USAID/LEBANON LEBANON INDUSTRY VALUE CHAIN ...

1

USAID/LEBANON

LEBANON INDUSTRY VALUE CHAIN DEVELOPMENT (LIVCD) PROJECT September 2017

Rural Tourism

“Economic Impact Analysis”

Prepared by Jad Abou Arrage

This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International

Development.

It was prepared by DAI.

2

Lebanon Industry Value Chain Development

- LIVCD Project

This report is made possible by the support of the American people through the United States Agency for

International Development (USAID).

The content of this report is the sole responsibility of the Lebanon Industry Value Chain Development (LIVCD)

Project and does not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government

3

Table of Contents

List of

Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................................................. 5

List of tables .................................................................................................................................................................... 6

List of figures ................................................................................................................................................................... 7

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 8

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Part I: Methodology ................................................................................................................................................... 12

I.1. General approach............................................................................................................................................ 12

I.2. Data collection and analytical framework .......................................................................................... 13

I.2.1. The direct economic impact .......................................................................................................... 13

I.2.2. The indirect economic impact ...................................................................................................... 14

Part II: Rural Tourism in Lebanon ..................................................................................................................... 15

II.1. Rural tourism development: a timeline review .............................................................................. 15

II.2. Rural tourism and the economy: a promising sector .................................................................. 18

II.2.1. The rural economy structure ....................................................................................................... 19

II.2.2. Tourism in the economy ................................................................................................................ 20

II.2.3. Rural tourism and local development ...................................................................................... 23

II.3. Rural tourism: market dynamics ........................................................................................................... 24

Part III: Economic Analysis of LIVCD projects ............................................................................................ 27

III.1. LIVCD rural tourism projects ................................................................................................................ 27

III.2. Economic impact analysis on the village level ............................................................................... 30

III.2.1. Ehmej village (Jbeil district) ......................................................................................................... 31

III.2.2. Domaine de Taanayel (Zahle district).................................................................................... 33

III.2.3. Hadath El Jebbeh village (Bcharreh district)....................................................................... 35

III.2.4. Auberge Beity in Kfardebiane village (Kesrouane district) ......................................... 37

III.2.5. Ramlieh Youth Hostel in Ramlieh village (Aley district) .............................................. 38

III.2.6. Rock climbing in Tannourine village (Batroun district) ................................................ 39

III.2.7. Rural tourism strategies for different villages .................................................................... 40

III.2.8. Consolidation of LIVCD projects economic impact on villages level ..................... 41

III.3. Economic impact analysis on the villages cluster level ............................................................. 42

III.3.1. Union of Jezzine Municipalities .................................................................................................. 42

4

III.3.2. Shouf Biosphere Reserve villages ............................................................................................. 44

III.3.3. The Food Trail “Darb El Karam” in West Beqaa and Higher Shouf ...................... 47

III.3.4. Bentael Nature Reserve ................................................................................................................ 49

III.3.5. Bil day’a ma bit dee’ (Damour, Ouarhaniyeh, and Khreibeh) .................................... 49

III.3.6. Jabal Moussa Biosphere Reserve ............................................................................................... 50

III.3.7. Jbeil and Batroun rural routes .................................................................................................... 52

III.3.8. Promotion of rural tourism regional clusters .................................................................... 53

III.3.9. Consolidation of LIVCD projects economic impact on clusters level .................... 54

III.4. Economic impact analysis on the national level ........................................................................... 54

III.4.1. Improving the Lebanon Mountain Trail as a Rural Tourism Destination ............ 54

III.4.2. Increase the guesthouses competiveness – Diyafa network........................................ 57

III.4.3. National Rural Tourism Strategy ............................................................................................. 58

III.4.4. Travel Lebanon Show ..................................................................................................................... 60

III.4.5. General economic impact assessment ................................................................................... 62

III.5. National rural tourism trends................................................................................................................ 63

III.5.1. Tour Organizers ................................................................................................................................ 63

III.5.2. Picnic areas and adventure parks ............................................................................................. 66

III.5.3. Rural accommodation .................................................................................................................... 66

III.5.4. Emerging rural activities ............................................................................................................... 67

III.5.5. Donors’ funding for the rural tourism value chain ........................................................... 67

Conclusion and Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 69

5

List of Abbreviations

AFDC Association for Forest Development and Conservation

ANERA American Near East Refugees Association

APJM Association for the Protection of Jabal Moussa

AUB American University of Beirut

AUB-NCC American University of Beirut-Nature Conservation Center

BBA Beyond Beirut Association

DAI Development Alternatives Inc

DHIAFEE Developing the Hospitality Industry’s Abilities – Fostering Economic Expansion

ESDU Environmental Sustainable Development Unit

FHF Food Heritage Foundation

GDP Gross Domestic Product

JMBR Jabal Moussa Biosphere Reserve

LIVCD Lebanon Industry Value Chain Development

LMT Lebanon Mountain Trail

LMTA Lebanon Mountain Trail Association

MOT Ministry of Tourism

NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations

SBR Shouf Biosphere Reserve

USAID United States Agency for International Development

WTTC World Travel and Tourism Council

6

List of tables

Table.1. Direct economic impact assessment analytical framework 14

Table.2. Indirect economic impact assessment analytical framework 14

Table.3. Tourism businesses and number of employees in Lebanon 23

Table.4. Lebanese rural tourism market segments and visitors; estimation for 2016 27

Table.5. Regional distribution of the LIVCD rural tourism projects 29

Table.6. Distribution of the LIVCD rural tourism projects per districts 30

Table.7. LIVCD rural tourism project sheet – Ehmej 33

Table.8. Rural tourism indicators for Ehmej 34

Table.9. Total economic impact attributed to the LIVCD projects in Ehmej 34

Table.10. LIVCD rural tourism project sheet – Domaine de Taanayel 35

Table.11. Rural tourism indicators for Domaine de Taanayel 36

Table.12. Total economic impact attributed to the LIVCD project in Domaine de Taanayel 36

Table.13. LIVCD rural tourism project sheet – Hadath El Jebbeh village 37

Table.14. Rural tourism indicators for Hadath El Jebbeh 38

Table.15. Total economic impact attributed to the LIVCD projects in Hadath El Jebbeh 38

Table.16. LIVCD rural tourism project sheet – Kfardebiane, Auberge Beity 39

Table.17. Rural tourism indicators for Auberge Beity – Kfardebiane 40

Table.18. Total economic impact attributed to the LIVCD projects in Auberge Beity – Kfardebiane 40

Table.19. LIVCD rural tourism project sheet – Ramlieh youth hostel 41

Table.20. LIVCD rural tourism project sheet – Rock climbing in Tannourine 42

Table.21. Economic impact assessment of LIVCD rural tourism strategies on village level 43

Table.22. Economic impact of LIVCD projects on village level 44

Table.23. LIVCD rural tourism projects sheet – Jasmine area 45

Table.24. Rural tourism indicators for Jezzine area 46

Table.25. Computation of the total economic impact attributed to the LIVCD projects in Jezzine area 47

Table.26. LIVCD rural tourism project sheet – Shouf Biosphere Reserve 48

Table.27. Rural tourism indicators for Shouf Biosphere Reserve 49

Table.28. Computation of the total economic impact attributed to the LIVCD projects in SBR 49

Table.29. LIVCD rural tourism project sheet – The Food Trail “Darb El Karam” 50

Table.30. Rural tourism indicators for Darb El Karam project 51

Table.31. LIVCD rural tourism project sheet – Bentael Nature Reserve 52

Table.32. LIVCD rural tourism project sheet – Bel Da Bil day’a ma bit dee’ 53

Table.33. LIVCD rural tourism project sheet – Jabal Moussa Biosphere Reserve 54

Table.34. Rural tourism indicators for Jabal Moussa Biosphere Reserve 55

Table.35. Computation of the total economic impact attributed to the LIVCD projects in JMBR 55

Table.36. LIVCD rural tourism project sheet – Jbeil and Batroun rural routes 56

Table.37. Economic impact of LIVCD projects on clusters level 57

Table.38. LIVCD rural tourism project sheet – Lebanon Mountain Trail 59

Table.39. Rural tourism indicators for Lebanon Mountain Trail 59

Table.40. Computation of the total economic impact attributed to the LIVCD projects on the LMT 60

Table.41. LIVCD rural tourism project sheet – Diyafa network 61

Table.42. LIVCD rural tourism project sheet – Rural Tourism Strategy for Lebanon 62

Table.43. LIVCD rural tourism project sheet – Travel Lebanon Show 64

Table.44. General economic impact ratio for all LIVCD projects 66

Table.45. Increase rural trip organizers yearly turnover 69

7

List of figures

Figure.1. Contribution of tourism to the GDP and to Employment in Lebanon 22

Figure.2. LIVCD rural tourism projects budget distribution per component 31

Figure.3. Evolution of the number of rural tourism trip organizers 67

Figure.4. Status of rural tourism trip organizers 68

8

Executive Summary

Rural tourism contribution to sustainable economic development has been demonstrated in many countries around

the world. In Lebanon, rural tourism is gaining importance as a net contributor to the economy at both local and

national levels despite the regional political tension and local security issues of the last decade. In this context,

international donors, governmental institutions, municipalities, as well as the private sector, implemented many rural

tourism development initiatives between 2010 and 2016 aimed at reinforcing the rural tourism value chain and

increasing its competitiveness.

Lebanon Industry Value Chain Development program (LIVCD) was launched in 2012 with funding from the United

States Agency for International Development (USAID). Between 2012 and 2017, the LIVCD implemented 27 rural

tourism development projects with a 2.8 Million $ value. The projects aimed at upgrading the rural tourism industry

and bringing economic growth and improved livelihoods for rural communities.

This study analyzes the economic impact of rural tourism projects implemented by LIVCD and demonstrates how

the success of such projects may be translated into decisions, actions, and new investments that are favorable to

adopt and implement long term rural tourism strategies and policies. The computations of the economic impact

revealed positive results in a relatively short timeframe. The cost-benefit ratio for all implemented projects was 2.2

for the direct economic impact, 4.7 for the indirect economic impact, and 18 for the total economic impact. These

results proved the important role played by rural tourism as a main contributor to economic growth and a pillar of

sustainable development strategies on the local, regional, and national levels. Moreover, The LIVCD projects

implemented in specific villages, regional, and on the national level reinforced the local integration of the tourism

value chain and promoted different types of tourism services and activities in rural areas targeting a wide variety of

market segments.

New economic opportunities were created and many benefits generated for local communities and rural tourism

operators in a direct and indirect way. In the long term, with proper management and follow-up of the projects,

rural tourism can result and contribute to an increase in the incomes of rural communities and to the improvement

of their living conditions.

9

Introduction

Interest in rural tourism as a main contributor to maintaining economic development has grown

in the last two decades in response to changes in rural policies accompanied by new trends and

practices in the tourism industry. Researches and scholars have demonstrated that sustainable

forms of tourism can provide rural areas with many economic opportunities and benefits leading

to an increase in rural communities’ income and to the improvement of their living conditions,

and better management of their natural and cultural resources.

In Lebanon, the regional political tension and local security issues, especially after the beginning

of the Syrian crisis in 2011, led to the decline of conventional tourism reflected in the decreasing

number of international tourists’ arrivals between 2010 and 20161. However, during this period,

rural tourism recorded a rise in the domestic travelers who are showing a growing interest in

visiting mountain villages and spending short vacations in rural areas all around Lebanon. In parallel

to the economic challenges facing Lebanon in general, and its rural areas in particular, many rural

towns and villages were obliged to reconsider their economic development model to find

synergies between the economic sectors which can contribute to a more sustainable and resilient

local economy, especially in time of crisis.

In this context, many projects and initiatives, funded mainly by international organizations and

donors, were implemented in many rural areas and villages with the main objectives of:

• Building the capacity of the rural tourism stakeholders to better plan for rural tourism and

manage natural and cultural resources in a more sustainable way;

• Providing technical and financial support to local authorities and tourism operators to

improve the tourism infrastructure, services and activities, and to create integrated rural

tourism destinations;

• Reinforcing the rural tourism value chain structure and improving linkages between its

different stakeholders.

1 According to the Ministry of Tourism, the number of tourists’ arrivals to Lebanon registered a dramatic drop from 2.2 Million in 2010 to 1.3 Million in 2013. In 2016 it increased to 1.7 Million, thus 2010 remained the best year in the last decade.

10

The Lebanon Industry Value Chain Development program (LIVCD), launched in 2012 and funded

by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is one of the major

programs to support the Lebanese rural tourism value chain in the last ten years. In order to

determine its interventions in the rural tourism value chain, the LIVCD program adopted a

participatory approach and discussed its work plan with relevant stakeholders from the public

and private sectors (Ministry of Tourism, Municipalities, Union of Municipalities, NGOs and local

associations, cooperatives, tourism operators, tourism professionals, and researchers). As a

result, between 2012 and 2017, the LIVCD implemented 14 projects focusing on specific villages,

9 projects targeting rural clusters and nature reserves, and 4 projects on the national level. The

projects covered all the phases of the rural tourism value chain and targeted mainly municipalities,

NGOs, small and medium businesses, tourism operators, rural cooperatives, and nature reserves.

The general aim of LIVCD projects was to upgrade the rural tourism industry and to bring

economic benefits for rural communities through:

• Creating new rural tourism services and activities and improving existing ones;

• Promoting rural tourism on the local, regional and national levels;

• Establishing linkages among the rural tourism value chain stakeholders.

Measuring the economic impact of rural tourism development projects is important for a variety

of reasons. Tourism development in rural areas as a complementary activity creates synergies

with the conventional economic sectors (farming, food processing, small industries and services,

and handicrafts) and contributes to balanced and sustainable rural economic development.

Therefore, the objective of this report is to analyze the economic impact of rural tourism projects

implemented by LIVCD in the last five years and to demonstrate how the success of such projects

may be translated into decisions, actions, and new investments that are favorable to adopt and

implement long term rural tourism strategies and policies.

The report is divided into three main parts:

• Part I: a methodology that explains the general approach adopted to conduct the study and

the different tools and methods used.

11

• Part II: a general overview about rural tourism, its evolution and economic importance for

Lebanon, and a description of the market dynamics.

• Part III: the economic impact analysis of LIVCD projects presented on the local, regional

and national levels, followed by perspectives and recommendations for the future of the

sector.

12

Part I: Methodology

I.1. General approach

Assessing the economic impact of tourism is a complex process involving a variety of methods,

ranging from pure guesswork to complex economic and mathematical models necessitating the

existence of accurate statistics and consistent tourism accounts and other related economic

indicators for a long period of time. One of Lebanon’s tourism industry weaknesses, especially

when it comes to rural tourism services and activities, is its incapability to provide such data

needed to conduct in depth economic impact studies.

The absence of detailed national tourism accounts makes the estimation of the share of rural

tourism in the total tourism sector in Lebanon impossible. Despite the significant development

of rural tourism in the last decade, this value chain still needs more integration among its

stakeholders who should operate in a professional and business oriented manner, in order to be

able to measure the economic impact of their activities in its different aspects: employment,

income generation, tax revenues, contribution to the economy, and many other economic

indicators.

Consequently, the methodological approach adopted to conduct this study took into

consideration the challenging environment of the rural tourism value chain in Lebanon in terms

of data availability and accessibility as a limiting factor to elaborate a detailed economic study.

Thus, the report reveals the contribution of the LIVCD rural tourism projects to the economic

development of the targeted regions, but it could not determine their economic impact and

contribution to the general tourism industry and economy, especially with the absence of baseline

studies regarding this matter. Instead, to compensate for this, national rural tourism trends driven

by the LIVCD program and other initiatives are evaluated and presented to show the importance

of this sector for the national economy and its future perspectives.

13

I.2. Data collection and analytical framework

The field work and data collection to assess the economic impact of LIVCD projects was carried

out between July and August 2017 through two main tools:

• One to one meetings and interviews with the LIVCD main partners covering 25 projects (Annex.1. List

of interviewed stakeholders). A semi structured questionnaire designed in a form of a checklist containing all

the necessary economic indicators related to rural tourism development was used during the interviews

(Annex.2. Field visit checklist).

• Survey targeting tour organizers in rural areas dealing mainly with hiking and nature sports trips. An

email and short questionnaire were sent to 50 identified tour organizers (Annex.3. Email sent to Tour

Organizers, Annex. 4. Tour organizers survey questionnaire, and Annex.5. List of identified tour organizers).

The response rate of this survey was 40%.

