $240 (1,850,000 kip)
(total = 1,500,000 kip)
Muang Khua – 1 day
(2 people) 400,000 kip per person (total = 800,000 kip)
(6 people) 250,000 kip per person (total = 1,500,000 kip)
Phongsali (3 people) – 3 day / 2 night
720,000 kip per person up to 1,370,000 kip
(total = 2,160,000 kip)
SUPPOSED MONEY ALLOCATION
Every office we visited claimed to spend the money, approximately as follows (plus or minus 5% to 10%):
25% tourist office (including taxes & fees)
20% guide
20% village development fund
35% food
Some offices included transport in their costs, while others did not. But we were only looking at hikes (not kayak trips, not rock climbing, no 'welcome' message), and in particular we were interested in hikes that originated in the town where we were staying. Thus transportation and extras would have had a negligible effect on the prices listed above.
DISHONESTY
Given the great degree of graft and corruption in Laos, we wanted to verify that our monies were indeed being spent as indicated. We inspected each office (we visited around eight in total) for signs and proof of how the development funds were being spent. Surprisingly, we found that not one office proudly displayed how the monies from their treks had positively impacted the locals (for example, the locals now have a generator, metal roofs, a small school). When we asked for specifics on how the monies were being spent, we were meet with vagueness and sometimes with open hostility.
For example, a one day hike in Muang Khua involved a short tuk-tuk ride, a guide, and lunch. The total price for two people was 800,000 kip and for six people 1,500,000 kip. Assuming 800,000 kip was fair for a guide, tuk-tuk and lunch, did four additional lunches really cost 700,000 kip? This question was answered by the office manager stating that he did not have the keys so he could not show us his pie charts that detailed expenditures.
In Phongsali we asked if we could distributed the funds. Since we wanted to verify that our guide and the villagers are being paid fairly, we reasoned that we could pay each individually. The office manager stated this was not possible and the spending of the funds was complicated. When pressed, the office manager explained that we paid him in full and then he would give an envelope to the guide who would disperse the funds as we trekked. When we asked if we could pay the office the appropriate amount and then if we could give the envelope to the guide, the manager promptly became hostile and asked us to leave.
ACTUAL COSTS
Since we could not find an operator that appeared to spend the funds honestly, we trekked on our own in several different locations around northern Laos. The prices listed below are approximately what we spent or what we were told were the costs by the different office staff. Obviously, it goes without saying that many of these prices fluctuate.
guide - 120,000 kip per day
rustic accommodation, dinner, breakfast, village development fund – 100,000 kip per person per day
lunch – 30,000 kip each
total cost = 1,230,000 kip (3 day, 2 night trek for three people)
In the case of Phongsali, the Tourism Information Office charges 2,160,000 kip for this trip, and Amazing Laos charges 4,110,000 kip. This means that the office is in reality keeping between 43% and 70% of the total costs.
Please do not misunderstand me. I understand these are businesses and that they are providing a service that deserves compensation. However, it seems that these businesses are dishonestly charging inflated prices in order to increase their own profit at the cost of the impoverished locals. In my opinion, if running the office requires 45% to 70% of the costs, then state as such and do not claim that the office is only keeping 15% or 25%.
VALIDATING THE 'ECO'
Alas, it appears that the authors of the Lonely Planet may have failed to properly investigate these 'ecofriendly' businesses and simply took the owners and managers at their word. Even more disappointingly, the special section on how to verify a 'eco' trek lists a number of questions that will not validate that the funds are being spent appropriately (page 73 of the Dec 2010 edition). Given that the companies involved in 'ecofriendly' treks only pledge to donate funds, and given the complete lack of validation or verification, I would like to suggest the following to fellow travelers in order to ensure that your funds will be spent appropriately:
1 – Ask to distribute the funds yourself. If possible, pay for each of the following separately: guide, food, office, village development fund, transportation. Since the guide carries all the money and distributes the funds as you travel, perhaps instead try just paying the office separately and then giving the remaining money to the guide.
2 – Ask to see photos of how the village development funds have been spent. Ask for specifics, that is, which village received which benefit and when. If the tour operator has been visiting one village for years, the number of benefits should be comparatively larger.
3 – Ask to see a recent certificate or accreditation by a recognized agency (for example World Wildlife Fund, UN, Wildlife Conservation Society).
Finally, one alternative is to trek on your own or find your own guide. I strongly encourage sensative travelers to trek through this most beautiful villages; for many of the locals this is a major source of income and provides access to much needed resources.
