13.07.2015 Views

Beyond Greening - Tourism Watch

Beyond Greening - Tourism Watch

Beyond Greening - Tourism Watch

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>Beyond</strong> <strong>Greening</strong>: Reflections on <strong>Tourism</strong> in the Rio-Process | Positioningpaper"PPT aims to deliver net benefits to the poor as a goal in itself. Environmental concerns are justone part of the picture." (Ashley/Roe/Goodwin, 2001, p. 3)However, disciplines such as ecological economics have shown that poverty andenvironmental degradation are two sides of the same coin: the application of economicmodels of growth which make unsustainable use of natural resources. Even if far from radicalproposals, such as that advanced by the United Nations Conference on SustainableDevelopment (Rio+20), it is acknowledged that the one phenomenon cannot be separatedfrom the other.When faced with the choice between growthin the sector or the equitable distribution ofassociated profits, PPT clearly opts for theformer. No consideration is given to therisks entailed for local economies andecosystems of the growth of an industry thatrequires substantial human, financial, andnatural resources. The higher the number ofhotels, second homes or spaces devoted totourism, the more "fringe benefits" willtrickle down to the local population. Factorsgenerated by tourism development, such asincreased socio-economic differences,migration, unfair working conditions, thedestruction of ecosystems or the inequitable distribution of profits, are all considered byproponents of PPT to be unimportant consequences compared to the alleged possibilityoffered by tourism of generating a meagre income through low wages, tips, or the sale ofhandicraft. An income which, as we have seen, is often swallowed up by the inflationary effectof tourism, but which also disappears as the result of other phenomena such as the way inwhich tourism comes to replace other economic sectors such as agriculture.In short, according to the PPT discourse, any tourism model is acceptable, provided that itgenerates marginal benefits for the poor. The problem is that many of these models are bytheir very nature unsustainable, lead to the concentration of wealth in the hands of aprivileged few and divert necessary resources away from the development of key economicsectors. The conceptualisation of poverty in PPT discourse renders its proponents blind to thisreality.ReferencesAshley, C., Ashton, J. (2006): Can the private sector mainstream pro-poor tourism? id21 insights 62Ashley, C.; Haysom, G. (2005): From philanthropy to a different way of doing business: strategies andchallenges in integrating pro-poor approaches into tourism business. Submission to ATLAS AfricaConference. www.odi.org.uk/tourism/RESOURCES/longerpapers/0501_pptpilots_ATLASpaper.pdf.Ashley, C., Roe, D., Goodwin, H. (2001): Pro-Poor <strong>Tourism</strong> Strategies: Making <strong>Tourism</strong> Work for thePoor. A review of experience. Nottingham: ODI&IIED&CRT.Bonilla, A.; Mortd, M. (2010): Turismo en el municipio de Tola, Nicaragua: Exclusión y resistencialocal, in Cañada, E. (coord.) Turismo en Centroamérica: Nuevo escenario de conflictividad. Managua:Luciérnaga.Chok, S.; J. Macbeth; Warren, C. (2007): <strong>Tourism</strong> as a tool for poverty alleviation: a critical analysis ofpro-poor tourism and implications for sustainability, in Hall, C. M. (ed.) op. cit.78

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!