Based on the field observations and the review of some existing secondary information, two main

analytical frameworks were used to measure and assess the economic impact of LIVCD projects

for the last five years2:

I.2.1. The direct economic impact

The direct economic analysis determines and quantifies the changes associated to the projects

executed by LIVCD in each target area (village or cluster level). To each category of change, one

or many indicators were attributed, and an economic value was given to each indicator. Data

collection for the indicators and for the calculation of the economic impact depended from the

capability of the project partners and beneficiaries to provide accurate and consistent figures and

numbers. (Table.1)

2 It was not always possible to do the economic evaluation for a five years’ period since some projects were implemented in the last two years.

14

Table.1. Direct economic impact assessment analytical framework

Category of change Indicator Economic value

Project visitation

(Site or facility)

Number of visitors for sites Income generated from visitation

Accommodation occupancy rate

Employment created Income for employees

Project usage

(Service or activity)

Number of users Income generated from usage

Employment created Income for employees

Village of region visitation

associated to the project

Number of visitors Visitors spending

Visitation patterns (day, weekends, long stays)

Sales of local product related

to the project Volume of sales Value of sales

I.2.2. The indirect economic impact

The indirect economic analysis reveals and estimates indirect economic changes in the rural

tourism value chain leveraged by the LIVCD projects in the target villages. (Table.2)

Table.2. Indirect economic impact assessment analytical framework

Category of change Indicator Economic value

Village or region visitation in general Number of visitors Estimated visitors spending

Opening of new tourism facilities Number and type of facilities Estimated value of investment

Expansion and development of existing

tourism facilities Number and type of facilities Estimated value of investment

Provision of new services and activities Number and type of facilities Estimated value of investment

Public works aiming at improving the sector Number and type of works Value of investment

In addition to the two previous analytical frameworks, general observations on the trends of the

rural tourism value chain were made to assess its economic importance on the national level,

particularly through data collection and analysis related to:

• Rural tour organizers evolution (using the above mentioned survey);

• Evolution of the number of camping sites and adventures parks in rural areas;

• The expanding sector of guesthouses and luxury hotels in rural areas;

• The expanding hiking and cycling activities and related businesses;

• The growing number of festivals organized in rural areas and mountain villages;

• The regional and national promotional campaigns for rural tourism;

• The role of the Ministry of Tourism (MOT) especially its endorsement for the National Rural Tourism Strategy

supported directly by funding from USAID through the LIVCD program, and other related projects and

initiatives.

15

Part II: Rural Tourism in Lebanon

II.1. Rural tourism development: a timeline review

In order to understand the structure of the rural tourism value chain in Lebanon, a chronological

review for the development of this sector and the driving forces behind it is necessary.

The rich cultural and natural heritage of Lebanon’s rural areas and the distinguished hospitality of

their local communities, constitute the main asset for the development of different rural tourism

forms including: ecotourism, nature-based, adventure and sports, community-based, experiential,

cultural, and religious tourism.

The emergence of such types of tourism in Lebanon dates back to the mid and late nineties,

specifically between 1995 and 1998 with the creation of four tour-operators specialized in nature-

based and adventure tourism activities, namely: hiking, trekking, climbing, caving, and rafting. At

that time, the introduction of the sustainable rural tourism concept was limited to few experts

and tourism operators who are considered now as the pioneers of the sector. The market was

limited to few foreigners and local travelers. As for the conventional rural tourism market,

Lebanon was known for key destinations and villages3 attracting mainly summer and winter

vacationers from Lebanon and the gulf countries. Rural accommodation services consisted mostly

of conventional hotels, mountain resorts, and furnished apartments. Thus, the visitation of rural

areas was strongly characterized by its seasonality and concentration in certain hubs known

historically for their beautiful landscape and mild climate in Summer and snow sports in Winter.

From 1997 to 2006 the rural tourism sector in Lebanon witnessed an important but slow

evolution, especially with the designation of the first nature reserves of Lebanon where the

3 These main villages were concentrated in two main hubs of Mount Lebanon: Aley, Bhamdoun, Saoufar, Hammana, Falougha, Mtain, Mrouj, Baskinta (the Aley, Baabda, Maten hub for summer vacations); and Faytroun, Mayrouba, Faraya, Kfardebiane (the Kesrwoune hub for winter vacations).

16

concept of ecotourism was introduced (Annex.6. List of nature reserves and designation year).

During this period, the number of rural tour organizers increased to seven. The number of one-

day hiking excursions for the domestic market increased and packaged tours (5 to 8 days) for the

international market were organized. Between 2005 and 2008, a rural development program

funded by USAID “Expanding Economic Opportunities in Lebanon” targeted mainly the tourism

sector. Its main objective was to promote village-based tourism and cluster destinations, and shed

the light on hidden attractions of rural areas. The project produced a complete set of guidebooks

and brochures covering the whole country and supported the installation of a touristic signage

network.

With the development of this niche market, more rural tourism facilities and lodgings (inns, youth

hostels, non-formal guesthouses, and camping sites) were created mainly in the villages bordering

the nature reserves and other mountain destinations such as in Kfardebiane, Maasser el Shouf,

Barouk, Khraibe, Douma, Ehden, and Afqa. These facilities were mainly created by private

initiatives and some of them benefited from external funding such as the Al Jord project in the

highlands of Hermel/Dannieh and the first mountain sports and an adventure park in Lebanon “La

Reserve Afqa”.

Between 2006 and 2008 many rural tourism development projects were implemented in Lebanon,

especially as response to the July 2006 war, to support local economies through the improvement

of the agricultural sector and rural tourism. Among these projects, two major rural tourism

development programs were implemented with funding from USAID: Lebanon Mountain Trail

and DHIAFEE Network. These projects influenced the rural tourism sector by introducing the

general Lebanese public to new forms of responsible rural tourism, specifically in terms of

accommodation services in guesthouses and nature-based activities represented mainly by hiking.

By 2010, the number of nature-based activities organizers increased to fifteen, and hiking became

more popular among the Lebanese community. The guesthouses sector also became more

organized with the support of the Ministry of Tourism. In 2011, a decree organizing guesthouses

activities was issued.

17

Lebanon Mountain Trail

The LMT is the first long distance hiking trail in Lebanon extending over a 470 km path. It crosses 75 towns and

villages from Andqet in Akkar, north of Lebanon, to Marjaayoun, in the south, at altitudes ranging from 600 to 2,000

meters above sea level, in addition to one Heritage Site, two Biosphere Reserves, and four Protected Areas. The

trail was conceived and developed in a way to showcase the natural beauty and cultural wealth of Lebanon’s

mountains and rural areas, and to demonstrate the determination of the local communities to conserve this unique

heritage. During the project implementation, and for the first time in Lebanon, 11 guesthouses were partially

renovated and their owners were trained on the basics of hospitality services. Within its mandate to improve

economic opportunities in rural areas through responsible forms of tourism, the Lebanon Mountain Trail

Association4 (LMTA) is continuously supporting the development of new guesthouses on the trail by upgrading the

existing one.

DHIAFEE Network

The DHIAFEE Network was conceived by ANERA in 2005 in recognition of the outstanding potential for tourism

to contribute to the economic development of rural communities throughout Lebanon. The main goal of the

DHIAFEE was to increase economic opportunities in rural communities by stimulating sustainable income and

employment in the tourism sector, more specifically in the accommodation services. The program established

a network of 44 alternative tourism lodging facilities and classified them in seven categories as following: 17

Guesthouses (including all the LMT guesthouses); 7 Small hotels; 7 Inn/Auberges; 6 Youth hostels; 4 Religious

lodgings; 2 Eco-lodges; and 1 Camping site.

Despite the unstable political and security situation in the country and the decreasing number of

international tourist arrivals between 2011 and 2016, rural tourism activities and accommodation

services maintained their growth.

New camping sites, guesthouses and boutique hotels were created in rural areas5. Their

geographical distribution covers now the whole Lebanese territory. A number of municipalities,

local NGOs, and individual initiatives, rehabilitated the cultural and natural heritage sites with the

aim of transforming them into touristic attractions (using private funds or external donations).

4 After the completion of the LMT project in 2008, the LMTA was established in order to ensure the sustainability and to work on the development, maintenance, and protection of the LMT on the long term. 5 The Eco-Lebanon guide published in 2013 under the patronage of the MoT identified more than 100 alternative lodging facilities spread all over the Lebanese territory.

http://www.dhiafeeprogram.org/en/home.html

18

New hiking trails were created in many villages, and nature reserves became more involved in

rural tourism and ecotourism development. Examples of these initiatives are found in:

• The villages surrounding the Shouf Biosphere Reserve (Shouf district);

• The villages surrounding Jabal Moussa Biosphere Reserve (Kesrouane district);

• The villages of Chahtoul, Kfour, Kfardebiane, and Klayaat (Kesrouane district);

• The villages of Bekfaya, Khinchara, Mtein, and Mrouj (Maten disctrict);

• The villages of the Union of Jezzine Municipalities (Jezzine district);

• The villages of Arsoun, Qornayel, Hammana, and Falougha (Baabda district).

As for the rural tour organizers6, their number increased to 28 in 2014, and 50 in 2017. They

diversified their activities; hence hiking remained the star product of the sector. Moreover, in

addition to village-based and regional projects implemented with the support of international

donors and in certain cases from private investments, a National Rural Tourism Strategy have

been developed by Beyond Beirut Association (BBA)7 with support from the LIVCD project

funded by USAID. The strategy launched in 2014 aims to enhance rural tourism, unlock the great

economic potential of this sector, and find alternative and complementary sources of income

generation for rural communities.

II.2. Rural tourism and the economy: a promising sector

The previous timeline review about the evolution of rural tourism in Lebanon demonstrates the

importance of this sector for the economy in general, and rural areas particularly. However,

estimating the contribution of rural tourism to local economic development and growth, as well

as its share of the general Lebanese tourism market, has been ignored by tourism professionals

6 An analytical review about rural tour organizers and their activities will be done in Part III of the study. 7 Beyond Beirut is a Lebanese association with a mission to encourage the development of experiential tourism beyond the city limits of Beirut, by creating a tourism industry platform for cooperation and market growth.

19

and economists due to the lack of reliable data and difficult access to information. This section of

the report highlights the economic realities of rural areas and tourism based on secondary data.

II.2.1. The rural economy structure

After the end of the Lebanese war in 1990, the economy continued to be characterized by many

imbalances. Most of the economists and development experts agree that the governmental post-

war reconstruction and development strategies did not succeed to reduce the social and

economic disparities between urban and rural areas.

Consequently, economic growth and wealth are highly concentrated in Beirut and its

surroundings; while rural areas suffer from the decline of agricultural activities and from high

levels of poverty and unemployment, especially in remote village of Akkar, South Lebanon, and

the Beqaa. This situation led to an increasing rate of rural exodus driven by the search of the

youth for better economic opportunities in urban areas8. While agriculture is still the major

income-generating activity for many areas in Lebanon, an important number of rural families

generate a considerable amount of their household income from other economic activities

related to the services sector, including tourism. However, national economic accounts do not

provide accurate data and figures on the contribution of rural tourism to income and employment

on the national and local level.

In the last decade, agriculture contributed to only 5% of the national GDP on yearly average.

Despite this limited contribution, the sector provides the major source of income and

employment for around 30% of the working population, particularly in rural regions such as the

Beqaa valley and the South where it contributes to 80% of the local GDP9. Consequently, the

other economic activities of these profound rural areas, constituted by trade, services, public

employment and small industries constitute the remaining 20%. The opposite applies to most of

Mount Lebanon, where agriculture contributes only 20 to 30% of the local economy; while the

8 According to the World Bank, the rural population in Lebanon represented 27.5% of the total population in 1980; it decreased to only 12.7% by 2011 (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.RUR.TOTL) 9 World Bank. (2006) ‘Lebanon at a Glance’ (http://devdata.worldbank.org/AAG/lbn_aag.pdf)

20

other economic sectors (including all forms of tourism in rural areas) have the biggest share of

the local economy (70%).

The difference between profound rural areas, relying mainly on farming, and areas characterized

by lower level of rurality, relying mainly on services, are:

• The geographic location of Mount Lebanon, where rural communities have better access to jobs in urban areas

and can live in their villages on a permanent basis while they go to Beirut and its suburbs and come back to

their villages on daily basis; which is not possible in Akkar and South Lebanon.

• The social and economic structure of local communities is positively influenced by the level of education which

is higher in Mount Lebanon than all other rural areas.

II.2.2. Tourism in the economy

The contribution of tourism to the development of local economies has been proved in many

countries. It can be a major source of income generation and employment; thus it contributes to

poverty alleviation in marginalized rural communities.

a. Contribution to the GDP

In Lebanon, the tourism industry is a significant contributor to the Lebanese economy. The World

Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) indicates that the direct contribution of tourism to the

Lebanese GDP reached a peak of 14.4% in 200310, while the indirect contribution11 was estimated

at 34.4%. Between 2003 and 2016, the tourism direct and indirect contribution to the national

GDP decreased on average by 48% and 56% respectively to record their lowest level in 2013

with 6.9% and 19.2%. The WTTC forecasts for the year 2027 are slightly optimistic, with 8.8%

estimation for the direct contribution and 24.3% for the indirect contribution. (Figure.1)

10 Based on the “Methods of calculation by the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC), Definition of Tourism GDP, Tourism Satellite Account: Recommended Methodological Framework (TSA: RMF 2008)”, this figure takes into account the activities of hotels, restaurant and leisure services directly receiving income from tourists, in addition to travel agents, airlines and other transportation services. 11 The indirect contribution of tourism to the macro economy is much higher than the direct contribution to the GDP since it takes into consideration other services linked to tourism activity such as purchases and procurement conducted by tourism businesses (construction, grocery suppliers, equipment suppliers, etc.)

21

Figure.1. Contribution of tourism to the GDP and to Employment in Lebanon

Source: (WTTC)

b. Contribution to employment

The WTTC indicates that in the last two decades the highest level of tourism contribution to

employment was recorder in 2003 with 13.6% (direct) and 32.5% (indirect). It reached its lowest

level in 2013 with 6.6% (direct) and 18.4% (indirect). Forecasts for the coming ten years are also

optimistic, with estimations for the direct contribution to reach about 9.1% and 24.4% for the

indirect contribution by 2027 (Cf. Figure.1).

The study conducted by the LIVCD project on the rural tourism value chain in 2014 estimated

that tourism outside of Beirut employed around 22,295 workers12. (Table.3)

Table.3. Tourism businesses and number of employees in Lebanon

Category Number of businesses Estimated number of employees

Airline agencies 39 400

Travel and ticketing agencies 510 2,570

Rural and eco-tour operators 35 200

12 Many of these positions are seasonal and part-time, but there are no accounts on this matter.

14.4

10.6 10.6

6.9 78.8

34.4

26.227.9

19.2 19.4

24.4

13.6

10 9.5

6.6 6.99.1

32.5

24.6 25.3

18.4 18.8

24.4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2003 2007 2010 2013 2016 2027

Tourism direct and indirect contribution to GPD and Employment (in %)

Direct contribution to GDP Indirect contribution to GDP

Direct contribution to employment Idirect contribution to employment

22

Transportation (taxi, car rental, buses) 300 1,700

Dining

Mount Lebanon 564

7,000 Beqaa 60

North 150

South 63

Attractions

UNESCO world heritage site 5

950

Archeological sites 50

Protected areas 14

National monuments 15

Museums 60

Hotels

Mount Lebanon 260

5,000 Beqaa 23

North 62

South 26

Alternative lodging

Furnished apartments 138

1,000

Monasteries 60

Guesthouses 30

Camping 8

Youth Hostels 10

Other 20

Agri-tourism

Wineries 60

2,000 Food processing units 50

Conventional farms 10

Organic farms 10

Crafts 1,000

Adventure parks 6 100

Resorts 25 375

Total 22,295

Source: (LIVCD Tourism Value Chain Assessment report)

The “outside of Beirut” classification does not reflect the reality of rural tourism, since many

business categories do not deal directly with rural tourism, or have mixed activities of

conventional tourism and rural tourism forms. Moreover, it worth mentioning that many areas

in Mount Lebanon (even some mountain villages) lost their rural character.

c. Tourism investment

According to the WTTC, Travel & Tourism investment in 2016 was accounted at 1.2 Billion $

and constituted 10.4% of total investments. It is estimated to rise by 4.2% in 2017, and reach 2.3

Billion $ in 2027, constituting 13.7% of total investments in Lebanon. In the case of rural tourism,

three categories of investments are identified:

• Direct investments in services and activities mainly by the private sector and donors’ funding. They include all

types of accommodation, restaurants, tourism facilities such as adventure parks, nature reserves infrastructure

and management, and trails development.

