Is the Sacred for Sale

Tourism and Indigenous Peoples

Alison M. Johnston, Iscst, Alison M Johnston

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• eBook ISBN: 9781136547966
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Ecology
• Index: Business

'Definitely a book that sheds light on perspectives and perceptions about today's global economy. A must read for tourists and corporations alike - also heads of state, the media and environment groups - all of whom need to be informed on this key subject.'
Chief Garry John, Chair and Spokesperson, St'at'imc Chiefs' Council

'an activist's call to action on behalf of people who have been made invisible in the merciless spread of globalization under corporate control.'
Nina Rao, Southern Co Chair of the Tourism Caucus at the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, and Professor of Tourism

'A powerful and much-needed tool to fight the seemingly all-pervasive ignorance in the corporate and consumer-driven world that continues to hail ecotourism and other tourism 'alternatives' as beneficial to local people without looking at the root causes of problems.'
Anita Pleumarom, Tourism Investigation and Monitoring Team, Bangkok

Tourism is the fastest growing industry in the world. Ecotourism, often considered a more benign form of tourism, can in fact cause the most damage, as it targets more vulnerable environments and cultures.

Is the Sacred for Sale? looks at our present crossroads in consumer society. It analyses the big questions of tourism, clarifying how tourism can support biodiversity conservation. It also offers a cross-cultural window to the divide between corporate thinking and sacred knowledge, to help us understand why collisions over resources and land use are escalating. Finally, we have a full spectrum of information for healthy dialogue and new relationships.

This book is a profound wake up call to the business world and to decision-makers who shape current policy. It poses important questions to us all and is a must read for every tourist and traveller.

Chapter 1

Introduction

Must tourists destroy the things they love?

(George, 2004)

Ecotourism has an earthy appeal, but its cachet as a wonder industry is crumbling. As an industry, ecotourism is more damaging to life systems globally than all other industries combined. ‘How?’, you say – because this industry targets Indigenous Peoples’ cultures and ancestral lands. It penetrates to the core, quickly, before anyone can comprehend what just happened or what it means to us all.

None of this talk of ecotourism concerns us, some think. After all, world oil supplies are forecast to run out as early as 2015.¹ So how much damage could the travel industry possibly do if airlines are, one day, grounded? Lots, if we are not careful about what we mean by ‘eco’ tourism. Lots, if we don't heed all the red lights in the biosphere today, saying that we must re-evaluate lifestyle, wealth and success. Our consumer fantasies – fanned by corporations – have deceived us about the relationships inherent to life.

Industrial ecotourism goes where we should not. It sells sacred lands, sacred knowledge systems, sacred ceremonial sites and sacred trusts simultaneously. It does this in an ‘up close and personal’ way, where cause literally meets effect. This is a destined meeting of peoples, to test us. When will we heal the cycle of industry abuse? When will we bring economics back into touch with life systems?

Ecotourism is a metaphor for where we stand today as a society. The ecotourism industry glamorizes both our vices and our virtues. By understanding its workings, we can see why choice – not chance – makes destiny, especially now.

This book encourages you to ask the vital questions. It invites you to find your own answers. We each need to choose with knowledge, conviction and dedication what kind of human relationships sustain and celebrate life, before our careening global economy takes us all beyond chaos.

Ecotourism: The chameleon industry

The ecotourism phenomenon

Ecotourism emerged in the US and Europe during the early 1980s as a hybrid concept, when ‘sustainability’ became a fashionable but serious concern. It is now known by a variety of names, from ethnic or nature tourism to adventure travel. The common element is a professed ethic of respect. Ecotourism is said to benefit local communities and the environment (see Box 2.2).

Growth of ecotourism became particularly strong following the first United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. This event persuaded governments to link ‘development’ (that is, economic growth) with the ‘environment’. It also led to wide-scale privatization of development assistance, supposedly for poverty relief. Governments began to aggressively use foreign policy to create ‘green’ business opportunities. Many large conservation groups took on a quasi-corporate role as project consultants and brokers for development. During this period, ecotourism became a championed industry. There was considerable jockeying for positions in the tourism sector, with many governments frontrunners in the competition. The Philippines hosted the first ecotourism congress of the Pacific Asia Travel Association (PATA) in 1992, and proudly says that ‘ecotourism has been a buzzword ever since’ (The Philippines, 1999). Mesoamerica positioned itself as the first region of countries to collaboratively market ecotourism through the Mundo Maya (Mayan World) programme (see Chapter 7).

