A Tourist is sipping a Piña Colada under a palm tree on a white sand beach, watching the blue blue sea. Another Tourist has just left the hotel to visit some great building. One more Tourist can’t wait to go to that awesome night club where beer is so indecently cheap.
What’s wrong with that? Nothing, I thought, until I read Pamela Nowicka’s No-Nonsense Guide to Tourism. Trouble in paradise!
Add to that Johan’s Sexy day in Kenya, Maasai dances, HIV, Africa’s share, and Eco-Tourism, and Kevin’s Sword and Mapuches, and the trouble really overshadows the paradise.
Tourism Concern (TC), the UK’s independent, non-industry based charity which fights exploitation in tourism, kindly agreed to answer some questions. Their answers were prepared with the assistance of Clara Handler, their campaigns volunteer.
The numbers
UNWTO, United Nations World Tourism Organization, estimates that in 2009, international tourism generated $ 852 billion.
There were 880 million international arrivals (compare to 25 million in 1950).
Travel and tourism generate over 10% of global GDP and account for more than 200 million jobs.
Tourism is the primary source for foreign exchange in the world’s poorest countries.
Colonizing consumerism
“Modern mass tourism did not just spring fully formed out of the collective consciousness. Apart from its historical roots in trade, exploitation and colonization, its more recent enablers were the rise of consumerism as a way of life in the West, together with the promotion of individualistic gratification as a desirable lifestyle.” Pamela Nowicka
Who benefits? That’s the main question regarding tourism, Ms Nowicka wrote in her harsh critic of mainstream tourism. She urges us to recognize tourism for what it is, “part of a political process which benefits the most well-off, while, in many cases, making the lives of poor people more difficult.” And it’s about time to challenge the way the tourism industry operates.
So where is the devil hiding?
The problems
They start when a tourist arrives to an airport with the intention to leave it:
Enter the poor. The common assumption that tourism helps the poor is not exactly right. It might, but it usually doesn't. Up to 95% of money will leave the country it is spent in. This phenomenon, called leakage, means that from every dollar, only some cents will stay in the local community, after the airline, the hotel chain, the tour operator and the government take their share.
TC explained: “At present, Northern tour operators are in the powerful position of controlling both the demand and supply of tourism. Southern countries, on the other hand, bear the brunt in terms of social and environmental costs, while they see little economic benefit, as so much of mainstream tourism is foreign-owned.”
TC went on: “Additionally, while tourism may generate economic growth, often very little of this trickles down to reach the poorest. In fact, tourism often forces people into deeper poverty by displacing them from their land to make way for resort developments and blocking access to areas used for livelihood activities, such as fishing. Job opportunities in the tourism industry for local people in developing countries are often limited to the most menial, poorly paid roles, involving long hours without proper contracts.”
When “we” go to “their” homes to enjoy our “deserved break from work”, we might be surprised to know that often people serving our cocktails and cleaning our bed sheets only have 6 days a year of holidays. And no, they don’t tend to go to a far away land for a “deserved break”. Too expensive the trip and too humiliating the visa process.
Exploited resources
The Sustainable Tourism Gateway explains how poorly controlled and profit-driven management of mass tourism damages the environment:
Water. Hotels use it, showering tourists use it, thirsty tourists use it, swimming pools use it, golf courses use it massively. Clean water is not infinite.
Local resources. Peak season puts huge pressure on local resources to meet high demands of tourists for energy, food, and raw materials.
Pollution. Planes, cars, cruise ships all add to air pollution. Little heavens on Earth will not be as heavenly for long.
Rubbish. Areas with high tourist concentration face enormous problems of waste management. An empty bottle here, a chocolate wrapping there, a “Coca Cola trail” in the mountains.
Sewage. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5* hotel construction leads to increased sewage pollution. Wastewater pollutes lakes and rivers in areas close to tourist attractions.
Biodiversity. Infrastructure needed to meet tourists’ demands threatens local ecosystems. Scuba diving, snorkeling, yachting and cruising can cause degradation of marine ecosystems such as coral reefs.