23

• Direct investments by the public sector to improve rural tourism.

• Indirect investments by governmental institutions and some municipalities in the general infrastructure of rural

area (roads, energy, water…), and that help in improvement accessibility to villages and better living conditions.

II.2.3. Rural tourism and local development

The significance of the tourism sector in general to the Lebanese economy and the great potential

of rural tourism to contribute to local economic development as a complementary activity to

farming, prompted many donors, municipalities, NGOs, and governmental institutions to

integrate this sector in their programs and initiate many rural tourism development projects all

over Lebanon.

Rural tourism provides employment and income to rural areas in different direct and indirect

forms:

• Accommodation: conventional hotels, guesthouses, youth hostels, camping areas;

• Food and beverage establishments (restaurants and snacks) and catering services;

• Touristic sites located in rural areas including archaeological sites, museums, nature reserves, and adventure

parks provide employment for guides and guards at visitor centers and souvenir shops;

• In areas that offer summer and winter sports there is employment for sports equipment suppliers;

• Indirect employment effect for grocery stores, food processors, and transportation;

• In the productive sector, craftsmen such as pottery makers and other handicrafts makers, and farmers with

wine-making units or fruit-picking offerings, gain income from tourism through direct sales to visitors or indirect

sales to accommodation and food and beverage facilities;

• Engineers, construction workers, and small industry suppliers such as carpenters and smiths can also provide

their services and products for soft infrastructure installation and maintenance in touristic sites,

accommodation facilities, restaurants, and nature reserves.

On another level, rural tourism provides an opportunity to preserve the natural resource base

and cultural heritage of rural areas. Agriculture, forestry, and unique scenery occupy large areas

of land and represent-along with the villages themselves- the main asset which serves as the

foundation for the development of rural tourism attractions. Rural tourism can provide the

incentive necessary to add value to these resources and to provide an economic return in a

sustainable way that will induce their preservation for generations to come.

24

In this context, donors’ interventions in rural tourism development in Lebanon have brought

visible benefits to the local communities. However, it is impossible to measure the economic

impact of the last decade interventions due to two main factors:

• The lack of follow-up in the post-projects period. Monitoring and evaluation of rural tourism development

projects is limited to the execution period and usually concerns the direct beneficiaries. In most of the cases,

it is not done in an integrated way combing the different sectors of the local economy affected by tourism, and

does not take into consideration the long term impacts.

• The inability of local authorities (municipalities) and tourism stakeholders to capture accurate data based on

scientific economic indicators. This is partly related to the lack of qualified employees who can undertake this

task.

II.3. Rural tourism: market dynamics

In the last five years, despite the unstable political and security situation in Lebanon, the rural

tourism share of the general tourism market has witnessed an increase, especially on the level of

domestic tourism13. Still, there are almost no studies and official statistics about this market

segment, due to the absence of national tourism accounts and to the lack of data collection and

monitoring of rural tourism projects, services, and activities in a consistent and professional way.

In 2016 the MOT estimated the number of international tourists’ arrivals at 1.7 Million, with a

30% increase compared to 2013. With the absence of accurate and detailed tourism accounts,

especially for rural tourism, it is very difficult to estimate the number of international and

domestic tourists visiting rural areas and to have valuable market information to be used in the

tourism planning process, especially in the field of marketing and tourism economic impact

assessments. Based on field observations and estimations, tourism professionals and experts

considered that in 2016, at least 15% of the international tourists (equivalent to around 250,000

persons) visited rural areas to practice a wide variety of activities related to ecotourism, nature-

based tourism, adventure and sport tourism, cultural tourism, agro-tourism and culinary tourism,

13 Studies showed that domestic tourism has the ability to stabilize the economy of a destination and is dependable in term of economic revenues in case of instability, where most the income generated from visitors stays within the local economy.

25

wine tourism, and religious tourism. As for the domestic travelers, their number is estimated at

800,000 based on the market observation and the estimations provided by some stakeholders

involved in this sector such as nature reserves and protected areas, municipalities, nature tour

operators and rural tour organizers, and accommodation facilities. Therefore, a total of 1,050,000

tourists visited rural areas in 2016, with a 23.5% increase compared to 2014 with 850,000 visitors.

In terms of origin, 76% of the rural areas visitors are from the domestic market and 24% are

international tourists.

Table.4 presents the different rural tourism types and an estimation of visitors’ number per type

for the year 2016. These figures will be used in part III to estimate the income generate by the

visitation of these tourists to rural areas.

Table.4. Lebanese rural tourism market segments and visitors; estimation for 2016

Tourism type Destination Activities Visitors/group type # of

persons

Nature-based tourism Ecotourism

Nature reserves Protected areas Villages Remote areas

Hiking Sightseeing • Organized groups (15 to

50 persons/group)

• Non-organized groups (5 to 15 persons/group)

• Family groups (4 to 12 persons/group)

• Individuals and backpackers (2 to 4 persons)

175,000

Nature-based tourism Adventure and sport tourism (excluding skiing)

Natural sites Remote areas Villages

Hiking, caving, rope games, ATVs, biking, etc.

125,000

Agri-tourism and culinary tourism

Major farms Wineries

Wine tasting Harvesting activities Purchase of local products

75,000

Religious tourism Villages with religious attractions

Sightseeing Participation in special festivities

• Organized groups with conventional tour operators and associations (30 to 100 persons/group)

• Non-organized groups (5 to 15 persons/group)

• Family groups (4 to 12 persons/group)

350,000

Cultural tourism Villages and cultural attraction

Local festivals Sightseeing Touring

275,000

Educational tourism

Nature reserves Protected areas Villages

Sightseeing Educational activities

• Schools

• Universities 50,000

Source: (Author estimations based on field observations and interviews)

27

Part III: Economic Analysis of LIVCD

projects

III.1. LIVCD rural tourism projects

This part of the report presents the main characteristics of the 27 rural tourism projects

implemented by LIVCD between 2013 and mid-2017 with a total budget of 2.8 Million $ (1.93

Million $ committed by LIVCD and 0.87 Million $ as contribution from the projects’ partners).

The identification and design of the projects was done following a participatory approach and

after the consultation of relevant stakeholders and potential partners and beneficiaries from the

public and private sectors. The projects covered all the phases of the rural tourism value chain

and targeted mainly municipalities, NGOs, small and medium businesses, individuals, tourism

operators, rural cooperatives, and nature reserves. Their general aim was to upgrade the rural

tourism industry and to bring economic benefits for rural communities through:

• Creating new rural tourism services and activities and upgrading existing ones;

• Promoting rural tourism on the local, regional and national levels;

• Establishing linkages among the rural tourism value chain stakeholders.

On the regional level, 14 projects focused on specific villages, 9 projects targeted clusters of

villages and nature reserves’ surroundings, and 4 projects were implemented on the national level

(Table.5). As for the governorates and districts (Table.6):

• Mount Lebanon benefited from 12 out of the 27 projects and received 34.1% of the total funds (Jbeil 14%,

Kesrouane 9.4%, Shouf 7.5% and the remaining 3.2% for Aley, Baabda, and Maten);

• South Lebanon (mainly Jezzine) benefited from 4 projects and 11.4% of the funds;

• North Lebanon benefited from 5 projects (2 in Bcharreh and 3 in Batroun) and 10.7% of the funds;

• The Beqaa valley 4 projects in West Beqaa, Zahle, and Rachaya, constituting 6.3% of the funds;

• Only one project was implemented in Akkar with 0.1% of the total funds.

28

Table.5. Regional distribution of the LIVCD rural tourism projects

Level Number of projects Budget allocated ($) % of total budget

Village 14 818,432 29.2%

Cluster of villages 9 937,885 33.5%

National 4 1,046,293 37.3%

Total 27 2,802,610 100%

Table.6. Distribution of the LIVCD rural tourism projects per districts

Governorate District # of Projects Budget allocated ($) % of budget % of budget

Akkar Akkar 1 4,000 0.1% 0.1%

North Bcharreh 2 115,325 4.1%

10.7% Batroun 3 184,172 6.6%

Mount Lebanon

Jbeil 3 392,683 14.0%

34.1%

Kesrouane 2 263,529 9.4%

Maten 1 6,000 0.2%

Baabda 1 4,500 0.2%

Aley 3 79,696 2.8%

Shouf 2 210,032 7.5%

South

Saida 1 5,000 0.2%

11.4% Jezzine 2 305,499 10.9%

Hasbaya 1 8,800 0.3%

Beqaa

Zahle 1 136,115 4.9%

6.3% West Beqaa 1 36,966 1.3%

Rachaya 2 4,000 0.1%

National National 4 1,046,293 37.3% 37.3%

Total 2,802,610 100% 100%

The type of interventions funded by the 27 projects could be divided into six categories:

• Equipment and soft infrastructure used for tourism facilities and activities;

• Technical support from experts and consultants to conduct coaching sessions and elaborate rural tourism

strategies as well as other activities related to products and packages development;

• Training and management for key stakeholders working in the provision of rural tourism services and activities

aiming at improving their management skills and quality of services;

• Marketing and promotion of rural tourism services and activities related to the projects themselves, to the

targeted areas, and on the national level;

• Personnel of the projects including project coordinator and field workers;

• Overheads including transportation, communication, office supplies, etc.

29

As shown in Figure.2 and according to the data provided by LIVCD, the marketing component

has the highest share of the total finds allocated for the rural tourism value chain (34%), followed

by equipment and soft infrastructure (27%), project personnel (15%), training and management

(10%), technical support (10%), and overheads 4%.

Figure.2. LIVCD rural tourism projects budget distribution per component

These figures show the importance given to the marketing component (34% of the total budget),

especially on the national level with the four editions of Travel Lebanon14 exhibition held between

2014 and 2017 with the support of LIVCD and USAID and which received alone 17% of the total

budget. Equipment and soft infrastructure.

Training and technical support received equally 10%, a modest amount of the total budget

considering the importance of the management component that is needed for the success and

sustainability of the implemented projects after their implementation. These two components

affect many factors contributing to the realization of positive economic impact, and which are:

• Long term strategic planning;

• Quality management;

• Human resources management;

• Financial management; and most importantly

14 This intervention will be analyzed in section III.4.3.

Equipment aqnd soft infrastructure

27%

Technical support

10%

Training and management

10%

Marketing34%

Personnel15%

Overheads4%

30

• The ability to monitor tourism activities and services and to provide accurate data and statistics that could be

used in the measurement of key performance indicators and planning for the sector development on the local,

regional, and national levels.

III.2. Economic impact analysis on the village level

The economic impact on the local level is analyzed for each village where one or many projects

were implemented by LIVCD. It is done based on the analytical frameworks developed in Section

I.2 (page.12) to assess the direct and indirect economic impact. The 14 projects implemented in

specific villages were distributed as follows:

• 7 projects implemented activities to develop different aspects of the rural tourism value chain in the target

villages with focus on services development, soft infrastructure, equipment provision, product development,

management, and marketing. Two among the seven projects were not assessed in this study because the project

partner and beneficiaries were not able to provide any data based on which economic indicators could be

measured.

• 7 projects consisted of elaborating a rural tourism strategy for the concerned village. In this case, the economic

impact assessment took into consideration the value of money invested to develop the actions recommended

in the strategy of each village.

The data and figures used for the assessment were provided by the projects’ partners and

beneficiaries during the field visits. The analysis presentation is not identical for all projects, since

in many cases the partners and beneficiaries could not provide a data baseline to compare with

the actual information about rural tourism. Moreover, some provided data and information were

incomplete and did not cover the whole period of the assessment. The reasons behind this lack

of information are:

• The lack of management systems and procedures, and in some cases of professional staff, which give the rural

tourism operators and local authorities the capacity to provide accurate and consistent data;

• The lack of interest and little awareness of the rural tourism operators and municipalities about the importance

of data collection for the purpose of monitoring and economic evaluation on the medium and long term;

• The reticence of some tourism operators to provide the available data especially when it comes to financial

figures.

31

After calculating the direct, indirect, and total economic impact generated in each village by the

LIVCD project, the cost benefit ratio is measured:

𝑬𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒐𝒎𝒊𝒄 𝒊𝒎𝒑𝒂𝒄𝒕 𝒗𝒂𝒍𝒖𝒆 ÷ 𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒋𝒆𝒄𝒕 𝒃𝒖𝒅𝒈𝒆𝒕

When the ratio is higher than 1, this means that the investment is efficient and rewarding.

III.2.1. Ehmej village (Jbeil district)

The village of Ehmej located in Jbeil district at 57 km from Beirut benefited from two projects

implemented in partnership with Ehmej Development Association and the Municipality of Ehmej.

(Table.7)

Table.7. LIVCD rural tourism project sheet – Ehmej

Project name Promoting and Increasing Competitiveness of Rural Tourism in Ehmej

Upgrading the Ehmej Park Facilities

Start/End date 2015-2016

Partners Ehmej Development Association and Municipality of Ehmej (Local Development Office)

Objective Target new markets and reduce rural tourism seasonality and increase accommodation

capacity and other services and activities offered in Arz Ehmej

Activities

Winter restaurant rehabilitation and equipment and kitchen equipment Installation of wood bungalows and Installation of a water treatment plant

Creation of trails and linking link the Lebanon Mountain Trail to Ehmej Training of local guides, managers and staff of Arz Ehmej

Creation of winter tourism packages Flyers and website upgrading

Beneficiaries 20 Local MSMEs, 15 local youth guides, 20 national rural tourism actors, 10 local restaurants

Value chain node Services provision, Product development, Marketing

LIVCD contribution ($) 160,670

Partner contribution ($) 80,305

Total budget ($) 240,975

The important components of the projects implemented in Ehmej were the upgrading of the

existing facilities in Arz Ehmej Park, the creation of new attractions and trails for nature tourism

lovers, and the training of the local community on quality management. The evolution of the rural

tourism sector in Ehmej is not related exclusively to the LIVCD projects since the village has

other tourism attractions and services, namely the ski resort and new real estate development

projects in Laklouk area. The following tables present the main indictors showing the evolution

of rural tourism in Ehmej and their economic impact. The highlighted economic indicators are

directly related to the LIVCD projects. (Table.8 and Table.9)

32

Table.8. Rural tourism indicators for Ehmej

Indicator Year

2013 2014 2015 2016 Income of Arz Ehmej restaurant 25,000 $ 60,000 $ 125,000 $

Increase of Arz Ehmej restaurant income 35,000 $ 65,000 $

Estimated income of Arz Ehmej activities 12,000 $ 13,000 $ 18,000 $ 28,000 $

Increase in Arz Ehmej activities income 1,000 $ 7,000 $ 10,000 $

Estimated income of Arz Ehmej accommodation 5,000 $ 9,000 $ 31,000 $

Increase in Arz Ehmej accommodation income 4,000 $ 22,000 $

Estimated investment value for new tourism facilities, services, activities, sports shops equipment upgrading and public infrastructure15

380,000 $

Increase in tourism employment (permanent and seasonal) in Arz Ehmej and related activities such as hiking (number of persons employed)

20 50

Estimated income generated by tourism in Arz Ehmej and annex facilities and activities based on average salary of 500$ per month

120,000 $ 300,000 $

Estimated increase in income generated by tourism employment 180,000 $

Number of rural tourism trips organized in Ehmej village by tour operators 11 16 22

Estimated total income generated by rural tourism trips based on an average number of 25 participants per trip and a cost of 35$ per person

9,625 $ 14,000 $ 19,250 $

Increase in total income generated by rural tourism trips 4,375 $ 5,250 $

Income generated by local community from Ehmej festival (as provided by the Local development office)

95,500 $ 118,500 $ 171,250 $ 175,250 $

Increase in income generated by Ehmej festival 23,500 $ 52,750 $ 4,000 $

Total number of visitors to Ehmej village (excluding the Laklouk ski resort users)

6,000 8,000 12,000

Value of tourists’ spending in Ehmej (excluding accommodation and activities calculated above) based on an average of 15 $ per tourists and day

90,000 $ 120,000 $ 180,000 $

Increase in the value of tourists’ spending 30,000 $ 60,000 $

Source: (Ehmej Local Development office and Author)

Table.9. Total economic impact attributed to the LIVCD projects in Ehmej Economic impact 2015 2016 Direct LIVCD project impact 46,000 $ 277,000 $

Increase in Arz Ehmej restaurant income 35,000 $ 65,000 $

Increase in Arz Ehmej activities income 7,000 $ 10,000 $

Increase in Arz Ehmej accommodation income 4,000 $ 22,000 $

Increase in income generated by tourism employment in Arz Ehmej - 180,000 $

Indirect LIVCD project impact 87,125 $ 69,250 $

Increase in total income generated by rural and nature tourism trips 4,375 $ 5,250 $

Increase in income generated by Ehmej festival* 52,750 $ 4,000 $

Increase in the value of tourists’ spending 30,000 $ 60,000 $ Induced investments 380,000 $

Total Economic Impact 859,375 $

Based on the figures presented in Table.9

➢ Direct impact cost-benefit ratio 323,000÷ 240,975 = 1.3

For every 1 $ spent by LIVCD in Ehmej 1.3 $ are generated in a direct way

➢ Direct and indirect impact cost-benefit ratio 479,375÷ 240,975 = 2

For every 1 $ spent by LIVCD 2 $ are generated in direct and indirect way

➢ Total economic impact cost-benefit ratio 859,375÷ 240,975 = 3.6

For every 1 $ spent by LIVCD 3.6 $ are generated in total

15 Mainly in an agro-tourism farm providing educational tourism activities for schools and families and in the Arz Ehmej park and other tourism services (all the winter sports equipment shops bought new equipment in 2015 and 2016), and infrastructure in the village done by the municipality and that serves the tourism sector.

