Beyond Greening - Tourism Watch

Beyond Greening: Reflections on Tourism in the Rio-Process | Positioningpaperpower (greater access to resources) and political influence (greater role in decision-makingprocesses).The case of inflation generated by tourism exemplifies the need to conceptualise poverty inrelative terms. The mass arrival of visitors to a destination influences the price of localproducts and services. This has happened in Cancun, where the basic shopping basket is oneof the most expensive in Mexico (Mercer, 2007), and in Catalonia, where tourism has been themain external cause of rocketing inflation (Generalitat de Catalunya, 2005). In real terms,inflation means impoverishment for those sectors of the population whose income does notincrease in line with the Consumer Price Index, as is frequently the case. The Nicaraguan coastprovides a good example. The development of residential tourism in the municipality of Tolacaused the price of land to shoot up: within fifteen years, the price of a parcel of land known asa manzana (approximately 0.7 hectares) had shot from US$300 to US$280,000. The result wasthe concentration of land in the hands of a small number of investors and the displacement oflocal people, unable to contend with the increase in land prices (Bonilla/Mortd, 2010, p. 137-169).The PPT conceptualisation of poverty is blind to this reality. This lack of insight means that,within a PPT strategy, it is acceptable to seek the collaboration of large hotel companies, themain cause and beneficiaries of the enclave tourism models that lead to processes such asthose described above.PPT proponents do not deny that the dominant tourism models generate distortions(unsustainability, impoverishment), but assume that the problem resides not in the model assuch, but in its management. By establishing the appropriate corrective mechanisms, thedominant tourism models and transnational corporations that control them no longer appearas part of the problem, but are presented as allies in the fight against poverty. Through thisdiscourse, PPT legitimises political and corporate interests that have serious consequences forsocieties, economies and ecosystems. As Chok et al. have stated,"Currently, the PPT agenda appears to be heavily dictated by corporate and bureaucraticinterests whose focus is garnering political support for tourism as a policy priority"(Chok/Macbeth/Warren, 2007, p. 50).PPT is actually an orthodox neoliberal proposition, according to which economicdevelopment is essential to alleviate poverty (Mowforth/Munt, 2003; Scheyvens, 2007), andthe participation of transnational capital is crucial. PPT proponents even go so far as to advisegovernments in the South to provide financial support to tourism sector transnationals so thatthey implement "pro-poor policies", considering that although such policies may generatelong-term profits for the companies, in the short to medium term they require an investmentwhich these governments should help to finance with public funds (Ashley/Ashton, 2006).This is a neoliberal strategy, according to which the best way to benefit all of society is throughan indirect approach, namely, by establishing economic policies that favour the businesssector, or even providing subsidies directly from public funds, and trusting that some of thebenefits will trickle down from the apex of the pyramid to the base, where the mostdisadvantaged are located. This strategy is even known as the trickle down approach.Poverty and environmental degradation: Two sides of the same coinOther, more specific PPT propositions also reveal a narrow conception of poverty andmarginalisation. For example, proponents of PPT consider that this approach differs fromsustainable tourism, since the latter emphasises environmental impact. Whilst acknowledgingthat ecological sustainability is very important, the main goal of PPT is held to be the fightagainst poverty.77