Many players were keen to assert their identity through ecotourism. Touristic Union International (TUI) of Germany took the corporate lead, hosting workshops on sustainable tourism at the United Nations (UN) in 1998. Conservation International (CI) and The International Ecotourism Society (TIES) emerged at the front of the non-governmental organization (NGO) pack, though essentially corporate entities. Both worked with the UN to frame ‘stakeholder’ programming for the UN International Year of Ecotourism (IYE) in 2002. They launched themselves as ‘global’ think tanks, flanked by the like-minded World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF-International) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC). Under their leadership the line between industry interests and conservation blurred.

Themes raised in Rio were echoed a decade later approaching the next Earth Summit. Klaus Toepfer, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), called tourism ‘the most important sector in development because of the number of jobs and its growth’ (Toepfer, 2002). At the World Summit on Ecotourism (WES) in 2002 the merits of ecotourism were emphasized. African delegates said: ‘Ecotourism can bring benefits to the remote rural areas where the majority of our population lives.’²

Given these developments, ‘ecotourism companies are convinced of their support’ (Rao, 2002). More than one company owner attending the WES gushed: ‘This is our opportunity in industry to save the Earth.’ However, many groups witnessing this industry euphoria have urged caution. The feeling is not just ‘too much, too soon’, but there are also concerns about how the tourism industry is portraying ‘sustainable’ tourism. At the Going Native debate on tourism, hosted by The Netherlands Centre for Indigenous Peoples in 1999, it was reported that ‘“eco” tourism as practiced in the Philippines remains the same exploitative industry’ (Palomo, 1999).

Since 1992 there have been several statements about sustainable tourism, each with their own take on ecotourism. Some emerged from industry initiatives such as the Pacific Asia Travel Association's (PATA's) Value-based Tourism Committee formed during the early 1990s (D'Amore, 1999). Others were products of government or NGO meetings, where delegates attempted to capture some meaning and importance from their work. Many of these statements were summarized for UN deliberations (Meyer and Garbe, 2001). But the majority are stand-alone efforts that have floated between meeting rooms and have never been put under the scrutiny of affected Indigenous Peoples.

Ecotourism fundamentalism has not eased over time. Proponents recite the alleged benefits, while opponents tally the costs. Often the only thing agreed upon is that the ‘eco’ of ecotourism implies virtue. The ‘eco’ name has always suggested certification. Most either applaud this brand recognition or react in outrage. With so many players claiming expertise on ecotourism, the voice of affected Indigenous Peoples has seldom been heard. Many industry associations, consultants and NGOs, who are vocal about ecotourism, speak a whole range of community truisms without taking the time to really know ‘community’ (that is, as constituency, partner or peer). There are a great many parties – on both sides of the ecotourism divide – which get heard simply because viewpoints of Indigenous Peoples continue to be suppressed. Policy developed in this elitist, fraternal environment is dangerously out of balance.

Indigenous Peoples have been widely featured in ecotourism marketing, but remain poorly informed of international dialogues on standards. They are asked to either believe in ecotourism or to reject it, depending upon who is present saying that they have Indigenous interests at heart. Industry interests say ‘get on board’, while NGOs of various stripes claim that only their own agenda is clean. More and more, Indigenous Peoples are rejecting these overtures and taking their own stands on sustainable tourism. At the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues in 2003, it was reported that tourism has severely damaged Indigenous lands (UN, 2003).

BOX 1.1 Indigenous Peoples get ready

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines’ in-flight magazine sums up ecotourism: With our insatiable quest for novelty, we are venturing further and further afield. No longer satisfied with lying on a beach for two weeks, we want to trek through the Andes, take a horseback safari through the Okavango Delta, climb Kilimanjaro or live like a headhunter in a Borneo longhouse (Davies, 2002, p16).

All these ‘novelty’ destinations are Indigenous Peoples’ lands.

Biodiversity: The next wave of ecotourism

Today ecotourism is a revitalized topic globally due to the momentum of UN talks on biodiversity following the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. Governments are under pressure to implement principles agreed to in the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). At the same time, they are mindful of overstepping their respective comfort zones. Many regard international laws on the environment, human rights and Indigenous Peoples as a burdensome political dance. They are looking for ‘solutions’ that will bring kudos without setting costly precedents.

The search is on for financial incentives for biodiversity conservation.³ At the CBD Ministerial Round Table in Slovakia in 1998, governments looked at tourism as an option. It was agreed that global guidelines on tourism might help to achieve financial ‘sustainability’. Six months later the IYE was announced, with an emphasis on ‘[increasing] opportunities for the efficient marketing and promotion of ecotourism destinations and products on international markets’ (WTO and UNEP, 2002).