33

III.2.2. Domaine de Taanayel (Zahle district)

In 2009 the Domaine de Taanayel16 signed a long term partnership with the Lebanese community-

based organization “arcenciel” aiming at developing the farm agricultural production and

introducing new innovative and sustainable farming practices. The introduction of rural and agro-

tourism activities17 to the farm is one of the main pillars of arcenciel strategy. The LIVCD

supported arcenciel in developing new activities in the farm to diversify the tourism offer and

target new market segments (Table.10). The evolution of rural tourism in Domaine de Taanayel

is not related exclusively to the LIVCD project; arcenciel has implemented since 2009 many

tourism development projects and was able to increase the number of visitors from 36,000

persons in 2009 to 117,000 persons in 2016. The project in Domaine de Taanayel was finalized

in August 2017, thus it is impossible to measure its economic impact in a direct and indirect way.

Table.10. LIVCD rural tourism project sheet – Domaine de Taanayel

Project name Increasing competitiveness of arcenciel rural tourism facilities in Taanayel


Partners arcenciel

Objective Foster rural tourism in the Beqaa region through innovative ecotourism activities by

encouraging healthy and sustainable behaviors respectful of the environment

Activities Installation of a modern zip-line in Domaine de Taanayel

Installation of a signage system in the Domaine Creation of an educational farm

Beneficiaries 10 direct jobs opportunities and 100,000 visitors of the Domaine

Value chain node Service provision, Product development




Table.11. and Table.12 present the main indictors showing the evolution of rural tourism in

Domaine de Taanayel in the last three years with projection for the year 2017. The highlighted

economic indicators are directly related to the LIVCD project.

16 Domaine de Taanayel is one of the oldest and biggest agricultural farms of the Beqaa valley founded in 1857, it extends over 250 hectares with a wide variety of crops, irrigation canals, lakes, and cows’ farm, and dairy products processing unit. 17 The activities offered in Domaine de Taanayel are hiking, biking, horse riding, carriage rides, educational farm visit, mud-bricks workshops, team building. The dairy unit provides breakfast services and a point of sale for local products of the region.

34

Table.11. Rural tourism indicators for Domaine de Taanayel

Indicator Year

2014 2015 2016 2017* Estimated number of visitors to Domaine de Taanayel 100,000 90,000 117,000 140,000

Estimated income from the Domaine visits with, free entrance in 2014; 1.3 $ fee per person for 2015 and 2016; 2 $ in 2017

117,000 $ 152,100 $ 280,000 $

Increase in income from the Domaine visits 35,100 $ 127,900 $

Estimated income from breakfast services in Domaine de Taanayel based on 40% of visitors who have breakfast and an average spending of 4$ per persons

160,000 $ 144,000 $ 187,200 $ 224,000 $

Increase in income from breakfast services in Domaine de Taanayel -16,000 $ 43,200 $ 36,800 $

Estimated income from activities in Domaine de Taanayel based on 30% of visitors who practice one or many activities and an average spending of 15 $ per persons

450,000 $ 405,000 $ 526,500 $ 630,000 $

Increase in income from activities in Domaine de Taanayel -45,000 $ 121,500 $ 103,500 $

Estimated income from local products sales in Domaine de Taanayel based on 20% of visitors who buy products and an average spending of 15 $ per persons

300,000 $ 270,000 $ 351,100 $ 420,000 $

Increase in income from local products sales -30,000 $ 81,100 $ 68,900 $

Increase in tourism employment (permanent and seasonal) in Domaine de Taanayel (number of persons employed)

35 40 50 60

Estimated income generated by tourism in Domaine de Taanayel based on average salary of 500$ per month

210,000 $ 240,000 $ 300,000 $ 360,000 $

Estimated increase in income generated by tourism employment 30,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $

Number of rural tourism trips and team building activities organized in Domaine de Taanayel

8 13 15 20

Estimated total income generated by rural tourism trips and team building (in $) based on an average number of 50 participants per event and a cost of 60 $ per person

24,400 $ 39,000 $ 45,000 $ 60,000 $

Increase in total income generated by rural tourism trips 14,600 $ 6,000 $ 15,000 $

Estimated investment value for new tourism facilities, services, activities, infrastructure in Domaine de Taanayel

100,000 $ 200,000 $

Source: (Domaine de Taanayel and Author)

*Projected estimation for the year 2017

Table.12. Total economic impact attributed to the LIVCD project in Domaine de Taanayel

Economic impact 2017

Direct LIVCD project impact 178,500 $ Increase in income from activities in Domaine de Taanayel 103,500 $ Estimated increase in income generated by tourism employment 60,000 $ Increase in total income generated by rural and nature tourism trips 15,000 $

Indirect LIVCD project impact 233,600 $ Increase in income from the Domaine visits 127,900 $ Increase in income from breakfast services in Domaine de Taanayel 36,800 $ Increase in income from local products sales 68,900 $ Induced investments 200,000 $




For every 1 $ spent by LIVCD in Taanayel 1.4 $ are generated in a direct way

➢ Direct and indirect impact cost-benefit ratio 412,100÷ 127,615 = 3.2

For every 1 $ spent by LIVCD 3.2 $ are generated in direct and indirect way

➢ Total economic impact cost-benefit ratio 612,100÷ 127,615 = 4.8

For every 1 $ spent by LIVCD 4.6 $ are generated in total

35

III.2.3. Hadath El Jebbeh village (Bcharreh district)

Hadath El Jebbeh is located in Bcharreh district at 100 km from Beirut benefited from two

projects funded by LIVCD implemented between 2013 and 2015 in partnership with the

Association for the Development of Hadath El Jebbeh and the municipality of Hadath El Jebbeh.

The first project consisted of the elaboration of a rural tourism strategy for the village based on

a participatory approach with the local community. In 2014, an integrated rural tourism

development project for Hadath El Jebbeh was implemented taking into consideration the

objectives of the elaborated strategy. (Table.13)

Table.13. LIVCD rural tourism project sheet – Hadath El Jebbeh village

Project name Elaborating a rural tourism strategy and

Upgrading the rural tourism network in Hadath El-Jebbeh


Partners Association for the Development of Hadath El Jebbeh and

Municipality of Hadath El Jebbeh

Objective Increase the competitiveness of the rural tourism value chain in Hadath El-Jebbeh and the

Qannoubine Valley area through the development of a hiking trails network, and a capacity building program targeting local MSMEs

Activities

Elaborate a rural tourism strategy for the village Establish a network of 6 hiking trails with blazing and signage

Establish a gate facility in the Cedars forest of the village Develop seasonal tourism packages

Train local guides and coaching session for tourism officer Create and equip the tourism office in the village

Upgrade and install a heating system in the Auberge of the village Create map, website, and brochure for promotion and marketing

Beneficiaries 5 MSMEs (small producers, cooperatives, or others), 12 local guides,

in addition to the municipality of Hadath Al-Jebbeh

Value chain node Infrastructure, Service provision, Product development, Management, Marketing




Rural tourism activities were very limited and not well organized in Hadath El Jebbeh before the

elaboration of the strategy and the implementation of the project. The value chain approach

adopted in the development of rural tourism in Hadath El Jebbeh with support from LIVCD made

a great difference for the village, which became in a very short time a prime destination for rural

tourism. Thus, the evolution of the rural tourism sector is strongly related to the LIVCD

intervention. The following tables present the main indictors showing the evolution of rural

tourism in Ehmej and their economic impact. (Table.14 and Table.15)

36

Table.14. Rural tourism indicators for Hadath El Jebbeh

Indicator Year

2013 2014 2015 2016 Estimated number of overnights in Auberge Hadath El Jebbeh 120 480 680 890

Income generated from accommodation in Auberge Hadath El Jebbeh based on 40$ fee per person and per night

4,800 $ 19,200 $ 27,200 $ 35,600 $

Increase in income generated from accommodation in Auberge Hadath El Jebbeh 14,400 $ 8,000 $ 8,400 $

Estimated investment value for new tourism facilities, services, activities, sports shops equipment upgrading and public infrastructure18

3,500,000 $

Tourism employment (mainly seasonal jobs for local guides) in Hadath El Jebbeh (number of persons employed)

1 2 4

Estimated income generated by guides in Hadath El Jebbeh based on 65$ fee per day and an average of 15 guided hikes per year

975 $ 1,950 $ 3,900 $

Increase in income generated by tourism employment 975 $ 975 $ 1,950 $

Number of rural and nature tourism trips organized in Hadath El Jebbeh village by tour operators

4 6 11 20

Estimated total income generated by rural and nature tourism trips (in $) based on an average number of 25 participants per trip and a cost of 35$ per person

3,500 $ 5,250 $ 9,625 $ 17,500 $

Increase in total income generated by rural and nature tourism trips 1,750 $ 4,375 $ 7,875 $

Estimated income generated by local community from Hadath El Jebbeh festival 12,000 $ 15,000 $ 16,000 $ 20,000 $

Increase in income generated by Ehmej festival 3,000 $ 1,000 $ 4,000 $

Total number of visitors to Hadath El Jebbeh 1,000 2,500 3,600 4,500

Value of tourists’ spending in Hadath El Jebbeh (excluding accommodation and guided hikes) based on an average of 15 $ per tourists and day

15,000 $ 37,500 $ 54,000 $ 67,500 $

Increase in the value of tourists’ spending (in $) 22,500 $ 16,500 $ 16,000 $

Source: (Hadath El Jebbeh tourism office and Author)

Table.15. Total economic impact attributed to the LIVCD projects in Hadath El Jebbeh

Economic impact 2014 2015 2016

Direct LIVCD project impact 17,125 $ 13,350 $ 18,225 $ Increase in income generated from accommodation in Auberge Hadath El Jebbeh 14,400 $ 8,000 $ 8,400 $

Increase in income generated by tourism employment 975 $ 975 $ 1,950 $ Increase in total income generated by rural and nature tourism trips 1,750 $ 4,375 $ 7,875 $ Indirect LIVCD project impact 25,500 $ 17,500 $ 20,000 $ Increase in income generated by Ehmej festival 3,000 $ 1,000 $ 4,000 $

Increase in the value of tourists’ spending 22,500 $ 16,500 $ 16,000 $

Induced investments 3,500,000 $

Total Economic Impact 3,611,700 $


➢ Direct impact cost-benefit ratio 48,700 ÷ 112,492 = 0.43

Every 1 $ spent by LIVCD in Hadath El Jebbeh 0.43 $ are generated in a direct way

➢ Direct and indirect impact cost-benefit ratio 111,700 ÷ 112,492 = 0.99

Every 1 $ spent by LIVCD 0.99 $ are generated in direct and indirect way

➢ Total economic impact cost-benefit ratio 3,611,700 ÷ 112,492 = 32.1

Every 1 $ spent by LIVCD 32.1 $ are generated in total

18 Mainly invested by the municipality through funds from the European Union and BALADI program funded by USAID to rehabilitate the village square and create a public garden, as well as other private sector investments in an event venue on the entrance of the cedars’ forest of Hadath El Jebbeh and the upgrade of existing services and creation of new two new snacks.

37

III.2.4. Auberge Beity in Kfardebiane village (Kesrouane district)

Kfardeniane, located in the Kesrouane district at 47 km from Beirut, is more than a simple

mountain village. It is the most famous and visited destination for conventional winter activities

with its ski resort and tourism facilities. Hence, the mainstream tourism market in Kfardebiane is

center around mass tourism that does not contribute to social and economic development of

the village in a sustainable way; most of the economic benefits go for big investors (mainly

outsiders) and to the ski monitors from the village operating in a short season.

In this context, the project developed by Auberge Beity and funded by LIVCD, a local association

in the village operating a youth hostel since 2005, aims at introducing new types of responsible

winter tourism activities to the village. (Table.16)

Table.16. LIVCD rural tourism project sheet – Kfardebiane, Auberge Beity

Project name Ski-touring, cross-country skiing, and winter activity development in Kfardebain

Start/End date 2015

Partners Auberge Beity Association

Objective Contribute to the development of alternative winter sports and tourism activities in

Kfardebiane and increase the competitiveness of the rural tourism sector in the village

Activities

Design and create cross-country skiing trails meeting international standards Train 20 cross-country skiing monitors

Provide 70 complete cross-country skiing equipment packages and 50 snow-shoes Create cross-country tourism packages

Organization of promotion events targeting youth and school students by sponsoring cross-country skiing competitions

Beneficiaries 23 MSMES and other organizations, including 20 young male and female ski monitors

Value chain node Service provision, Product development, Management, Marketing




The size of the tourism sector in Kfardebiane and the different types of tourism activities in the

village make its economic impact assessment a complex task. Therefore, the analysis made in this

study is limited to the performance of the activities related exclusively to the LIVCD project.

(Table.17 and Table.18)

38

Table.17. Rural tourism indicators for Auberge Beity - Kfardebiane

Indicator Year

2013 2014 2015 2016 Estimated occupancy rate in Auberge Beity (in %) The main increase is due to the development of schools’ tourism

28% 26% 35% 40%

Estimated income generated in Auberge Beity based on a 35$ fee per person per night and a total capacity of 100 persons

357,700 $ 332,150 $ 447,125 $ 511,000 $

Increase in Auberge Beity income ( -25,500 $ 114,975 $ 63,875 $

Yearly income from new winter activities introduced in Kfardebiane and offered by Auberge Beity (in $)

20,000 $

Increase in income from new winter activities introduced in Kfardebiane and offered by Auberge Beity (in $)

20,000 $

Number of rural tourism trips organized with Auberge Beity 12 11 15 20


12,000 $ 11,000 $ 15,000 $ 20,000 $

Increase in total income generated by rural and nature tourism trips (in $) -1,000 $ 4,000 $ 5,000 $

Value of Auberge Beity visitors spending (excluding accommodation and activities calculated above) based on an average of 10 $ per tourists and day

100,000 $ 95,000 $ 127,000 $ 145,000 $

Increase in the value of tourists’ spending -5,000 $ 32,000 $ 18,000

Source: (Auberge Beity and Author)

Table.18. Total economic impact attributed to the LIVCD projects in Auberge Beity - Kfardebiane Economic impact 2016 Direct LIVCD project impact 88,875 $

Increase in Auberge Beity income 63,875 $

Increase in income from new winter activities introduced in Kfardebiane and offered by Auberge Beity

20,000 $

Increase in total income generated by rural and nature tourism trips 5,000 $ Indirect LIVCD project impact 18,000 $

Increase in the value of tourists’ spending 18,000 $




For every 1 $ spent by LIVCD in Auberge Beity 0.99 $ are generated in a direct way


For every 1 $ spent by LIVCD 1.2 $ are generated in direct and indirect way

III.2.5. Ramlieh Youth Hostel in Ramlieh village (Aley district)

Located in Ramlieh village – Aley district at 40 km from Beirut, the youth hostel and annexed

facilities is one of the oldest rural tourism accommodation in Lebanon created in 1998 to host

workshops, seminars, and activities related to nature conservation. It is owned by the Association

for Forest Development and Conservation (AFDC) and managed by the Association of Youth

Hostels and Environment (HEY). Ramlieh youth hostel offers accommodation for a total of 44

persons.

39

The Hostel provides for its visitors the following services and activities: traditional restaurant,

meeting and conference room, guided hikes, team building, and educational activities for school

students.

