Models
of Ecotourism
By
Jaimi Gregory, Aanthony Pedroni, Analiza Quiroz, Kevin Wegener
Ecotourism
in Australia:
Killing
Two Birds with One Stone
Preserving
Biodiversity and the Well-Being of Indigenous People
By
Jaimi Gregory
Around the world, terrestrial
ecosystems are becoming farmland and are falling victim to suburban housing
developments, highways, and continuously expanding cities. Many species are on the verge of extinction
and their natural habitats are falling to this increased industrialization. The decreasing existence of biodiversity is
a worldwide concern, however some suggest that the extent of this biodiversity
problem is not fully realized by the majority of the population. "The vast range of organisms that exist
in global systems-from microbes to fungi, plants and animals-plays a far
greater role in our everyday lives than we think."' Hence, ecosystems
provide human beings with replenished oxygen, an enriched, cleansed atmosphere
as well as many other vital components necessary for human life.
Consequently, our dire need
for preserved ecosystems has been realized by many countries. The realization of this need by these
economically-driven countries has acted as a catalyst for the innovation of a
business called "ecotourism".
The purpose of ecotourism is to create incentive to preserve ecosystems
while at the same time gaining economic profit. "Ecotourism" is a nature-based fon-n of specialty
travel defined by the Ecotourism Society (TES) as "responsible travel to
natural areas which conserves the environment and sustains the well-being of
local people." In essence, "ecotourism" has become the
manifestation of an economically driven world determined to "have its cake
and eat it too", by preserving the environment and providing economically
for indigenous people at the same time.
In essence, ecotourism is a business that has the potential for not only
helping
the country to bring in
money and preserve the environment, but also to provide job opportunities for
its people.
Ecotourism is an important
topic to study because of its growing influence on tourist travel. On the global scale, we see that ecotourism
is moving up on the charts as a desirable activity- and one that is making an
economic impact. According to
Ceballos-Lascurain (1993) a WTO report estimates that nature tourism generated
7% of all international travel expenditure (Lindberg, 1997). Although the tourism business is notorious
for its somewhat questionable statistics, it would be fair to say that
ecotourism is making an economic impact globally. The World Tourism Organization claims that the industry looked
after 592 million travelers in 1996 who spent $423 billion. Some suggest that it seems that ecotourism
could be the fastest growing part of it.
Among world leaders in
ecotourism, Australia is prominent due to the beauty of its native grasslands,
its wetlands, and the diversity of its wildlife. While the Commonwealth Government of Australia deals with the
double pressures of conserving Australia's environment while providing jobs for
its people, Australia is making positive steps forward in preserving the
environment and indigenous culture without exploiting nature and the
people. Tourism is one of Australia's
fastest growing industries (accounting for 14.5% of Australia's total export
earnings, surpassing earnings from traditional commodities such as coal, gold,
cereal grains, wool and meat, gives hope to this situation. Therefore, anticipating that ecotourism will
become a more prominent and contributing percentage of that sector,
institutions, programs and mandates have been adopted by Australia to ensure
the protection and vitality of not only the environment but the economic
well-being of the indigenous population.
Some expedition brochures of
Australia guarantee special perks included in their mission of enabling people
to explore the diverse wildlife, plant life and aboriginal heritage of
Australia. With promises of exploring
the wetlands and aboriginal artwork of tropical Arnhem Land, to sighting Koalas
in southern eucalyptus forests, and experiencing where kangaroos, cockatoos,
platypus, tree kangaroos and crocodiles all dwell, some expeditions carry a
maximum group size of 16, and claim to be suitable for most ages with small
lodges and tented camps are provided.
So far, only Australia has an accreditation system to rate tour
operators and resorts on the basis of their "greenness". However, among all these promises, the question
must be asked, "How is the environment and ecosystems of Australia being
affected and who is benefiting from this business?" The issue of how
ecotourism affects the environment and its native population is important and
must be addressed. Environmental damage
has already been done worldwide due to forestry, creating farmland, industrialization,
etc., and Australia's commitment to conserving the environment while at the
same time providing economically for its people (specifically the indigenous
Aboriginals) must be examined.