Since then, tourism has become the sacred cow of biodiversity economics. Governments and allied institutions are advising: ‘If you want to protect biodiversity, it must be made an economic asset. Ecotourism as a model of revenue generation is very important’ (Toepfer, 2002). The ecotourism industry is supposedly progressive – that is, an alternative to more blatantly destructive commerce.

As yet, little clarity has been provided by world governments on how sustainability could be achieved in the so-called ‘eco’ tourism industry. At the 14th Global Biodiversity Forum in 1999, the World Conservation Union (IUCN) sought direction on policies, programmes and activities for sustainable tourism. Although ecotourism was already a prominent growth industry, there was, by then, only a weak definition of ‘sustainable use’.⁴

By 2002, no headway had yet been made towards industry standards that would give comfort to impacted Indigenous Peoples or their communities. Nina Rao, Southern co-chair of the NGOs’ Caucus on Tourism at the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD), voiced concerns at the WES: ‘Looking at biodiversity as an economic asset is extremely disturbing. We have always looked spiritually at this. Yet here we see this being eroded’ (Rao, 2002).

The notion that ‘eco’ tourism could galvanize biodiversity conservation is now crumbling. In 2003 The Nature Conservancy proclaimed ecotourism ‘an exciting new way to support conservation’.⁵ But most international tourism NGOs oppose government promotion of ecotourism.⁶ They have little faith in UN processes to define sustainable use, and caution that the tourism industry is speeding ahead with its vices intact (Equations et al, 2004). Independent scientific inquiries confirm that there is reason for outcry (Honey, 2004) (see Box 9.4). Animals put under the ecotourism spotlight are stressed out (Ananthaswamy, 2004) just like their human brethren.

Indigenous Peoples are being severely affected by the ecotourism industry. Globally, it is Indigenous ancestral territories that industry finds most marketable. In these ‘biodiversity-rich’ areas, conflict over industrial-style conservation and corporate-led development is mounting. Governments are therefore scrambling to manage perceptions. Select Indigenous Peoples have been singled out as ‘eco’ tourism success stories through programmes such as the Equator Initiative (which some sarcastically call the ‘Oscars of Poverty’).

Most Indigenous Peoples find that involvement with the ecotourism industry accelerates their loss of rights. For each Indigenous People or Indigenous community who benefits from so-called ‘eco’ tourism, there are countless others who do not. As such, many Indigenous leaders worldwide are challenging conventional thinking on tourism. They say that biodiversity conservation is another excuse for commercial access to Indigenous lands. UN assurances for the protection of ‘traditional knowledge’ have not allayed this concern (see Chapter 10).

BOX 1.2 Armchair travellers

A whole generation of television watchers has been exposed to images of distant exotic worlds and ‘lost’ tribes. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) series Life on Earth ‘was watched by 500 million people in 100 countries’. To make this epic, filmmaker David Attenborough ‘travelled for three years through 40 countries’ (Miersch, 1998, p14). Now there are a host of naturalist shows on cable networks, often at prime time. While this ‘nature’ film business is credited with raising awareness of conservation, it has also fuelled mass ‘eco’ travel to sensitive ecosystems – often Indigenous territories. Consumers can channel surf across the places described in travel magazines, where ‘Mother nature is at her most alluring’ (Condé Nast Traveler, p106, 1999).

Ecotourism: Global toolbox for community relief?

Industry structure and profits

Tourism is called the world's largest and fastest-growing industry.⁷ It results in a transfer of US$25 billion from North to South annually⁸ and is, for many impoverished Southern countries (for example, Vanuatu, Belize), the lead source of foreign exchange. As an industry of promise, it has immense momentum and clout.

While ecotourism accounts for just 5 per cent of international tourism, it is generating enormous debate. Industrialized peoples,⁹ after degrading much of their own environment, are increasingly hungry for a tourism experience involving ‘nature’ or ‘exotic’ cultures. Many want to contribute to ‘saving’ endangered places and peoples – iron...

Table of contents

• Front Cover
• Halftitle Page
• Dedication Page
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures and Boxes
• Prologue
• Acknowledgements
• List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Land Rights
• 3 Self-Determination of Indigenous Peoples
• 4 Intellectual Property
• 5 Sacred Sites
• 6 Protected Areas
• 7 Partnerships
• 8 Accommodating Indigenous Rights
• 9 Sustainable Tourism
• 10 United Nations
• Appendices
• Notes
• References
• Index