The project funded by LIVCD in Ramlieh Youth Hostel aimed at increasing the competitiveness

of the facility and diversifying the activities offer. (Table.19)

Table.19. LIVCD rural tourism project sheet – Ramlieh youth hostel

Project name Increasing the competitiveness of the Ramlieh rural tourism facility

Start/End date 2016

Partners Association Youth Hostels and Environment (HEY) and

Association for Forest Development and Conservation (AFDC)

Objective Increase the competiveness of the pioneer rural tourism facility in Ramlieh through

developing its services and marketing strategy and improving the rural tourism value chain

Activities

Create and develop a climbing tower Train 15 guides on eco-guiding, monitoring high ropes activities and team management

Provision of kitchen equipment Marketing and promotion activities to increase demand for team building packages

Beneficiaries 15 Local guides and guards, 8 members of the cooperatives selling part of their products

through HEY and AFDC facilities





This project was not assessed due to delay in data provision from the main partner.

III.2.6. Rock climbing in Tannourine village (Batroun district)

The rock climbing project is located in Tannourine village at 100 km from Beirut. The village is

known for its wild mountainous landscape with many cliffs and rocks suitable for climbing, and

for the Cedars Forest Nature Reserve. The project aims at introducing this activity to Tannourine

with international standards to become a national and international attraction for amateur and

professional climbers. (Table.20)

40

Table.20. LIVCD rural tourism project sheet – Rock climbing in Tannourine

Project name Rock climbing for rural development in Tannourine


Partners Rock Climbing Association for Development and the Municipality of Tannourine

Objective Increase the competitiveness of the rural tourism value chain in Tannourine and the Upper

Batroun Area through the development of a rock climbing site in Tannourine, and a capacity building program targeting local NGOs and MSMEs

Activities

Create climbing routes of international standards Training of 12 local guides on the management of the climbing site and climbing techniques

Train local businesses on tourism services provisioning Creation of marketing tools for the climbing site

Beneficiaries

The Municipality of Tannourine, the Lebanese Rock Climbing Association, The Tannourine Youth Club, the Rock Climbing Association for development, 12 youth from the Tannourine and neighboring villages, 12 local climbing guides from different Lebanese Regions, 24 tour operators, youth club, sport club from all over Lebanon, 18 local MSMEs from Tannourine

and neighboring villages

Value chain node Infrastructure, Product development, Management, Marketing




This project was not assessed because the main partner “Rock Climbing Association for

Development” did not ensure the post-project follow-up to monitor the activities and provide

economic performance indicators. However, the climbing site of Tannourine developed with the

support of LIVCD became one of the most popular attractions for all climbers and nature lovers

in Lebanon. In fact, climbing is witnessing an important development since 2014, this trend will

be explained in section III.5.

III.2.7. Rural tourism strategies for different villages

The LIVCD project supported between 2014 and 2017 the elaboration of rural tourism strategies

for 7 villages. The development of these strategies followed a participatory approach involving

the local community and relevant stakeholders and operators of the rural tourism value chain in

each village. Each strategy proposed an action plan with some different projects to be

implemented by the public and/or the private sector on the short, medium, and long term. The

appropriation of the strategies by the local communities and their adoption by the municipalities

as a guiding document for the design and implementation of future rural tourism development

projects created a new dynamic of strategic planning in the concerned villages.

Most of the municipalities who benefited from the elaboration of the strategy are using it as a

strong tool to raise funds and attract investments for the rural tourism value chain.

41

Conducting an economic impact assessment as done for the previous projects was not possible

for the strategies because they do not consist of the implementation of specific activities and

services where the economic performance is measurable and comparable to previous years.

Therefore, in order to demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of these strategies, the

economic impact assessment was done through the number of projects proposed in the strategy

and executed later on in the villages, and their correspondent budgets and sources of funding.

(Table.21)

Table.21. Economic impact assessment of LIVCD rural tourism strategies on village level

Village District Strategy elaboration funded by LIVCD

[A]

Number of projects

proposed

Value of projects

proposed

Number of projects executed to date

Value of projects

executed to date [B]

Cost-benefit

ratio (B/A)

Hammana Baabda 4,500 $ 12 2,445,000 $ 3 250,000 $ 55.5

Baskinta Maten 6,000 $ 16 3,342,000 $ 3 260,000 $ 43.3

Menjez Akkar 4,000 $ 15 1,320,000 $ 4 95,000 $ 23.7

Aley Aley 20,000 $ 15 N/A 2 N/A N/A

Rachaya El Fokhar Hasbaya 8,800 $ 5 244,000 $ 0 0 0

Rachaya El Wadi Rachaya 4,000 $ 17 1,160,000 $ 4 55,000 $ 13.7

Maghdouche South 5,000 $ 23 2,130,000 $ 5 300,000 $ 80

Total 52,300 $ 103 10,641,000 $ 21 1,060,000 $ 20.3

Rural tourism strategies were efficient in terms of investments and funding attraction in most of

the villages. Their cost-benefit ratio was estimated at 20.3, which means that for every 1 $ spent

by LIVCD on rural tourism strategies 20.3 $ were generated in terms of investments for the

execution of rural tourism projects and activities. This value is projected to increase in the coming

years with the execution of new projects.

III.2.8. Consolidation of LIVCD projects economic impact on villages level

The following table summarizes the economic impact of the 14 projects supported by LIVCD and

implemented by local partners on the village level. (Table.22)

Table.22. Economic impact of LIVCD projects on village level

Project/village Economic impact cost benefit ratio

Direct impact Direct + Indirect Total impact

42

Arz Ehmej 1.30 2.00 3.60

Domaine de Taanayel 1.40 3.20 4.80

Hadath El Jebbeh 0.43 0.99 32.10

Auberge Beity in Kfardebiane 0.99 1.20 -

Ramlieh Youth Hostel in Ramlieh N/A N/A N/A

Rock climbing in Tannourine N/A N/A N/A

Rural tourism strategies for seven villages - - 20.3

Average 1.03 1.85 15.20

III.3. Economic impact analysis on the villages cluster level

The economic impact on the villages cluster level was done for projects targeting more than one

village. The approach for this analysis is more complex than for the village level, especially when

there is no reference institution for the cluster. The clusters which have a reference stakeholder

monitoring the development of the rural tourism value chain were able to provide more useful

information and data for the economic impact assessment, such as in the case of Union of

Municipalities or nature reserves. The analysis is done based on the same analytical frameworks

used for specific villages. Depending on the data availability and date of execution of the projects,

it was possible to do the assessment in a complete way for 4 of 9 projects implemented for

clusters.

III.3.1. Union of Jezzine Municipalities

Two projects were implemented in Jezzine district targeting the 27 villages of the Union of Jezzine

Municipalities (Table.23).

Table.23. LIVCD rural tourism projects sheet – Jezzine area

Project name Jezzine Tourism Marketing Support Jezzine rural basket

Start/End date 2015-2015 2016-2016

Partners Union of Jezzine Municipalities Jezzine & Zahrani Development Company (JAZ)

Objective Rural tourism cluster promotion Improve the pine nuts, honey and olive oil value chains in Jezzine and offer rural basket products

for the visitors

Activities

-Stand for pormotion in 3 Malls (ABC, Mall Dbayeh, Mall Saida, Mall Sin El Fil)

-Design and printing of activities calendar -Promotional video for the area

-Equipment to improve production of pine nuts and honey

-Training on production techniques -Brand development

-Labeling and promotion

43

Beneficiaries All rural tourism value chain operators in

the 27 villages of the Union

100 small pine nuts producers Jezzine pine house and 40 points of sale

35 beekeepers 150 olive growers

Value chain node Marketing Product development, Marketing

LIVCD contribution ($) 30,000 137,045

Partner contribution ($) 30,000 99,954

Total budget ($) 60,000 236,999

Total ($) 296,999

The existence of a vision for the whole area and the professionalism of the Union of Municipalities

staff established a monitoring and data collection system with clear indicators used for the

evaluation of specific projects as well as the rural tourism sector in general. The Union of Jezzine

Municipalities and many villages in the area implemented more than ten public and private projects

pertaining to the tourism sector since 2010. Thus the evolution of the rural tourism sector in the

area is not related exclusively to the LIVCD projects. The following tables present the main

indictors showing the evolution of rural tourism in the 27 villages of Jezzine Union of

Municipalities and their economic impact. The highlighted economic indicators are directly related

to the LIVCD projects. (Table.24 and Table.25)

Table.24. Rural tourism indicators for Jezzine area

Indicator Year

2013 2014 2015 2016

Hotel occupancy rate 50% 58% 55% 57%

Number of hotel rooms 168 172 185 196

Estimated income of hotels based on an average price of 80$ per room

2,452,800 $ 2,912,992 $ 2,971,100 $ 3,626,224 $

Increase in hotels income 460,192 $ 58,108 $ 291,124 $

Number of hotels and resorts 8 8 9 11

Estimated investment value for new hotels and resorts19 3,000,000 $

Tourism employment in all services and activities in Jezzine area 400 460

Increase in tourism employment in all services and activities 15%

Estimated increase in income generated by tourism employment based on average salary of 600$ per month

432,000$

Number of bed and breakfast 6 6 6 8

Number of rural trips organized in Jezzine area by tour operators 23 20 22 28


20,125 $ 17,500 $ 19,250 $ 24,500 $

Increase in total income generated by rural tourism trips -2,625 1,750 $ 5,250 $

Number of restaurants and pubs 31 32 32 34

Income generated by restaurants & pubs based on an average capacity of 150 persons per restaurant and a yearly occupancy rate of 30% (estimated average cost per person in a restaurant is 23 $)

11,711,025 $ 12,088,800 $ 12,088,800 $ 12,844,350 $

Increase in generated income by restaurants and pubs 377,775 0 755,550

19 In Jezzine the main investment was made in two big projects, La Maison de la Foret a nature park offering accommodation, a restaurant, and adventure activities in the pine forest of Bkassine, and Blue Jay resort in the village of Aazour offering accommodation and a restaurant facility.

44

Estimated investment value for new B&B facilities and restaurants 200,000$

Value of pine nuts sales 5,400,000 $ 6,000,000 $ 6,300,000 $ 7,800,000 $

Increase in pine nuts sales value 600,000 $ 300,000 $ 1,500,000 $

Value of local products sales (mainly in the J-Groove point of sale supported by the LIVCD program (opened in 2016)

- - - 250,000

Total number of visitors to Jezzine area 95,000 115,000

Value of tourists’ spending in Jezzine (excluding hotels and restaurants) based on an average of 15 $ per tourists and day

950,000 $ 1,150,000 $

Increase in the value of tourists’ spending 200,000 $

Source: (Union of the Municipality of Jezzine and Author)

Table.25. Computation of the total economic impact attributed to the LIVCD projects in Jezzine area

Economic impact 2015 2016

Direct LIVCD projects impact 300,000 $ 1,750,000 $ Increase in pine nuts sales value 300,000 $ 1,500,000 $

Value of local products sales (mainly in the J-Groove point of sale 250,000

Indirect LIVCD projects impact 59,858 $ 1,683,924 Increase in hotels income 58,108 $ 291,124 $

Increase in income generated by tourism employment 432,000 $


Increase in generated income by restaurants and pubs 755,550 $

Increase in value of tourists spending 200,000 $

Induced investments 3,200,000 $ Investment value for new hotels and resorts 3,000,000 $

Investment value for new bed and breakfast facilities and restaurants 200,000 $



➢ Direct impact cost-benefit ratio 2,050,000÷ 296,999 = 6.9

Every 1 $ spent by LIVCD in Jezzine area generated 6.9 $ in a direct way

➢ Direct and indirect impact cost-benefit ratio 3,793,782÷ 296,999 = 12.8


➢ Total economic impact cost-benefit ratio 6,993,782÷ 296,999 = 23.5


III.3.2. Shouf Biosphere Reserve villages

The Shouf Biosphere Reserve (SBR) is the largest nature reserve in Lebanon stretching from Dahr

AL Baidar mountain pass (in the middle of Mount Lebanon) to Niha Mountain in the southern

limit of the Shouf district. The reserve is among the most famous attractions of Lebanon for its

magnificent cedar forests and offers a wide variety of ecotourism activities for nature lovers:

hiking, trekking, bird watching, mountain biking and snow shoeing. The SBR strategic management

plan is based on three programs:

• Environmental conservation aiming at protecting and valorizing the natural resources of the reserve

through research and monitoring;

45

• Ecotourism aiming at promoting responsible tourism activities in the reserve which contribute to job creation

and income generation inside the reserve and in the surrounding villages;

• Community development aiming at supporting the local economy of the 22 villages surrounding the

Biosphere Reserve (14 in the Shouf district and 8 in the West Beqaa district) through the promotion of local

products and tourism services and activities in the villages.

In the last decade, the SBR has been one of the most active reserves in Lebanon implementing

more than ten local development projects targeting the local communities of the surrounding

villages, and assisting the rural tourism provides to upgrade and to improve the quality of their

services. Thus the LIVCD rural tourism project implemented in the reserve is a continuation of

what has been done previously. (Table.26)

Table.26. LIVCD rural tourism project sheet – Shouf Biosphere Reserve

Project name Increase competitiveness of the Shouf Biosphere Reserve (SBR) rural tourism

network


Partners Shouf Cedars Society

Objective Increase the rural tourism competitiveness through capacity building for SBR stakeholders

and increase the sales of local products, as well as Rural tourism packages thanks to the creation of an online sales platform

Activities

Installation of Pergola and benches in Ain Zhalta entrance Installation of Wooden info center in Barouk river

Local products manual and quality mark Training on networking and quality management

Development of rural tourism packages Brochures and website upgrading including online reservation system

Installation of intranet network for reserve entrances Upgrading the POS system

Beneficiaries 70 local food and handcraft producers, 40 Local MSMEs integrated into the SBR rural tourism

value chain, and 25 employees/members of the Shouf Cedar Society





Given the extensive and continuous work done in the SBR since ten years it is difficult to attribute

the evolution of the rural tourism sector exclusively to the LIVCD projects. The following tables

present the main indictors showing the evolution of rural tourism in the SBR villages and their

economic impact. (Table.27 and Table.28)

46

Table.27. Rural tourism indicators for Shouf Biosphere Reserve

Indicator Year

2013 2014 2015 2016 Evolution of the number of visitors to the SBR 63,213 57,500 72,411 87,270

Estimated income generated from the SBR visitation based on 5$ entrance fee 316,065 $ 287,500 $ 362055 $ 436,350 $ Increase in income generated from the SBR visitation 74,555 $ 74,295 $

Evolution of the number of SBR guesthouses visitors 635 568 730 822

Estimated income generated from the SBR guesthouses (40$/night/person) 25,400 $ 22,720 $ 29,200 $ 32,880 $ Increase in income generated from the SBR guesthouses 6,480 $ 3,680 $

Evolution of local products sales value at the SBR entrances 105,550 $ 114,500 $ 146,650 $

Increase in local products sales at the SBR entrances 8,950 $ 32,150 $

Estimated investment value for new tourism in the SBR villages 20 5,000,000 $

Tourism employment in all services and activities in SBR villages 310 380

Estimated increase in income generated by tourism employment (600$/month/prs.) 504,000$

Number of rural tourism trips organized in the SBR and surrounding villages by tour operators

40 46 50 62


35,000 $ 40,250 $ 43,750 $ 54,250 $

Increase in total income generated by rural tourism trips 5,250 $ 3,500 $ 10,500 $

Number of local rural festivals organized in SBR villages 12 18

Income generated by local community from local rural festivals organized in SBR villages based on average number of 2,000 visitor per festival and 10 $ spending per person

240,000 $ 360,000 $

Increase in income generated by local rural festivals in SBR villages 120,000 $

Estimated number of visitors to SBR villages (excluding the reserve) 40,000 35,000 45,000 55,000

Value of tourists’ spending in SBR area (excluding reserve entrances and guesthouses accommodation) based on an average of 15 $ per tourists

600,000 $ 525,000 $ 675,000 $ 825,000 $

Increase in the value of tourists’ spending -75,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $

Source: (SBR and Author)

Table.28. Computation of the total economic impact attributed to the LIVCD projects in SBR

Economic impact 2015 2016

Direct LIVCD projects impact 89,985 $ 110,125 $ Increase in income generated from the SBR visitation 74,555 $ 74,295 $

Increase in income generated from the SBR guesthouses 6,480 $ 3,680 $


Indirect LIVCD projects impact 153,500 $ 784,500 $ Estimated increase in income generated by tourism employment 504,000 $



Increase in the value of tourists’ spending 150,000 $ 150,000 $

Induced investments 5,000,000 $




Every 1 $ spent by LIVCD in Shouf Reserve generated 1.3 $ in a direct way

➢ Direct and indirect impact cost-benefit ratio 1,138,110÷ 125,220 = 9

20 In the last two years 2 camping sites were opened, 1 horse riding facility, 4 new guesthouses, 7 new restaurants and snacks, 2 new hotels, 2 new venues, 1 new artistic workshop.