Ideally, ecotourism helps
not only nature, but people as well.
Ecotourism ideally provides jobs for indigenous people while preserving
the environment and wildlife by the preservation of natural habitats. The effect ecotourism has on nature and
human environments is diverse. While
many people around the world fail to acknowledge that the there is a
biodiversity problem, Australia has become a good example of a
environmentally-conscious country.
Committed to the preservation of its beautiful land, wild life and the
well-being of its people, Australia has some 5,800 terrestrial and marine sites
that are presently recognized as protected areas. National parks, nature reserves, marine parks, and other
designations are specially designed and internationally defined as "areas
of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of
biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and
managed through legal or other effective means".'
Australia has established
programs that are solely focused on the preservation of the environment. Strictly as a part of the Commonwealth
Government's commitment to the preservation and management of Australia's
environment, a number of community-based nature conservation programs have been
initiated to protect and regenerate native vegetation. An example of this is the "One Billion
Tree Program" (established in 1989) whose goal is to have one billion more
trees planted and growing by the year 2000.
Complimentary to this program is the "Save the Bush" program
that attempts to protect and facilitate programs for the management of remnant
vegetation. Accompanying these programs
is a world class forest conservation reserve system that is geared to the
preservation and sustainable management of the environment.
Environmentally focused
conservation programs have been made priorities for the country, however
Australia has professed to be not only concerned with the environment, but the
well-being of its native population as well.
Ideally, ecotourism helps both nature and people. Ecotourism ideally provides jobs for
indigenous people while preserving the environment and wildlife by the
preservation of natural habitats.
Programs have been established in Australia to provide jobs for native
people while at the same time promoting the preservation and enjoyment of the
country's beautiful land and wildlife.
A number of organizations established that strive to preserve the
environment, similar to the programs mentioned previously, also promote the
employment and job advancement of the Aboriginal people. These organizations, in essence, seek to
kill two birds with one stone. One
program, called the "Biodiversity Group", is a group that is involved
in cooperative programs for the conservation and management of native species
and ecological systems outside protected areas. The Biodiversity Group not only
seeks to conserve species and land, but also to create indigenous peoples'
involvement in natural and cultural resource management. While conserving and managing threatened
species, ecological communities, and remnant vegetation, this group administers
international conservation treaties, coordinates conservation products and
educates people about the environment.
On the whole, ecotourism is
a business that has the potential for not only helping the country to bring in
money and preserve the environment, but also to provide job opportunities for
its people. For example,
"Indigenous Protected Area" programs exist that aim to facilitate
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander estate holders in managing their estate for
its natural and cultural values. This
is being achieved through extensive consultation with Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander landholders and representative organizations, and with State
and Territory nature conservation agencies. Along with this program, TAP
(Training for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders Program) provides
training and employment opportunities by increasing the skills of the
people. However, without the skills and
training, the indigenous people are destined for lives of poverty in a newly
European industrialized culture.
Outside of their previous existence and habitat as warriors living off
the land, indigenous people will suffer if they are not provided with the
skills necessary to work in businesses such as ecotourism. For example, as depicted in film, Once
Were Warriors, the indigenous people of Australia were warriors at
one time in their existence and were people of "manner, pride and
spirit". However, away from their
previous existence, many of the people have succumbed to violence and
alcoholism in the industrialized land.
Some of the people dwell in the slums of the city and some even sleeping
in junk yards and old automobiles.
People live life day to day to survive in despair and with little hope
for the future. Many single males and
husbands alike pass time in bars and in essence "drink their lives
away". Consequently, violence is
common especially domestic violence. It
could be argued that this way of life, a lifestyle very different from their
ancestors, has been transformed and effected by the industrialization of the
land and the Anglo-European authority in power. Lack of education and literacy provides little opportunity for
job advancement and keeps the indigenous city-dwellers dependent on those in
authority. The indigenous live a
dependent life and this affects the indigenous person's outlook on life. In fact, in the film Once Were Warriors
, unemployment is depicted as a stress that acts as a catalyst for domestic
violence and abuse. It also could be
argued that the need for money drives people to alcoholism. In despair, women and children are subject
to violence and sexual abuse by men and the cycle of helplessness and the
resortment of a sub-optimal way of life continues.