The solution
So that’s it, no more trips? No, but we need a change of direction. TC explained: “Too often, tourism causes exploitation and human rights abuses, especially in poor countries and the developing world. But staying at home is not a viable solution. Millions of people rely on tourism for their livelihoods, including many who are economically vulnerable. The point is not to stop tourism, but to change the way it’s developed and operated so it benefits local people in tourism destinations more.”
TC says the alternative to the exploitative mainstream tourism is community-based tourism. It directly involves and benefits local communities, socially and economically. It “typically includes and encourages opportunities for meaningful cultural exchange between guest and host. This allows guests to leave with a much richer understanding of the place and people they visited, while benefits stay with the local people.” Over 400 places like these in more than 70 countries are listed in TC’s Ethical Travel Guide.
The governments have to do their part, too. They “need to think more carefully about the kinds of tourist developments they approve – there is not much sense in trusting to the environmental and ethical good sense of the travel and tourism industry,” wrote Chris Brazier in New Internationalist in March 2008.
TC agrees: “Governments need to recognise that tourism is no “silver bullet” out of poverty for developing countries. Like most industries and processes of development, there are both winners and losers in the tourism game. Those most vulnerable to exploitation and to losing out to the sector (including future generations) must have their rights protected by governments and respected by the industry.” In addition, local communities have to have the right to say No to tourism if they wish so.
The challenge for the Tourist and another Tourist and one more Tourist is not to choose between a holiday and staying at home. The challenge is to acknowledge that one’s paradise adds to the other one’s poverty. Do I, a Tourist, really want to be part of this exploitation? How can I help change it?
Video by Plane Stupid, a network of grassroots groups which take non-violent direct action against aviation expansion
Photos: palm tree by me, girl with cameras by Nono Fara via flickr, front yellow by Sean McGrath also via flickr
Hello Giedre,
Thanks for a great post (and some organizations I, as a dutchman, was not aware of).
Personally I had to deal with the powerful northern operators as they dictate the price they want a trip for. The company I dealt with has its mouth full about ‘eco’ and ‘sustainable’, but simply chooses someone else if they don’t get the price they want. (I gave them a specific finger…).
Also leakage is a very common problem. Although I have not always said positive things about the Botswana government, on this topic I must say they are quite keen and they seem to address it.
The video you have chosen is great btw!
On communities the following. It can be extremely difficult to let communities decide for themselves if they want tourism or not. Since quite a few communities have little, if any, knowledge about doing business, they appear to be following their guts instead of being able to see the consequences of their actions. What we need is a situation where they get explained in understandable terms what progress could mean for them and then let them decide what they want.
To put the ball of ‘responsible travel’ in the courtyard of the tourist is no option.
Very bleak picture, and I’m pessimistic about the future, since the conditions will always be dictated by the actors with money, and they by no means come from the South. “Responsible” or “eco” travel will always remain marginal comparing to “mass” of the same reason why more people attend Madonna concerts than Bach. I am aware of one example of successful resistance to mass tourism, which is Bhutan - would be interesting to read an analysis of this particular case, I mean the balance of gains and loses, and whether the model is applicable elsewhere. Well, actually I may try to do a research on this one day - thanks for inspiration, Giedre.
Thank you Johan, I appreciate it.
Yeah I imagine it can be hard to let communities decide for themselves if they want tourism or not, and as you say it’s important to explain all the issues involved if they say yes and if they say no. In addition, local communities have to be helped with some business training if they hadn’t had it before, if they decide to run it. And how to get rid of the powerful Northern companies which claim so many places in the world as theirs?
TC quotes a research by the Association of British Travel Agents which showed that 64% of people indicated they were prepared to pay an extra £10 to £25 for their holiday if this money went towards environmental or social improvements. That might be some good news in the tourist yard, if it actually materializes.