47

Every 1 $ spent by LIVCD 9 $ are generated in direct and indirect way

➢ Total economic impact cost-benefit ratio 6,138,110÷ 125,220 = 49

Every 1 $ spent by LIVCD 49 $ are generated in total

III.3.3. The Food Trail “Darb El Karam” in West Beqaa and Higher Shouf

This project implemented by the Environment and Sustainable Development Unit (ESDU) at the

Faculty of Agriculture in the American university of Beirut (AUB) and in cooperation with the

Food Heritage Foundation (FHF), is a very new concept in the rural tourism sector in Lebanon.

It consists of valorizing the culinary heritage of a region (or terroir) and transforming it into

athematic touristic destination with attractions, services, and activities related to the food

heritage of the area. Food trails around the world gather different operators and stakeholders

cooperating together to create and offer rural tourism packages based on a star products, a

traditional dishes or a certain type of cuisine that represents the characteristics of the territory

Terroir.

In this context, the ESDU and the FHF established the first food trail in Lebanon “Darb El Karam”

with support from LIVCD in the regions of West Beqaa (villages of Saghbine, Ain Zebdeh, Aitanit,

Kherbet Qanafar) and Higher Shouf (villages of Maasser El Shouf, Khreibeh, Mristi, Jbaa, Niha).

Darb El Karam is a network of artisanal food producers, agro-processors, small restaurants,

guesthouses, and “Tables d’Hotes” offering food services and activities and rural tourism packages

for the visitors of their villages. (Table.29)

Table.29. LIVCD rural tourism project sheet – The Food Trail “Darb El Karam”

Project name Establishing a food trail in the Higher Shouf and West Beqaa regions


Partners AUB-ESDU and The Food Heritage Foundation

Objective Introducing and promoting the concept of food and culinary tourism

Activities Creation of an innovative rural tourism package

Provision of training and technical assistance Creation of marketing and communication tools: website, brochure

Beneficiaries 20 MSMEs (small producers, cooperatives, or others), 10 local guides


LIVCD contribution ($) 50, 260



48

Due to the recent creation of Darb El Karam and its related services and activities, that did not

exist before 2015, it is not very relevant to conduct an economic impact assessment for this

project that needs at least five years to reach its planned objectives and to have sufficient

economic data and information. The following table shows that Darb El Karm brought limited

economic benefits to the concerned villages and service providers. (Table.30)

Table.30. Rural tourism indicators for Darb El Karam project

Indicator Year

2015 2016 Evolution of the number of Darb El Karam service providers (guesthouses, farmers, food processors, tables d’hotes) visitors

50 200

Estimated income generated from the Darb El Karam visitors based on 25$ spending per person and day 1,250 $ 5,000 $

Increase in income generated from Darb El Karam visitors 3,750 $

Evolution of local products sales value of Darb El Karam service providers 600 $ 3,000 $

Increase in local products sales at the SBR entrances 2,400 $

Estimated investment value for new tourism facilities, services, activities on Darb El Karam21 10,000 $

Tourism employment in Darb El Karam service providers (number of jobs) - 2

Estimated increase in income generated by tourism employment on Darb El Karam with average salary of 500$ per month

12,000 $

Number of rural and nature tourism trips organized on Darb El Karam tour operators - 6

Estimated total income generated by rural and nature tourism trips (in $) based on an average number of 25 participants per trip and a cost of 60$ per person

- 9,000 $

Increase in total income generated by rural and nature tourism trips - 9,000 $

Number of local rural festivals organized on Darb El Karam 2 4

Income generated by local community from local rural festivals organized in SBR villages based on average number of 1,000 visitors per festival and 10 $ spending per person

20,000 $ 40,000 $


Source: (Darb El Karam field coordinators and Author)

The field visit to the project coordinators in the Shouf and in the West Beqaa areas revealed a

weakness on the level of project management, development, and promotion after the end of the

funding period, due to the inexistence of a dedicated local organization based in the Shouf or the

Beqaa and acting as main reference for the local stakeholders and link with the tourism value

chain operators in the market. This role is played now by the Shouf Biosphere Reserve and to a

lower extent by the Food Heritage Foundation, however both organizations do not have persons

focusing on the management and development of Darb El Karam as a thematic tourism

destination.

21 Two main investments were done mainly in a rest area and the upgrading and official registration of a brand name by a local artisanal food processor.

49

III.3.4. Bentael Nature Reserve

Bentael Nature Reserve, located in in Jbeil district at only 7 km from the city of Byblos, is one of

the oldest nature reserves in Lebanon characterized by its small size, hence very rich biodiversity

and important cultural heritage. The reserve is surrounding by ten small villages in an area called

“Al Hourouf” (Edde, Kfarmashoun, Mazraaet El Jmayyel, Dmalsa, Mechehlen, Kafer, Kfoun,

Bentael, Bihdidat, and Al Berkeh) with a total number of 4,000 inhabitants. In its effort to reduce

rural-urban migration and to contribute to the economic development of the neighboring villages,

Bentael Nature Reserve has been collaborating since 2010 with Al Hourouf Association to

implement development projects (such as the adventure Eco-Park implemented with the support

of USAID in 2014-2015). In this context, the project implemented under the framework of the

LIVCD is in continuity with the previously implemented projects and constitutes a step forward

towards putting the Bentael Reserve on the rural tourism map. (Table.31)

Table.31. LIVCD rural tourism project sheet – Bentael Nature Reserve

Project name Introducing rural tourism attraction to the Bentael Natural Reserve


Partners Al Hourouf Association and Bentael Nature Reserve

Objective Increase the competiveness of Bentael Nature Reserve as a rural tourism attraction in the

Jbeil district (Mount Lebanon)

Activities

Creation of a healthy food snack and picnic area at the Pine entrance of the Reserve Provision of training and technical assistance for 39 local youth and women on food safety,

hospitality and management Installing external and internal signage and posters

Developing of new website for Al-Hourouf to improve online marketing

Beneficiaries 10 local youth and women

Value chain node Infrastructure, Service provision, Product development, Marketing




The project in Bentael Nature Reserve was finalized in July 2017, thus it is not yet possible to

measure its economic impact in a direct and indirect way since it started to be operation in

August 2017.

III.3.5. Bil day’a ma bit dee’ (Damour, Ouarhaniyeh, and Khreibeh)

50

This project implemented by the AUB Nature Conservation Center (AUB-NCC) between 2015

and 2016 in three villages of the Shouf district: Damour (coastal town), Ouarhaniyeh, and

Khreibeh, aims at generating benefit out of the conservation of natural resources through their

valorization in the rural tourism sector. It is implemented with a community-based approach to

develop a rural tourism model that focuses on promoting local heritage and on building local

capacities. The activities implemented by this project aimed at reducing tourism seasonality by

creating tourism packages for the fall season and the organization of Fall Festivals in the three

villages. An important component of the project was the mapping and identification of the local

attractions; it was planned to be followed by the installation of a signage plan in cooperation with

the Ministry of Tourism. Unfortunately, by the end of the project the ministry had not yet

approved the installation of the signs. (Table.32)

Table.32. LIVCD rural tourism project sheet – Bel Da Bil day’a ma bit dee’

Project name Bel Da Bil day’a ma bit dee’


Partners AUB – Nature Conservation center

Objective Promoting local economies through community local tourism

Activities

Packages development for the three villages Organization of the fall festival

Provision of training and technical assistance Promotion of rural tourism and attraction in the three villages

Beneficiaries 36 local institutions and MSMEs from Al-Khreibeh, Damour and Ouarhaniye villages

Value chain node Infrastructure, Product development, Management, Marketing




As in the case of Darb El Karam and Bentael nature reserve projects, the economic impact

assessment of this project is not relevant due to it short period. Moreover, the nature of the

project activities does not reveal any economic indicators such as income increase or

employment generation.

III.3.6. Jabal Moussa Biosphere Reserve

51

Jabal Moussa Biosphere Reserve (JMBR) is located in Kesrouan district on a total area of 6500

hectares. Surrounded by 7 villages22, JMBR addresses human livelihood improvement and nature

conservation through combining natural sciences with social sciences, economics, ecotourism

and education. Since its creation 2009, JMBR has been active in the field of rural tourism and

ecotourism development. In less than 10 years, the reserve implemented more than 10 projects

aiming at developing rural tourism in the villages surrounding the reserve. The LIVCD rural

tourism project implemented in the reserve is a continuation of what has been done previously.

(Table.33)

Table.33. LIVCD rural tourism project sheet – Jabal Moussa Biosphere Reserve

Project name Increasing the competitiveness of Rural Tourism in Jabal Moussa

Start/End date 2016

Partners Association for the Protection of Jabal Moussa (APJM)

Objective Increase the competiveness of Jabal Moussa Biosphere Reserve as a major rural tourism actor

Activities

Creation of new 5 trails Installation of entrance booth

Guides and guesthouses training Women and handicrafts producers training

Provision of hiking equipment and gear for the local guides Marketing and promotion through social media and new brochure

Beneficiaries 6 MSMEs (guesthouses and restaurants), 18 local guides, 6 local guards, 30 women producers

Value chain node Service provision, Infrastructure, Management, Marketing




Given the extensive and continuous work done by the Association for the Protection of Jabal

Moussa, it is difficult to attribute the evolution of the rural tourism sector exclusively to the

LIVCD project. The following tables present the main indictors showing the evolution of rural

tourism in JMBR and the surrounding villages. The highlighted economic indicators are those

related directly to the LIVCD project. (Table.34 and Table.35)

Table.34. Rural tourism indicators for Jabal Moussa Biosphere Reserve

Indicator Year

2013 2014 2015 2016 Evolution of the number of visitors to the JMBR 4,014 5,919 13,976 18,247

22 Yahchouch, Qehmez, Jouret El Thermos, Nahr El Dahab, Ghbale, Aabri, and Chouwan

52

Estimated income generated from the JMBR visitation based on 5$ entrance fee 20,070 $ 29,595 $ 69,880 $ 91,235 $

Increase in income generated from the JMBR visitation 9,525 $ 40,285 $ 21,355 $

Estimated income generated from the JMBR guesthouses as provided by JMBR 1,540 $ 3,500 $ 3,850 $ Increase in income generated from the JMBR guesthouses 1,960 $ 350 $

Evolution of local products sales value at the SBR entrances 56,433 $ 57,976 $ 71,059


Estimated investment value for new tourism facilities in the JMBR villages 23 500,000 $

Tourism employment in all services and activities in SBR villages (jobs) 15 14 32 33

Tourism income from employment in all services and activities in JMBR SBR villages based on average salary or income of 600$ per month

108,000 $ 100,800 $ 165,600 $ 237,600 $

Estimated increase in income generated by tourism employment -7,200 $ 64,800 $ 72,000 $

Number of rural tourism trips organized in JMBR and surrounding villages by tour operators and schools

100 145 203 267

Estimated total income generated by rural tourism trips based on an average number of 25 participants per trip and a cost of 35$ per person (excluding reserve entrance)

87,500 $ 126,875 $ 177,625 $ 233,625 $


Source: (JMBR and Author)

Table.35. Computation of the total economic impact attributed to the LIVCD projects in JMBR


Direct LIVCD projects impact 106,788 $ Increase in income generated from the JMBR visitation 21,355 $

Increase in income generated from the JMBR guesthouses 350 $

Increase in local products sales at the JMBR entrances 13,083 $

Estimated increase in income generated by tourism employment in JMBR 72,000 $ Indirect LIVCD projects impact 56,000 $ Increase in total income generated by rural and nature tourism trips 56,000 $

Induced investments 500,000 $




Every 1 $ spent by LIVCD in JMBR generated 0.6 $ in a direct way



➢ Total economic impact cost-benefit ratio 662,788 ÷ 147,486 = 4.5


III.3.7. Jbeil and Batroun rural routes

23 In the last two years 4 camping sites were opened, 1 new guesthouse, 1 new restaurant by the private sector, in addition to investment done by the Association for the Protection of Jabal Moussa on basic infrastructure improvement for the tourism inside the reserve and other investments related to marketing and staff training.

53

Rural Routes of Jbeil and Batroun districts is a rural tourism concept launched by PRODES

Association in 2009. This project aims mainly to foster jobs in villages and to expand economic

opportunities in order to reverse rural-urban migration. Rural Routes links 20 villages from both

districts characterized by their rich natural and cultural heritage, as well as specific rural products.

The project implemented with the support of LIVCD between 2016 and 2017 aims at revitalizing

the rural routes network and to build the capacity of local stakeholders in order to offer the

visitors pre-established packages or to allow them to plan their trip by destination, theme or

timeframe. (Table.36)

Table.36. LIVCD rural tourism project sheet – Jbeil and Batroun rural routes

Project name Increasing the competitiveness of Rural Tourism Network -“Rural Routes”- In

Byblos and Batroun


Partners PRODES Association, Municipality of Batroun and Municipality of Byblos

Objective Increase the competitiveness of rural tourism in the villages of Jbeil and Batroun districts

through the creation of thematic rural routes and tourism packages

Activities

Create regional rural tourism packages Training of local women, youth and producers on guiding, hospitality management and

other tourism services Marketing tool including a website and a brochure with familiarization tours

Beneficiaries 20 local MSMEs headed by women, 15 IMS students, 10 local producers,

5 local rural tourism MSMEs

Value chain node Product development, Management, Marketing




The Rural Routes project was finalized in June 2017, thus it is impossible to measure its economic

impact, especially that it needs time to become visible on the market and to start attracting

visitors.

III.3.8. Promotion of rural tourism regional clusters

54

This project implemented in 2015 focused on the marketing component of the rural tourism

value chain. The budget was 34,000 $, it covered the cost of elaborating, producing, printing, and

distributing a leaflet with touristic attractions and calendar of activities for four regional clusters:

1. Upper Jbeil and Batroun: Ehmej, Jaj, Tannourine, Douma, Hadath El Jebbeh;

2. Zahle district villages;

3. Jezzine district villages;

4. Rachcya district villages.

The economic impact of this project could be referred to in the different projects analyzed and

assessed previously on the villages and cluster levels, especially that the clusters targeted in this

project benefited from specific projects with activities aiming at developing different components

of the value chain.

III.3.9. Consolidation of LIVCD projects economic impact on clusters level

The following table summarizes the economic impact of the 9 projects supported by LIVCD and

implemented by local partners on the cluster level. (Table.37)

Table.37. Economic impact of LIVCD projects on clusters level

Project/village Economic impact cost benefit ratio

Direct impact Direct + Indirect Total impact

Jezzine Union of Municipalities (2 projects) 6.9 12.8 23.5

Shouf Biosphere Reserve 1.3 9 49

Darb El Karam - The Food Trail N/A N/A N/A

Bil day’a ma bit dee’ N/A N/A N/A

Jabal Moussa Biosphere Reserve 0.6 1.1 4.5

Jbeil and Batroun rural routes N/A N/A N/A

Promotion of rural tourism regional clusters N/A N/A N/A

Average 2.93 7.63 25.67

III.4. Economic impact analysis on the national level

III.4.1. Improving the Lebanon Mountain Trail as a Rural Tourism Destination

55

The Lebanon Mountain Trail (LMT), the first long distance hiking trail in Lebanon, was created

under the USAID-funded project implemented between 2005 and 2008, when the LMT

Association was founded to ensure the continuity and sustainability of the project. Since its

creation the LMTA worked on the development of the trail with the objective of supporting local

economic opportunities through responsible tourism, educational program for schools, and

environmental conservation activities. Thus, the LMT has expanded rural tourism in Lebanon and

opened many new opportunities for longer stays in mountain destinations.

In the last decade, the LMT became the backbone of the rural tourism industry in Lebanon and

one of the main tangible products for rural economic growth in Lebanon. Therefore, the LMTA

is continuously working with national, regional, and local partners from the rural tourism value

chain to upgrade the trail services and activities. The LMTA has three overreaching programs:

Trail, Education and Development, in addition to three cross-cutting services: Administration,

Outreach (PR and communication), and Policy Platform (including protection, legislation, training

standards, and blazing standards). The LMTA endeavors to make the trail a world class

destination, with proper delineation, blazing, promotion, accommodation, and attractions and

activities along the trail.