In order to protect indigenous
people from unemployment at poverty, while at the same time providing for the
preservation of the environment, the Government has initiated the development
of the "National Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Tourism
Strategy" to enhance opportunities for "self-determination,
self-management, and economic self-sufficiency in tourism for indigenous
Australians". Here, the government
not only recognizes the economic benefit that the tourism industry could
provide for the indigenous people, but it also voices its realization that
tourism can help unite its population (indigenous and non-indigenous). "Tourism ventures can heighten interest
in and help sustain a community's culture and play an important role in
reconciliation by helping non-indigenous people to understand and appreciate
indigenous cultures and values" '. One example of this governmental
resolution is a program called "Desert Tracks" that is owned by an
Aboriginal council and employs a manager and 20 casual staff (all indigenous
apart from the manager). Desert Tracks
is an educational ecotour that teaches Aboriginal law, culture and
lifestyle. ' Although income is not
constant or secure, the indigenous people of the program hope that as time goes
on, the young people of their community will be trained in how to run the
business. As indigenous people are
trained to be guides, interpreters, cooks and office staff, the business will
eventually thrive by the time their grandchildren need a job. "This business keeps alive our laws and
culture, and can provide skilled work for our families" said a
worker. In essence, the indigenous
people believe that non-indigenous people need to understand that Aboriginal
law is in the land. By understanding
the land (participating in ecotours or living off the land), the Aboriginals
feel that they are keeping the land alive.
Hence, the government recognizes that three birds can be killed with the
same stone: economic opportunity for Aboriginals, a unification of the
non-indigenous and indigenous peoples of Australia, and environmental
preservation of the environment.
Other examples of jobs for
indigenous people that aim to protect and preserve the environment have been
associated with some of Australia's official reserves and national parks. These parks have not only simply created
jobs for the indigenous people, but have also put them in authority
positions. For example, three of the
six common wealth national parks and reserves are jointly managed by Aboriginal
owners. These parks and reserves that serve
Australia not only as preservation devices to bring in money to the country,
but also provide job opportunities include: Australian National Botanic
Gardens, Kakadu National Park, Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park, Booderee
National Park, Norfolk Island National Park and Botanic Garden, Christmas
Island National Park, Ashmore Reef National Nature Reserve, Coringa-Herald
& Lihou Reef National Nature Reserve, and Elizabeth & Middleton Reefs
Marine National and Nature Reserve.
In order to combat vast
unemployment and poverty among the indigenous people, a government program has
been established to develop employment and training opportunities for
indigenous people. And is coordinated
under the Aboriginal Employment Development Policy (AEDP). This program, which has been in operation
for ten year, strives to achieve equity for indigenous people in the areas of
employment, income, education and independence from welfare. The last review was in 1994 and some
significant improvements in indigenous employment have been achieved. This does not hide the fact that,
particularly in the private sector, the gap between indigenous and
non-indigenous Australians still exists.
However, projects are underway to narrow this gap. For example, one project labeled
"Capacity Building" is an approach by Conservation International to
ensure ecotourism benefits communities and merges with traditional practices
and conservation. Around the world,
this ecotourism program provides effective training for both Cl-local staff and
community members to help them understand and manage ecotourism
enterprises. In addition to conducting
training workshops, the Ecotourism Program supports capacity-building by
helping to detail information on model ecotourism projects in the form of case
studies. Highlights of the programs
capacity building efforts include the Brazil Train-the Trainers Workshops, and
important case studies on Cl's ecotourism efforts in Guatemala and Ghana. The Extent of Cl's influence on Australia is
unknown, however, the fact that there is an existence of Aboriginal management
in three of the six commonwealth national parks speaks for itself that the idea
of including members of the indigenous community in the business of ecotourism
is catching on.
