ICTC and ICIP organise Workshop on Responsible Destination Management in Lumbini, Nepal

A Workshop on Responsible Destination Management was organised during ICOMOS General Assembly as a cluster event co-organised by ICOMOS International Cultural Tourism Committee, the International Committee (ICTC) on Interpretation and Presentation (ICIP), ICOMOS Nepal and UNESCO Kathmandu. The workshop focused on carrying capacity frameworks and heritage interpretation as tools for transforming tourism into a vehicle for regeneration, resilience and peace. The workshop was organised as a hybrid event and was well attended.

Upon the welcome by Jaco Du Toit, UNESCOs representative to Nepal and workshop introduction by Faisal Abd Rahman, ICTC, presentation of case studies from Nepal, Pakistan, India and Korea followed. This provided a rich context for group discussions whereby the participants were requested  to discuss key factors influencing carrying capacity and how interpretation methods could be used to address carrying capacity and promote community resilience.

Discussions emphasized the need for systemic change, moving beyond narrow tourism and heritage management approaches to confront the broader paradigm of continuous growth that is eroding community well-being and local livelihoods. Communities must be placed at the center—prepared, informed, and empowered to benefit from tourism while safeguarding what is sacred to them.

A key recommendation was to integrate planning tools for managing pilgrimage sites into heritage and site management plans. Understanding and assessing a site’s carrying capacity is critical—not only within the core sacred area but across the wider landscape. Effective measures include pre-booking or online booking systems (with flexibility where digital access is limited) , routing systems to manage visitor flow, designated waiting areas, avoiding construction or infrastructure work during pilgrimage periods, studying pilgrimage rhythms, auspicious days, and seasonal peaks, scheduling general tourism, educational visits, and group tours during low-flow periods etc.

Visitor profiling is essential for designing appropriate management plans. Multi-stakeholder collaboration—including technical experts, community groups, and heritage professionals—is needed for visitor planning, conservation, and heritage impact assessment. A balanced approach that includes communities in respectful and sustainable ways can help overcrowded sites redefine healthier visitor relationships.

A second core recommendation was to adopt site-specific Codes of Conduct rooted in local religious values and cultural norms. Strong heritage interpretation and communication should guide both visitors and residents on appropriate behaviors. Multicultural sensitivity must be addressed through holistic and inclusive interpretation strategies, ensuring that the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of sites is communicated in ways that resonate with different audiences—children, students, pilgrims, tourists, etc. Local residents can be trained as guides and interpreters. Visitors may also engage with local museums, villages, and living heritage spaces.

A balanced use of virtual and physical experiences was encouraged. Virtual interpretation—offered during waiting times or after visits—can deepen understanding. Tactile models of sites enrich accessibility. Children’s activity books and specially designed materials can enhance engagement. Showcasing living heritage through local festivals can foster appreciation of traditions and open pathways for skills training and learning. Heritage interpretation should involve local communities, faith-based groups, and professionals, with mechanisms to collect and integrate visitor feedback for continuous improvement.

Contribution to the Triennial Scientific Plan

The Workshop on Responsible Destination Management contributed to the TSP’s strategic objectives  by recommending  practical planning, governance, and capacity-building measures for heritage sites under pressure from mass visitation, pilgrimage flows, and tourism-induced stress—risks that can exacerbate social conflict, environmental degradation, and loss of cultural meaning.

In terms of preparedness, the workshop’s emphasis on carrying capacity frameworks, visitor profiling, and advance planning tools (such as booking systems, routing, seasonal scheduling, and landscape-level assessments) responds directly to the TSP’s call for risk preparedness, crises monitoring, and best-practice protocols. Integrating pilgrimage management tools into heritage and site management plans strengthens anticipatory governance and helps prevent crisis situations before they escalate.

For response, the workshop reinforces the TSP’s priority on collaboration and stakeholder engagement by advocating multi-stakeholder planning involving communities, technical experts, faith-based groups, and heritage professionals. Community-centred interpretation, site-specific Codes of Conduct rooted in local cultural and religious values, and real-time visitor communication are presented as tools to manage crowd pressure, behavioural risks, and tensions during peak periods—aligning with the TSP’s emphasis on timely information and coordinated action.

With regard to recovery and long-term resilience, the discussions advance a paradigm shift from extractive, growth-driven tourism toward regenerative and peace-oriented models. By framing heritage as a commons and tourism as a vehicle for dialogue, dignity, and local livelihoods, the workshop contributes to the TSP’s objectives of policy development, learning from traditional knowledge, and strengthening community agency. Recommendations on ethical interpretation, training local residents as guides, balanced use of virtual and physical experiences, and feedback mechanisms provide inputs for toolkits and guidance materials envisaged under the TSP.

Overall, the workshop offers practice-based recommendations that help ICOMOS move from principle to implementation, ensuring that tourism management becomes an integral component of disaster risk reduction, social cohesion, and conflict-sensitive heritage governance under the TSP framework.