But I’m quite pessimistic, just like you, Robert. The industry is too powerful, they have all the money, and many governments just fall to their demands. It is also unregulated, and the common assumption that tourism is only good and a palm tree can do no harm and that smiling locals are smiling because they are so happy about your presence also adds to this resistance for change.
If we dig deeper into the reasons which drive tourists, it gets even worse (this is all explained in the No-Nonsense Guide, sounds like an ad, but it’s really a great series!). We have adopted “a new religion of consumerism which has taken away from many people the ability to think in any meaningful way about the impact of their lifestyle”... and it gets even darker.
Robert, it’d be great if you follow up the story of Bhutan! Successful resistance to mass tourism could be a positive example and maybe an answer to one of our many questions.
Really interesting piece, Giedre. I would certainly be willing to pay more for an eco-friendly holiday. But, is’s always more complex than visiting a country = economic gain for that country.
Exactly, Clare. More people should be made aware of this complexity. The image of the almighty tourism that will lead out of poverty should be changed into a more realistic one, acknowledging the issues involved. Pamela Nowicka wrote that tourism should be put on the same ladder as mining and sweatshops. That’s not what the sandy beach brochures tell us, now is it.
@ Clare & @ Giedre,
Ladies, when we would make exotic tourism more expensive, we would even get less travellers. Now that might be great for the reduction of carbon emissions, but it would certainly not benefit poverty reduction.
And although circumstances can be improved in the tourism industry Giedre, it goes too far to compare it with sweat-shops and mining.
@ Giedre. Shall I add Nowicka’s book to my list of books to read?
@Johan: Of course increasing the cost will reduce the numbers travelling, but I guess you have to do a cost/benefit analysis for the host countries. If an African state is forced to pump money into sanitation for their thriving tourist population, when their indigineous people suffer, is that worth the revenue raised by tourism? These things are endlessly complex.
@Clare, I really suggest you read the book!
@Johan, I bet you are well aware that tourism as it is now doesn’t do much to reduce poverty. And besides, it’s funny how people can pay a thousand, two thousand, four thousand for a trip all included and then complain that a souvenir from a local is too expensive. It’s all endlessly complex, as Clare says.
@ Giedre,
I definitely don’t agree with you that tourism doesn’t do much. BUT..I am not disputing that it could do more.
I have seen many people in Botswana, amongst them some of my own staff, getting jobs and starting to look after their (extended) families. That is what you should not forget. If all those employed in tourism would be able to keep the money for themselves, the changes would be much more visible.
I also agree with you that the rich that pay up to $1200 a night p.p. are trying to get a souvenir for next to nothing. Adding to the complexity of not only tourism but everything that has to do with poverty, poverty reduction and the millennium development goals.
@Johan,
I respect your knowledge and experience as an insider, and in your case it all worked well for everyone. More cases like this! However, there are numerous examples in which local people actually lose out. E.g. I read about the Maldives, perfectly beautiful islands where nothing can go wrong. Wrong. Every third child there suffers from malnutrition. Fruit&veg; tends to go to islands which host tourists.
I’m not blaming tourism for the world’s problems, there are obviously many more factors involved. But tourism is not as innocent as it is presented, and I wish more people knew about this.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on tourism. It will really work out for any country if they seriously take this.
Nice information on tourism article.Every one should aware about this. The video posted on this article is really very great. Any one can get benefited from it.
the sad thing about tourist is that people are not mostly interested in “human safaris” - visiting slums and hunting with cameras to shoot kids playing there…. it’s quite common in India (the image in Slum dog we all know), but it’s entering Africa with a great speed as well.
@Iwona,
It has to be seen if not shooting kids with a camera is a sad thing.
It is not about going home with an image of a poor child, it is about being willing to do something about the situation.