Conclusion
The effect that ecotourism
has on nature and human environments is diverse. In relation to the effect of attracting tourists, some might
suggest that the very tourist who ventures to search natural habitat and learn
more first hand about traditional cultures invariably changes them. However, the flip side of this argument
might be that it is not a negative thing if it helps to reduce, for example,
death and illiteracy within the indigenous population (through economically
providing for the indigenous people by providing them jobs). Some critics have claimed that many
ecotourism ventures market tourism as environmentally friendly, but in fact
destroy the very ecosystems they claim to protect. However, when planned and implemented properly, ecotourism can be
both an effective conservation tool and successful community development
model." Thus, we can see that ecotourism's biggest problem could be its
labeling". For the last 15 years,
ecotourism has been heralded as one of the most promising tools for the
conservation of natural habitats. It's
no wonder that Conservation International (CI) believes that attaching the 4 6
ecotourism" label to poorly planned projects provides local populations
with little besides social tension and environmental degradation, while leaving
the tourist dissatisfied and cheated.
Therefore, we may assume that if organized well, ecotourism can continue
to benefit both the environment and indigenous peoples.
In light of the
preponderance of evidence, we may conclude that ecotourism in Australia has
been a positive influence on not only the environment, but the native
population as well. Particularly in
Australia, although the country still has a ways to go in terms of securing the
preservation of the land and the rights of its indigenous population, it is
making many positive strides forward.
In addition, a preponderance of evidence suggests that ecotourism,
specifically in Australia, is beneficial because it provides economic and
social incentives that further the cause of environmental protection in the
country. Hence, we may conclude that
the benefits of ecotourism in Australia and the government's commitment to
preserve natural habitats and to provide opportunities for indigenous people
makes it an advantageous and an efficacious endeavor.
Ecotourism
in Kenya: A Delicate Balance of Ecotourism and Ecology
By
Anthony Pedroni
The burning of forests, big
game hunting, poaching, industrial development, and the destruction of water
resources are methods, used to ruin the environment. The rate of depletion of resources is far outpacing the efforts
to conserve them. The world needs a
solution, an alternative to the current norm, that can survive the world wide
standard of success, money. The
solution needs to be beneficial to the environment, but in order to work as a
viable option for organizations it needs to be profitable. The current movement toward ecotourism looks
as if it can be a part )f the solution.
The world of ecotourism has
taken many different approaches to solving the problem of depleting
resources. We have seen what is being
done in other regions of the world from the previous sections of the
paper. Kenya is a good example of what
can be done in a portion of the environment that stands the most to lose. We will be looking at the Lewa Wildlife
Conservancy. The Conservancy is a non
profit organization that has found a way to preserve a large parcel of land
without producing a tremendous profit.
On the other hand there is the Abercrombie and Kent ecotourism
company. This is business with an
established reputation in the tourism community that finds success through the
method of offering vast arrays of vacation opportunities and educational
experiences. Both approaches help to
conserve the environment 'in their own way.
Is one better than the other? Is
it better to have a profit motive or a-.i
environment motive? The answers to
these questions are found by comparing the business practices and goals of the
two approaches, and then looking at the results.
The first problem with
solidifying ecotourism as a viable solution is the fact it does not have a
clear definition. The Ecotourism
Society published a paper, with the assistance of many leading
environmentalist, conservancies, and tour companies, in 1993 that established
unofficial guidelines for the ecotourism industry. In the paper the Society outlines guidelines from the following
list: "Visitor information and Education, minimizing visitor impact,
prevention of improper cultural impact, use of adequate leadership, tours in
small groups, have an educated staff,, be a contributor to the conservation of
regions visited, provide local employment in all aspects of business
operations, and provide non wasteful accommodations for guests."(The
Ecotourism Society, 1993) These are very
broad guidelines but as the Society states, "this has never been done
before." It is their hope, however, that these guidelines will be used in
the future to judge the effectiveness of ecotour companies; assisting in areas
of need
Lewa Wildlife Conservancy is
an example of an organization working to fulfill the guidelines establish by
the Ecotourism. The Conservancy was
officially founded on April 1, 1993 by David and Delia Craig. Located about 65 kilometers northeast of
Nairobi, in the foothills of Mount Kenya, the conservancy now watches over 267
square kilometers of land. (http://aazk.epower.net/lewa/lewa98wp.php3) Lewa
strives to maintain non-profit status, financing from outside donations in the
short term, establish a strong balance between wildlife and farming, and to,
increase environmental awareness. Lewa
is accomplishing these goals with varying degrees of success on their own,
however, their political connections are what set them apart from other environmental
organizations.