In this context, the LMTA is implementing many projects on the trail. The LIVCD is one these

projects that aims at upgrading and improving the services provide by local guides and

guesthouses, creating new side trails, and promoting the LMT as a prime destination for rural

tourism on the national and international market with the respect of sustainability principles.

(Table.38)

Table.38. LIVCD rural tourism project sheet – Lebanon Mountain Trail

Project name Improving the Lebanon Mountain Trail as a Rural Tourism Destination


Partners Lebanon Mountain Trail Association (LMTA)

Objective Upgrade and improve the Lebanon Mountain Trail services to increase the trail users and

bring more income to trail operators (guides and guesthouses)

56

Activities

Develop 3 side trails on the LMT Training and capacity building: improve local guides service on the LMT and its side trails

and initiate a certification program to be endorsed by the Ministry of Tourism Improve the Lebanon Mountain Trail website and develop a mobile application to improve

promotion of the destination and enhance outreach to travelers

Beneficiaries 60 local guides, the Association for the Protection of Jabal Moussa, and the local municipality of Bkassine, the Union of Municipalities of Jezzine, Municipality of Douma and Douma Club

Value chain node Service provision, Product Development, Management, Marketing




Given the extensive and continuous work done by the LMTA, it is difficult to attribute the

evolution of the rural tourism sector on the LMT exclusively to the LIVCD project. The following

tables present the main indictors showing the evolution of rural tourism on the LMT. The

highlighted economic indicators are those related directly to the LIVCD project. (Table.39 and

Table.40)

Table.39. Rural tourism indicators for Lebanon Mountain Trail

Indicator Year

2013 2014 2015 2016 Evolution of the number of visitors to the LMT and surrounding villages 20,000 22,000 25,000 32,000

Estimated income generated from the LMT visitation based on 25$ spending/person 500,000 $ 550,000 $ 625,000 $ 800,000 $

Increase in income generated from the LMT visitation 50,000 $ 75,000 $ 175,000 $

Estimated income generated from the LMT guesthouses (based on 15% of visitors who stay in guesthouse for one night and pay 35$/person)

105,000 $ 115,500 $ 131,250 $ 168,000 $

Increase in income generated from the LMT guesthouses 10,500 $ 15,750 $ 36,750 $

Estimated investment value for new tourism projects on the trail by the LMTA 210,00 $ 101,000 $ 283,000 $ 390,000 $

Estimated investment value for new tourism services and facilities by different operators of the value chain in villages surrounding the LMT

100,000 $ 120,000 $ 250,000 $

Number of guides on the LMT section 25 28 34 43

Income from guides on the LMT (average 2000 $ per guide and year) 50,000 $ 56,000 $ 68,000 $ 86,000 $ Increase in income generated by guides 6,000 $ 12,000 $ 18,000 $

Income generated by LMTA thru-walks 70,000 $ 78,000 $ 85,000 $ 100,000 $

Increase in income generated by LMTA thru-walks 8,000 $ 7,000 $ 15,000 $

Number of rural tourism trips organized on the LMT and surrounding villages by tour operators and schools

140 170 240 300

Estimated income generated by rural tourism trips based on an average number of 25 participants per trip and a cost of 35$ per person

122,500 $ 148,750 $ 210,000 $ 262,500 $


Source: (LMTA and Author)

Table.40. Computation of the total economic impact attributed to the LIVCD projects on the LMT


Direct LIVCD projects impact 244,750 $ Increase in income generated from the LMT visitation 175,000 $

Increase in income generated from the LMT guesthouses 36,750 $

Estimated increase in income generated by local guides on the LMT 18,000 $

Increase in income generated by LMTA thru-walks 15,000 $

57

Indirect LIVCD projects impact 52,500 $ Increase in total income generated by rural and nature tourism trips 52,500 $

Induced investments 640,000 $




Every 1 $ spent by LIVCD in LMT generated 1.3 $ in a direct way



➢ Total economic impact cost-benefit ratio 937,250 ÷ 184,429 = 5.1


III.4.2. Increase the guesthouses competiveness – Diyafa network

The Diyafa network for alternative lodging and guesthouses in Lebanon was created under a

USAID-funded project developing the Hospitality Industry’s Abilities – Fostering Economic

Expansion (DHIAFEE) implemented between 2005 and 2008 by the American Near East Refugees

Association (ANERA). Diyafa was conceived in recognition of the outstanding potential for

tourism to contribute to the economic development of rural communities. In its first phase, the

project mapped, trained and promoted a network of more than 40 alternative lodging facilities

including guesthouses, small hotels, monasteries, youth hostels, and camping sites. After the end

of the funding period the initiative was not followed up by the creation of an Association that will

gather all the accommodation facilities and act as reference for them to ensure the continuity of

the project as it was done for the LMT. The effort to develop and promote alternative lodging in

rural areas remained limited to private initiatives, except in the case of the guesthouses located

on the LMT and in the Shouf Biosphere Reserve which were assisted by the LMTA and the Shouf

Cedar Society.

In this context, the second phase of Diyafa was implemented by ANERA between 2015 and 2016,

with a new grant provided by LIVCD. It aimed at increasing the guesthouses competitiveness in

Lebanon and to create an institutional framework for this network through the foundation of the

Diyafa Association. (Table.41)

Table.41. LIVCD rural tourism project sheet – Diyafa network

58

Project name Increase the guesthouses competiveness – Diyafa network


Partners ANERA

Objective Upgrade and improve the guesthouses business in rural areas

Activities Develop a management manual for guesthouses

Training and coaching sessions for all guesthouses on hospitality services and marketing Create an interactive website and online reservation platform

Beneficiaries 40 guesthouses all over Lebanon

Value chain node Service provision, Management, Marketing


Partner contribution ($) 0


After the end of the project in 2016, the DIYAFA Association was founded with the objective to

act as reference for all the member guesthouses, guarantee the quality of their services, and help

them in marketing and promotion. Unfortunately, one year after its creation, DIYAFA Association

did not meet its role in monitoring the services of its members and helping them in their

marketing efforts. The new website and social media pages of the DIYAFA network are not very

active, and the online reservation platform did not register any online reservation. This situation

may be explained by the absence of a fixed employee in the association who can play this role

instead of the executive committee members who do not have the time to fulfill this technical

work and should focus more on strategic matters for the development of the guesthouses

network. Therefore, with absence of monitoring on the performance of the guesthouses after

the implementation of the project and the inability of most of the guesthouses owners to provide

data on the evolution of their services (occupancy rate, number of persons served, and number

of services delivered), it is not possible to do an economic impact assessment for this project.

III.4.3. National Rural Tourism Strategy

Based on the LIVCD program targeting the local, regional, and finally the national level of the

rural tourism value chain, a Rural Tourism Strategy for Lebanon (RTSL) was developed by Beyond

Beirut Association between. The RTSL was officially approved and adopted by the Ministry of

Tourism in 2015 as a clear indicator of country ownership, it has put rural tourism at the center

of the government tourism policy. (Table.42)

59

Table.42. LIVCD rural tourism project sheet – Rural Tourism Strategy for Lebanon Project name Rural Tourism Strategy for Lebanon

Start/End date 2013 – 2014

Partners Beyond Beirut Association and Ministry of Tourism

Objective Increase rural tourism value chain competitiveness on the national level

Activities Elaborate a national rural tourism strategy for Lebanon through the consultation of the rural

tourism value chain stakeholders

Beneficiaries All the rural tourism value chain operators

Value chain node Management, Marketing


Partner contribution ($) 0


The RTSL was prepared in a participatory way with the consultation of more than 80 stakeholders

representing different nodes of the rural tourism value chain. The RTSL set document set eight

strategic directions:

Strategic Direction 1: Develop and improve marketing and promotion to increase consumer awareness and the visibility of

rural tourism destinations, products and services domestically and internationally.

Strategic Direction 2: Institutionalize rural tourism at the level of the local communities

Strategic Direction 3: Improve and enforce conservation and protection of the environmental, cultural, historical, agricultural

heritage of rural areas

Strategic Direction 4: Diversify, modernize, and improve quality of rural destinations, products & services

Strategic Direction 5: Improve policies, legislation, and regulation of the rural tourism sector and enforcement of laws across

the value chain

Strategic Direction 6: Improve information & data collection and management to support planning

Strategic Direction 7: Develop the culture of rural tourism among the young generation and in the education system

Strategic Direction 8: Improve domestic and international business linkages and networking (cross cutting objective)

Based on the study field visits observations and analysis of the different projects implemented by

LIVCD mainly and other development programs, three levels of Strategic Direction (SD)

improvements were observed:

• High improvement: SD1, SD4, SD7

• Medium improvement: SD2, SD3, SD8

• Low improvement: SD5, SD6

60

Moreover, the RTSL became a road map and guiding document for the Ministry of Tourism and

many other rural tourism stakeholders to develop new rural tourism projects in Lebanon funded

by the private and public sector. In this regard, the Ministry of Tourism implemented a good

number of projects in the last three years aiming at supporting the rural tourism sector,

specifically: rural accommodation, education tourism for schools in rural areas, and marketing

and promotion of rural destinations. The value of these projects is estimated at 500,000$.

Thus if we consider the cost benefit ration of the RTSL taking into consideration only the MOT

investments, the result will be: 500,000 ÷ 70,000 = 7.1

Every 1 $ spent by LIVCD in the RTSL generated 7.1 $ in investments by the MOT

III.4.4. Travel Lebanon Show

The “Travel Lebanon Show” is organized by Hospitality Services, with the support of LIVCD and

funding from USAID, in collaboration with the Ministry of Tourism. It is held every year in the

month of May concurrently with The Garden Show & Spring Festival (Table.43).

Table.43. LIVCD rural tourism project sheet – Travel Lebanon Show

Project name Travel Lebanon Show

Start/End date 2014 to 2017

Partners Hospitality Services, Garden Show and Spring Festival, Ministry of Tourism

Objective Increase rural tourism value chain operators access to the tourism market

Activities Organize the promote the Travel Lebanon show hosted in the Garden Show Festival on a

yearly basis and provide exhibition spaces for exhibitors from different sectors in the rural tourism value chain

Beneficiaries 60 exhibitors representing different operators in the rural tourism value chain

Value chain node Marketing




61

Travel Lebanon is a unique platform where the main rural tourism value chain operators present

their projects and promote their services and activities for the public24. An average of 60

exhibitors25 participated in each of the last 4 editions of Travel Lebanon distributed as follow:

• Accommodation facilities and camping sites: guesthouses, hostels, eco-lodges (21%)

• Municipalities and Union of Municipalities (17% of the exhibitors)

• Nature tour operators and rural trips organizers (15%)

• Handicrafts producers (15%)

• Traditional food processors (13%)

• NGOs and local associations (11%)

• Nature reserves (7%)

Moreover, Hospitality Services is publishing since 2014 a specialized quarterly magazine “Lebanon

Traveler” focusing on rural tourism promotion and featuring articles and stories about different

destinations, services, facilities, and activities spread all over Lebanon. The magazine encourages

the Lebanese to rediscover their country and tourists to uncover Lebanon’s hidden gems,

especially in rural areas.

Around 6,000 copies26 are printed for each issue, half is sold in main bookshops, and the other

half is distributed in: conferences, travel agencies offices, municipalities, Embassies and cultural

centers, festivals and exhibitions, Middle East Airline’s Cedar Lounge at Beirut International

Airport, nature reserves, guesthouses, camping sites, NGOs, etc.

The difficulty to find and collect data and indicators for rural tourism on the national level makes

the assessment of the Travel Lebanon Show and Lebanon Traveler Magazine a complex task, thus

its economic impact will be based on the integration and sum of all the LIVCD projects analyzed

previously. This will give us the following result:

24 Around 100,000 persons visited the last four editions of the Travel Lebanon Show. 25 More than 50% of the exhibitors are direct beneficiaries of LIVCD projects, and the others benefited from the implemented projects in an indirect way 26 Hospitality services is planning to double to quantity of printed issues due to the increasing demand for the magazine and great impact made in the rural tourism market.

62

➢ Direct impact cost-benefit ratio for all LIVCD projects compared to the Travel Lebanon

and Lebanon Traveler projects 3,240,723 ÷ 496,864 = 6.5

Every 1 $ spent by LIVCD on Travel Lebanon generated 6.5 $ in a direct way

➢ Direct and indirect impact cost-benefit ratio 6,501,980 ÷ 496,864 = 13.1


➢ Total economic impact cost-benefit ratio 21,375,105 ÷ 496,864 = 43

Every 1 $ spent by LIVCD 43 $ are generated in total

III.4.5. General economic impact assessment

The general economic impact for all LIVCD projects shows positive results for the direct,

indirect, and total impact. Of all LIVCD projects this section will consolidate the economic impact

measurements for all LIVCD projects in a direct and indirect way. In general, the total impact is

higher in the case of cluster than for villages. This is due to bigger investments done on the

regional level. (Table.44)

Table.44. General economic impact ratio for all LIVCD projects

Project Economic impact cost benefit ratio

Direct impact Direct + Indirect Total impact Arz Ehmej 1.3 2.0 3.6

Domaine de Taanayel 1.4 3.2 4.8

Hadath El Jebbeh (strategy + project) 0.4 0.9 32.1

Auberge Beity in Kfardebiane 0.9 1.2 -

Ramlieh Youth Hostel in Ramlieh N/A N/A N/A

Rock climbing in Tannourine N/A N/A N/A

Rural tourism strategies for seven villages (7 strategies) N/A N/A 20.3

Jezzine Union of Municipalities (2 projects) 6.9 12.8 23.5

Shouf Biosphere Reserve 1.3 9.0 49.0

Darb El Karam - The Food Trail N/A N/A N/A

Bil day’a ma bit dee’ N/A N/A N/A

Jabal Moussa Biosphere Reserve 0.6 1.1 4.5

Jbeil and Batroun rural routes N/A N/A N/A

Promotion of rural tourism regional clusters N/A N/A N/A

Lebanon Mountain Trail 1.3 1.6 5.1

63

Diyafa network 1.3 1.6 5.1

Rural Tourism Strategy for Lebanon N/A N/A 7.1

Travel Lebanon Show 6.5 13.1 43.0

Total Average 2.2 4.7 18.0

III.5. National rural tourism trends

To analyze the national rural tourism trends of the last five years, in parallel to the period where

the LIVCD projects were implemented, the study observed a set of topics revealing important

changes and demonstrating the development and evolution of the rural tourism value chain.

III.5.1. Tour Organizers

64

The organization of rural tourism trips for groups is becoming more and more popular in

Lebanon. The results of the survey conducted in the framework of this study among 50 nature

tour operators and rural trip organizers (response rate 40%) confirmed the importance of this

activity for rural tourism development and its contribution to economic growth of rural areas.

This activity witnessed a great change and evolution in the last two decades. After a normal

increase between 1997 and 2010, the number of trip organizers specialized in rural tourism

increased significantly from 2011 to 2016, until it reached 50 rural tour organizers in 2017, a very

high number compared to the size of the Lebanese rural tourism market. (Figure.3)

Figure.3. Evolution of the number of rural tourism trip organizers

According to field observation and survey results (Figure.4)

• 36% of the trip organizers are officially registered under the status of companies mainly.

Among which only 2 have registered as travel agents. This low number is due mainly to the

rigidity of the regulations at the Ministry of Tourism, whereas there is only one category of

travel agencies with rules and conditions applicable to the conventional tourism market and

not to the rural tourism specificities.

• 60% do not have any status and are operating as non-formal groups. They mainly promote

their activities through social media platforms, and sometime they participate in fairs and

exhibitions. This high number of non-registered trip organizers creates an unfair competition

with the registered ones. In some cases, it reduces the quality of services offered, and can

47 9 11

15

2225

28

34

44

50

1997 2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

65

create negative impacts on some destinations, especially when the trip organizer does not

respect the principles of responsible and sustainable tourism.

• 4% are registered as NGOs. In principal their aim should operate in a non-profit business,

however they organize their trips with similar fees as for the registered and non-formal trip

organizers; which is creating an unfair competition in the market.

Figure.4. Status of rural tourism trip organizers

Table.45. Increase rural trip organizers yearly turnover 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number of rural trips organizers 25 28 34 44 50

Rural trips organized based on 50 trips on average per operator

1,250 1,400 1,700 2,200 2,500

Turnover value on average 25 participants per trip and 35$ fee per person

1,093,750 $ 1,225,000 $ 1,487,500 $ 1,925,000 $ 2,187,500 $

Increase in turnover 131,250 $ 262,500 $ 437,500 $ 262,500 $

Other important characteristics of the rural trip organizers revealed by the survey are:

60%

4%

36%

Non formal groups NGO Registered Company

66

• One-day hiking trip is the most important activity organized by these operators in rural

areas. Almost 75% of them include it in their daily trip program, while the other 25% offer

cultural tours, adventure sport activities (rafting, climbing, caving…);

• Less than half of the trip organizers organize weekend trips with overnights in guesthouses

and alternative lodging. The frequency of these trips is 1 every two months. The reason

behind this low number is the high cost of accommodation and the low profitability.