@Johan - but usually the only solution tourists see it just giving money or something. This is the most easy thing. I meet all those tourists on the tour in Tanzania I assisted with. They were prepered to give kids so many things - watch, ring, pens, candies… and then kids are used that you can shoot the photo of them only when you will pay…
@Iwona,
I am very much aware of the situation you describe. I even wrote a post about it: http://planyoursafari.com/blog/doing-wrong-by-being-generous/
@Giedre
Interesting perspective Giedre and yes mass tourism can be extremely damaging to communities, but I think there is a missed opportunity here to talk about what positive initiatives have been developed in the area of sustainable tourism. For example:
SNV do some great work in regards to supporting and promoting sustainable tourism: http://www.snvworld.org/en/ourwork/Pages/tourism.aspx
I don’t quite understand the use of this video in relation to tourism. The use of violent and disturbing images should be used very carefully and I think it has been misjudged in this post.
@Emily
Since you think that the video is inappropriate for this article, does this mean that you deny the fact that flying adds to global warming? Flying which is done (also) by tourists?
@Johan
This post is not about global warming. I see the connection between increased flying and tourism but this video is slightly out of place. My point of view is that videos or images used to shock people should not be used lightly.
To say that when a tourists arrives at an airport, they are directly contributing to the death of polar bears is a pretty bold statement.
You’re right Emily, the connection made by the video between tourism and the death of polar bears is weak. Particularly when you take into account the quote at the end attempting to link the two ideas:
“The average european flight produces over 400kg of greenhouse gases for every passenger…that’s the weight of an adult polar bear.”
It’s actually pointless, sensationalist use of statistics. Even IF the theory of global warming turns out to be correct, there are far greater contributors to greenhouse emissions.
e.g. “According to a new report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transport. It is also a major source of land and water degradation. ” http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html
Secondly, where did the figure “400kg/passenger/flight” come from? There is no reference or context for the data. And exactly what affect does 400kg of greenhouse gas have on the atmosphere? Or indeed 4 tonnes?
Hi @Emily,
Yes, as Andy says, you are right. The post is indeed not about global warming. The author is only saying (in my humble opinion) that one of the negative aspects about tourism (flying)ADDS to global warming. So when you say that the video is ‘slightly’ out of place, does this imply that you actually do see the connection somehow?
In my opinion is the statement that flying CONTRIBUTES to the death of polar bears 100% correct. The author did not say that flying kills polar bears. As a last commend I would like to say that we need a lot more shocking videos since it gets more and more difficult to wake up the public. I do understand that videos like this are not nice to watch, as somewhere deep we understand the connection but do not want to be confronted with it. Especially not in relation to our well deserved, twice a year, holiday.
Hi @Andy,
Also you are correct. The livestock sector does indeed produce a lot more CO2 than the transport industry. So we should get rid of our food-source (cattle) before we start to work on our CO2 emission while traveling? It seems to me that you have your priorities somewhat wrong…But I do agree that it would be better to eat less meat!
You are not the only one that battles with what a ton of CO2 emission is, so do I.
In this article: http://development.thinkaboutit.eu/think3/post/putting_the_words_eco-tourism_in_a_new_jacket you can get a visual in the form of a picture. If you would like to measure your own CO2 output, you can use this very handy little tool called Carbon Footprint Calculator: http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx
@Johan, indeed, that was the message. Brilliant explanation, thank you!
@Emily, thank you for reading and participating in the discussion. I see your point on the ugliness of the video I chose. When I saw it for the first time I was shocked too, but then again, only because it was so, let’s say, in-your-face. And here I agree with Johan - we can’t have flowers and butterflies all the time, if we are to change something we need to wake up.
@Andy, we had an interesting discussion on this platform about the use of statistics. I cannot give you evidence for the numbers in the video, but it’s very easy to lose the main track when picking on some kgs, tonnes, kms or whatever. I don’t think Plane Stupid http://www.planestupid.com/ are saying that if you fly, you kill a polar bear and it falls onto your street. They’re making a clear connection between you, your flight, CO2 emissions, climate change, melting ice, and dying polar bears. And even if transport is not as bad a polluter as a meadow full of cows, that doesn’t mean that we should just forget it. It’s not a race of who pollutes more, or if climate change is a theory or reality.