Lewa is an officially
recognized organization by the Kenyan government. The government offers support to the Conservancy financially and
politically. It became an official
non-profit organization two years aft.:-,r its establishment.
(http:Haazk.epower.net/lewa/lewa98wp) This statues gives it financial
exemptions which lessen the burden on Lewa's already tight bu('@get. Furthermore, the good relationship with the
government allows Lewa to try new and innovative conservation measures that
would not have been approved under different circumstances. Other conservancies have followed
the same path in other
regions, but the idea of land set aside for animals had never been successful
in Africa. Lewa is different because it
has experienced a larger amount of funding from outside sources in addition to
its strong political ties.
Currently the Conservancy is
dependent upon donations in order to maintain its operations. The total yearly operating budget for Lewa
is $700,000. The goal of the
Conservancy is to at some point become completely self sustaining. In 1998 fifty-six percent of the operating
budget came from donations, down from over seventy percent in 1995.
(http:Haazk.epower.net/lewa/lewa98wp.php3) The Conservancy plans on making
money from a combination of tourism/conservation and fanning. It is the balance between the two bitter
rivals which makes Lewa so incredible and so effective.
Before Lewa came into
existence the majority of the land was used for farming. The never-ending conflict between the wild and the farmers led to numerous deaths of elephants, rhinos, and other
creatures, including farmers. There
needed to be a way for the members of the surrounding community to sustain
themselves through farming while working within a system designed to protect
the animals. Lewa was successful at
convincing the local farmers that a compromise was a good idea. The Conservancy was able to fence off a
portion of the land and set -it aside to allow animals to roam
"freely". On the other side
of the fence, the local farmers were able to plant their crops without having
to worry about them being destroyed by the large animals. Lewa's administrator speaks of the fence's
success in and article by John Nyaga, "'Before the fence was constructed
farmers in the area used to kill iup to seven elephants a year to protect their
crops,' LWC administrator Simon Marriot said."(Nyaga, 1997) This policy of
not shutting out the local people, but creating opportunity for them to
succeed, opened many doors for Lewa.
The conservation efforts by
Lewa have, been successful. The
justification of the success is reflected in the number of animals now under
the direct protection of the conservancy.
Lewa is home to over twenty four black rhinos, approximately 5% of the
total population in Kenya. The Grevy
zebra population has done better within the fences of Lewa than on its own in
the wild. There are now over five
hundred of these animals on the conservancy, a 650% increase over the amount of
zebras in the area in 1977. (http:Haazk.epower.net/lewa/lewa98wp.php3). The
white rhino and elephants have also benefited from the amount of protection
they receive. On its web site Lewa
boasts of its rhino success, "Since their return to Lewa NO rhino have been
lost to poachers. The Conservancy's aim
is to have a minimum number of 50 from each species - this being the smallest
number for a group which is considered worldwide to be genetically
viable." (http:Haazk.epower.net/lewa/lewa98wp.php3) Lewa has been a safe
haven for the local animals, but this protection does not come without
financial cost.
The protection of the
wildlife is nothing short of spectacular.
The security personnel make up roughly 65% of the entire working force
of the conservancy. The annual operating
budget is dominated by the cost of protecting the animals. The extreme numbers of such a large security
force is reflected in the incredible figure of at least one man working
security for every 2.5 square miles. (http:Haazk.epower.net /lewa/lewa98wp.php3)
This is a good example of how the value of the animals and the land is greater
alive than dead. The Conservancy spends
a lot of time and money protecting the animals as if they are rare pieces of
art. To sustain the protection the
Conservancy relies what is now becoming its greatest source of income, tourism.