• Around 40% of the trips are organized in nature reserves and on the LMT;

• Around 35% of the trip organizers use the services of local guides;

• The most visited destinations are in the districts of: Bcharreh, Batroun, Jbeil, Kesrouane,

Maten, Shouf, and to a lower extend in the Beqaa, the South and North.

• Market segmentation of rural trips organized:

o 60% domestic tourists formed by individuals and groups of friends and families;

o 10% schools and organize educational and recreational trips;

o 15% team building and corporate outings;

o 15% foreigners and expatriates living in Lebanon.

III.5.2. Picnic areas and adventure parks

The number of picnic areas, and adventure parks in rural areas recorded a significant growth

increase between 2010 and 2016. It increased from around 15 to more than 40. They are mainly

located in Mount Lebanon, especially in the districts of Maten and Baabda in the pine forests.

These facilities create an important number of seasonal part time jobs for the youth of the regions

where they are located. Moreover, event venues are flourishing in rural areas.

III.5.3. Rural accommodation

The number of accommodation facilities in rural areas, from all types (guesthouses, luxury hotels,

furnished apartment, eco-lodges, hostels, hotels) has also increased in the last few years.

Excluding the 50 accommodation facilities affiliated to the Diyafa network and the LMT, another

67

50 new facilities were opened between 2014 and 2017, with an important number of high end

guesthouses and boutique hotels.

III.5.4. Emerging rural activities

In addition to hiking, the star product of the rural tourism value chain which is still expanding

with new trails developed by many municipalities, new activities are emerging. They include:

• Cycling: with one company offering commercial tours and many municipalities and NGOs

introducing this culture and sport activity to their communities

• Climbing: with two professional clubs, one NGO, and a tour operator specialized in this

activity.

• Agro-tourism: the number of farms offering agro-tourism activities increased from 5 in 2013

to around 15 in 2017.

• Food and local products tourism introduced by Darb El Karam project and promoted by

many NGOs such as Souk El Tayeb, nature reserves, the LMT, and some municipalities

organizing rural festivals to promote local food produces.

• Yoga in nature: practiced by more than 10 groups since 2014.

III.5.5. Donors’ funding for the rural tourism value chain

Between 2004 and 2016 many international donors implemented a wide variety of rural

development projects all over Lebanon targeting in a direct or indirect way the rural tourism

value chain. The total value of these projects is estimated at 25 Million $ in the last ten years (an

average of 2.5 Million $ per year). In addition to USAID, the main donors who have intervened

in the tourism value chain are: European Union (mainly through AFKAR program and European

Neighborhood Initiative), United Nations Development Program, United Nations World

Tourism Organization, Agence Française du Développement, Italian Cooperation, Spanish

68

Cooperation, Swedish Cooperation, Embassy of Japan, Embassy of Canada, and Embassy of

Finland.

69

Conclusion and Recommendations

The results of this report has proved one more time the role played by rural tourism as a main

contributor to economic growth and a pillar of sustainable development strategies on the local,

regional, and national levels. The value chain approach adopted by LIVCD rural tourism

component supported the development of all the value chain nodes and targeted most of the

operators and stakeholders involved in the sector.

Moreover, the LIVCD projects implemented in specific villages, regional, and on the national level

reinforced the integration of the tourism value chain and promoted different types of tourism

services and activities in rural areas targeting a wide variety of market segments.

All the above mentioned factors created a positive economic impact in general in a relatively

short timeframe. New economic opportunities were created and many benefits generated for

local communities and rural tourism operators in a direct and indirect way. On the long term,

with a proper management and follow-up of the projects, rural tourism will definitely lead to an

increase in rural communities’ income and to the improvement of their living conditions.

Measuring the economic impact of LIVCD interventions in the rural tourism value chain was a

complex task especially with the challenges faced in data availability and accessibility. This issue

remains one of the major weakness of the sector and should be given more importance in the

coming years, particularly for its role in monitoring the sector evolution and in helping decision

makers to better plan and manage future projects and funds.

Based on the field observations and economic impact results a set of recommendation is

presented here below to be taken into account when implementing future projects in the rural

tourism value chain:

Regulation and business environment: reinforce existing regulations and develop new ones

especially with regards to the official recognition of nature and rural tour operators, rural and

mountain guides, and rural accommodation with corresponding categories. This will create fairer

70

market competition and will guarantee the quality of services provided and activities under clear

norms and standards. Certification and labeling programs could be developed in this matter on

the long term.

Management and human resources: adopt continuous training program for the staff working

in the management and provision of rural tourism services and activities; and equip them with

simple and clear procedures’ manuals.

Cultural and Natural Resources as follows: emphasize the importance for the preservation

and protection of natural and cultural heritage resources used as rural tourism attractions and

adopt responsible and environmentally-friendly practices by the rural tourism value chain

operators.

Coordination between projects: adopt a coordination mechanism between all stakeholders

involved in the funding of rural tourism projects and local authorities to avoid duplication and

benefit from successful projects that need to be completed and reinforced or considered as pilot

models for other regions.

Promote clustering and regional cooperation: this approach proved its high economic impact,

thus more clustering should be promoted on district level, between districts, or even on governorate

level.

71

Annex.1. List of interviewed stakeholders

Organization Contact person Positon

Union of Jezzine Municipalities Georges Maalouf Director

Municipality of Menjez Georges Youssef Mayor

Ministry of Tourism Petra Obeid Local Authorities Office

Domained de Taanayel arcenciel Elia Ghorra Manager, Elia Ghorra

Darb El Karam – West Beqaa Petra Chedid Field Coordinator

Shouf biosphere Reserve Kamal Abou Assi Marketing manager

Vamos Todos Marc Aoun Marc Aoun

APJM Joelle Barakat Founder

Al Hourouf Association Youssef Matta President

Beyond Beirut Nell Abou Ghazale President

Hadath Jebbeh Ward Sfeir Tourism office

Diyafa Association Myriam Shuman Member

LMTA Martine Btaich President

PRODES Caroline Daher Field Coordinator

Ehmej Association Imane Khalifeh Field Coordinator

Municipality of Hammana Joseph Hatem Member

Municipality of Rachaya El Fokhar Salim Youssef Mayor

Rachaya El Wadi Development Association Liliane Maalouli President

Hospitality Services Maha Hasbani Marketing manager

AFDC Farouk Salman Ramlieh center manager

Auberge Beity Josephine Zgheib Founder

Municipality of Baskinta Elie Karam Mayor

Lebanon Stories Nagham Ghandour Founder

72

Annex.2. Field visit checklist

Date ____________________________________

Location/area ____________________________________

Contact person ____________________________________

Organization ____________________________________

1. LIVCD project (Start/End dates)

2. Did the project meet its objectives in general?

3. Who were the project direct beneficiaries and how did their situation change after

the project on the social and economic level (provide indicators when available)?

4. Who are the RTVC stakeholders in your area, and how they were involved/affected

by the project?

4.1. Local service providers

Ind.1 Number of SMEs/organizations who received business development services

Ind.2 Increase in tourism operators’ income related to project

Ind.3 Value of additional investments (or loans) by existing tourism operators leveraged by the project

Ind.4 New jobs and employment created through the project (number of jobs and value income generated) with

gender segregation

4.2. Investors

Ind.5 Value and type of new investments leveraged by the project

4.3. Donors (projects)

Ind.6 Value of new rural tourism projects funded by other donors

4.4. Municipalities

Ind.7 Value and type of municipality investment and income (taxes) related to rural tourism projects

73

4.5. Local communities and associations

4.6. Tour operators

Ind.8 Increase in the number of tour operators who visit the area

Ind.9 Number of new rural tourism tour operators created

Ind.10 Income increase for existing rural tourism tour operators

4.7. Tourists

Ind.11 Increase in the number of tourist who visit the area

Ind.12 Increase in tourists spending in the area

Ind.13 Change in visitation frequency/seasonality/occupancy rates…

5. Can you describe the structure of the local economy in terms of sectorial

contribution to the local GPD (agriculture, industry, trade, tourism, other services)

6.Did the project create synergies/complementarities with other economic sectors

in the area (give examples), can you estimate the increase in

income/sales/investments of these sectors with relation to rural tourism in general,

and the project in particular?

6.1. Agriculture

Ind.14 Type and value of investment made by farmers leveraged by tourism projects

Ind.15 Increase in farmers’ value of sales (direct and indirect) related to tourism projects/activities

6.2. Food processing

Ind.16 Type and value of investment made by food processors leveraged by tourism projects

Ind.17 Increase in food processors value of sales (direct and indirect) related to tourism projects/activities

6.3. Handicrafts

Ind.18 Type and value of investment made by handicraft producers leveraged by tourism projects

Ind.19 Increase in handicraft producers value of sales related to tourism projects/activities

74

6.4. SMEs and trade

6.5. Other services (construction, industry, transportation…)

7. Was the economic impact of the implemented projects translated into decisions

and actions, by the private and public sectors, that are favorable to adopt and

implement long term rural tourism strategies and policies for the village/area?

(provide documents if available)

8. Can you identify new horizontal & vertical linkages between the RTVC

stakeholders related to the project?

75

Annex.3. Tour operators survey: email message

Dear … manager,

I am contacting you on behalf of the Lebanon Industry Value Chain Development (LIVCD)

program (funded by USAID). As you may know the LIVCD has been working in the rural tourism

development since 5 years through the support of different initiatives located all over Lebanon

with the objective of improving rural tourism destinations and supporting local stakeholders and

services’ providers to foster economic opportunities of rural areas and communities.

In this framework, we are actually conducting an Economic Impact Assessment of the project’s

initiatives on the local and national levels and we thought of including local tour operators and

tour organizers in this study as key stakeholders since they are the main users of rural tourism

services and activities.

Therefore, we kindly ask you to provide us with your coordinates (contact person, phone

number, email) so we can get in touch and send you a short questionnaire to fill in order to have

your feed-back on this sector in general and the impact that you may have noticed in the last 5

years in particular.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Jad Abou Arrage, PhD.

Rural Development Expert

Consultant for the LIVCD Lebanon Industry Value Chain Development program

76

Annex.4. Tour operators survey: questionnaire

This survey is part of the Economic Impact Assessment study conducted for the

Lebanon Industry Value Chain project (funded by USAID). It aims to understand the

rural tourism contribution to local development and the role of local tour organizers

in this matter. The information gathered and the results will be used to improve this

sector and to enhance the socio-economic situation in rural areas. The collected data

will be treated with high confidentiality and responses will not be revealed.

Your help is greatly appreciated, thank you.

Organization name:

Year of establishment:

Founder/owner name(s):

Contact person(s):

Email:

Mobile:

Status (Choose one):

• Registered Travel Agent

• Registered Company

• Registered NGO

• Non-formal group

What are your tour types and main activities?

Do you organize weekend trips?

Who are your main clients?

What are your main rural destinations (villages and area) you visit?

How many tours you organize per year?

What is the average group size per tour?

What is the average cost per tour?

Do you use the services of local guides during your tours? If Yes, how often?

Do you use the services of local guesthouses during your tours? If Yes, how often?

Do you think that your activities contribute to local economic development and how?

Thank you for your cooperation.

77

Annex.5. List of identified tour organizers in rural areas

Name Owner Mobile Email

33 North Gilbert Moukheiber 03-454 996 [email protected]

961 Adventure N/A 03-627 392 [email protected]

961 Trails N/A 03-818 648 N/A

Adventures in Lebanon Joe Karam 71-443 323 [email protected]

Backpacker Pierre Pharaon 70-130 097 N/A

Born to Hike Issam Diab 03-287 838 [email protected]

Cycling Circle Karim Sokhn N/A N/A

Dale Corazone Rodrigue Yazbeck 70-986 118 [email protected]

Decouvre LB Paula Soussa 03-373 711 [email protected]

Discovery Beyond Borders Pia Abboud 03-126 977 [email protected]

Ehden Adventures N/A 76-556 887 [email protected]

Explorers N/A 03-128 708 N/A

Extreme Sports in Lebanon N/A 03-791 762 [email protected]

Flying frog Nicolas Saadeh 76-495 495 [email protected]

Great Escape Andre Bechara 03-360 027 [email protected]

GreenStepsLebanon N/A 71-723 770

High Kings 961 N/A 70-270 178 [email protected]

HikeLebanon N/A N/A [email protected]

HikingGo N/A N/A N/A

Kazdoura N/A 71-981 491 N/A

Lebanese Adventure Serge Soueid 03-214 989 [email protected]

Lebanese Wanderers Sari Haddad 71-662862 [email protected]

Lebanon Journey Lara Kosseify 03-075 093 [email protected]

Lebanon Stories Nagham Ghandour 03-321 054 [email protected]

Lebanon Xtreme Leisure N/A 03-956767 [email protected]

LibanTrek Michel Moufarej 01-329 975 [email protected]

Living Lebanon Saskia 03-222 781 [email protected]

Moon Monkey N/A 70-398 956 [email protected] My Adevntures Lebanon N/A 03-073 921 [email protected] Neo Kids Nour Farra Haddad 03-733 818 [email protected]

Outdoors Lebanon Samir G. Saliby 71-085448 [email protected] Peak2 Peak Lebanon N/A 76-759 434 N/A

Promax Camille Attieh 03-955 642 [email protected]

Responsible Mobilities Pascal Abdallah 03-218 048 [email protected]

Samanas Johnny Baaklini 71-147 662 [email protected]

SkyLine Extreme Sports N/A 71-533 623 N/A

Sports for Life Avedis Kalpaklian 03-574 874 [email protected]

TourLeb Nada Raphael Joelle Sfeir

70-484 545 [email protected]

Trekking Lebanon N/A 71-850 942 N/A

Vamos Todos Marc Aoun 03-917 190 [email protected]

Vinca Libanotica N/A 70-196 750 [email protected]

WalkLeb Mike Wardeh 70-353 738 [email protected]

We are Hikers Theodor 03-582 084 [email protected]

Wild Adventures Kassem Hamadeh 03-031 562 [email protected]

Wolves Clan Adventure N/A 03-854 939 [email protected]

Lebanese International Hikes N/A 03 759 445 N/A

Foot prints nature club Mahmoud Ghalaini 03 876 112 [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



















mailto:[email protected]?__xt__=33.%7B%22logging_data%22%3A%7B%22event_type%22%3A%22clicked_open_url_action%22%2C%22impression_info%22%3A%22eyJmIjp7InN0eWxlIjoiMzgiLCJpdGVtX2NvdW50IjoiMCJ9fQ%22%2C%22surface%22%3A%22www_page_about_tab%22%2C%22interacted_story_type%22%3A%22718520444955922%22%2C%22session_id%22%3A%22e37f299c8bff654df03e40d0ae427e13%22%7D%7D
















78

Annex.6. List of Lebanon’s nature reserves and designation year

Nature reserve Governorate Designation

year

Existence of

ecotourism inside

the reserve

Rural tourism

activities in the

reserve surrounding

Horsh Ehden North Lebanon 1992 Yes (since 2004) Yes

Palm Island North Lebanon 1992 Yes (since 2004)

No (the reserve is a

coastal island facing

the city of Tripoli)

Karm Chbat North Lebanon 1995 No No

Al Shouf Cedars Mount Lebanon 1996 Yes (since 2004) Yes

Tyre Coast South Lebanon 1998 Yes (since 2008)

No (the surrounding

city of Tyre is an

urban area)

Bentael Mount Lebanon 1999 Yes (since 2012) Newly introduced

Yammouni Baalback-Hermel 1999 No No

Tannourine Cedars North Lebanon 1999 Yes (since 2004) Yes

Wadi Al Houjeir Nabatieyh 2010 Yes (since 2014) Newly introduced

Chnaniir Mount Lebanon 2010 Yes (since 2016) Newly introduced

Kafra South Lebanon 2011 No No

Ramya South Lebanon 2011 No No

Debl South Lebanon 2011 No No

Beit Leef South Lebanon 2011 No No

Jaj Cedars Mount Lebanon 2014 Yes (since 2014) Yes, even before the

reserve designation

USAID/LEBANON LEBANON INDUSTRY VALUE CHAIN ...

Documents

Transcript of USAID/LEBANON LEBANON INDUSTRY VALUE CHAIN ...