Within the boundaries of the
conservancy there is a limited amount of ecotourism allowed. One of the goals of ecotourism is to,
preserve and protect and the policies at Lewa reflect dedication to these
principles. There are currently two
companies allowed to run tours on the Conservancy, Wilderness Trails and Lerai
Tented Camp. The catch to the tours is
that there is a limit of sixty tourists who may be within the Conservancy at
any given time. All of the money earned
from the tourism has to be put back into the Conservancy because of its
non-profit status. (http:Haazk.epower.net /lewa/lewa98wp.php3) Therefore the
land and the animals benefit because every Schilling the land produces is given
back to it.
The limit on tourism is not
intended to discourage the public access to the animals, or to limit the
educational opportunities for the general public. Lewa plans on increasing the amount of tourist allowed in the
park, but only as long as the land can handle the load. The Conservancy will also be reaching out to
the local public in an attempt to provide first hand
educational opportunities. Lewa, in
conjunction with the Kenyan government, is in the early stages of building four
primary schools around the perimeter of the Conservancy. This is in addition to the health clinic
funded by the conservancy and its continuous employment of local workers. In his article Nyaga illustrates Lewa's
motivation behind the community involvement.
He says, "The conservancy has provided employment and built and
funded a medical clinic for the estimated 4,000 people who live next to the
conservancy, hence motivating them to conserve wildlife." (Nyaga 1997)
These are examples of Lewa's efforts to establish the ideal ecotourism
opportunity in East Africa, furthermore, Lewa has only begun its long range
plans.
In the future Lewa plans to continue in the same direction. On their web page they say: "A value must be placed on wildlife, and the revenue it has earned must radiate outwards. To this end increased efforts will be made to assist neighboring communities in five ways: employment, schools, healthcare, a solution to humane/wildlife conflict and by initiating revenue - generating community wildlife schemes." (http:Haazk.epower.net /lewa/lewa98wp.php3) Lewa intends to create a situation where local people can feed off of the Conservancy's prosperity.
An alternative approach to
Lewa is the Abercrombie and Kent ecotourism company. Abercrombie is one of the largest, most established companies in
the ecotourism industry. Their
operations span several continents; offering a wide range of ecotourism
opportunities. One of their most
popular destinations is East Africa.
They run numerous safaris in Kenya, with many of the same wildlife
attractions as the Lewa Wildlife Conservancy.
Abercrombie and Kent advertise their ecologically minded
operation, but it is truly a low impact and highly effective tour company? The simple
answer to this question is
yes and no; they do tread lightly on the environment, but they passively
conserve and protect through the method of education and donating to parks
Abercrombie and Kent is
centered in the United States. Unlike
Lewa who has the official recognition and support of the Kenyan government,
Abercrombie does not advertise any endorsements by governments. This does not detract from the business of a
world-wide tourism company, however, it does illustrate how the local people
are not included in the ecotourism windfall.
The company does give money to the parks that it runs its tours in. On their web page they say,' Abercrombie
& Kent donates a substantial percentage of its Africa revenues to Friends
of Conservation (FOC), a non-profit organization."(http://www.abercrombiekent.com/html/aak_pri.html)
Abercrombie knows who really sustains their business, the wildlife,
conservancies who do the protecting of the land and animals, while offering
employment for the local people.
Abercrombie and Kent do not
take care of the average local person at the wildlife park they visit. They do not directly offer anything for the
people, like the farmers, who may need some assistance if the local wildlife
park is taking over their land. The
Ecotourism Society specifically says that an effective ecotourism company will,
"Provide local people with a full range of opportunities beyond the
service employment sector."(The Ecotourism Society, 1997) The wildlife
park may use some of the proceeds from Abercrombie to employ local workers,
however, the responsibility to maintain a good relationship with the local
people is not actively done by Abercrombie and Kent.
The money issue is the main
difference between the Lewa approach to ecotourism and the Abercrombie and Kent
approach. Lewa runs its operation on a
very tight budget and as, covered earlier, this budget comes mostly from
revenues generated by guests of the Conservancy and from outside
donations. Abercrombie and Kent will
charge up to $3,285 per person for an East African Safari. The package includes accommodations at a
resort lodge, transportation by car, and full amenities while on the safari.
Making a profit is the
number one goal of Abercrombie and Kent.
They make money by offering extravagant tour packages that offer
anything for the world traveler, for a price.
They put a lot of money into the facilities they build and maintain for
their guest. They offer transportation
to exotic lands were a tourist can travel on trains, planes, luxury sport
utility vehicles, and large boats.
Their guests can elect to stay in modest hotels or luxury suites.
(http//:www.abercrombiekent.com) They have a high class organization with the
high class demands of westerners.
The Abercrombie and Kent
approach does not have the lowest impact possible. To truly be low impact a tour must be conducted in an existing
lodge because the erection of new buildings uses many resources from the
already depleted environment. The cars
the tourists take are usually very inefficient and highly pollutant vehicles
that require maintained roads. A truly
low impact tour has the tourists should living on the land, in tents, and
walking to the animals they wish to see.
However, the lower impact alternative would be harder to sell to the
consumers. Abercrombie and Kent
sacrifice a little impact for a larger opportunity to educate.
An advantage of the
Abercrombie and Kent approach is their ability to raise awareness and practice
preserving the environment with their guests.
Abercrombie advertises, "expert tour guides" and "small
groups, 12-24". They teach each of
their ecotourists an in-depth lesson on what kind of land and animals are in
danger and what needs to be done to protect them. Their guests get to experience detriments to wildlife and the
benefits of conservation. Ecotourists
go on an Abercrombie safari to see what a zebra, rhino, or an elephant look
like in the wild but they also are taught a lesson on what needs t be
done. Abercrombie and Kent have been
recognized for their efforts to educate their clients on the plight of the
environment. On their web page they
mention their recognition, "A&K's efforts toward preserving and
protecting the environment recently earned it the ASTA/Smithsonian Magazine
Environmental Award, and honors in the Conde Nast Traveler Ecotourism
Award." (http:Hwww.abercrombiekent.com/html/index.htm]) This shows that
the approach of Abercrombie and Kent is better than most companies. Abercrombie may come up short in some areas
of the ideal ecotourism company but they are leaders in their industry niche.
So which ecotourism approach
is better; conserving the land and animals through active measures, or visiting
endangered and exotic lands and educating tourist of the dangers the
environment faces? Both have their
advantages: raising awareness, putting money into the environment, raising the
value of a live animal, and giving local governments and industry a reason to
be ecologically minded. Lewa excels at
working with the government and local communities and putting money into the
environment. Abercrombie and Kent are
masters at raising awareness, practicing low impact tourism, all while making
money. While there is lack of a
measurement tool to decide which method is better in the long run, one can see
that the active method used by Lewa has immediate results while the benefits of
Abercrombie and Kent's methods will not be realized until the future.
Chapter
2: Bibliography
Abercrombie & Kent
Homepage, http:Hwww.abercrombiekent.com, 1999.
Ecotourism Explorer,
http:Hwww.ecotourism.org, 1999.
Ecotourism Guidlines For
Nature Tour Operators,.The Ecotourism
Society: North
Bennington,Vt, 1993
Lewa Wildlife Conservancy
Homepage,
http:Haazk.epower.net/lewa/lewa98wp
Nyaga, John., Ecotourism
Taking Root in KeUa, Agence France-Presse,
1997.
Ecotourism in Costa Rica: A
Silver Bullet of Sustainability
By Analiza Quiroz &
Kevin Wegener
"Take nothing but
photographs.. Leave nothing but footprints."
Ecotourism is a new
conservation movement based in the tourist industry that has been described as
"responsible travel which conserves the natural environment and sustains
the well-being of local people" (Jones 1992). With large-scale, capital intensive resorts often built with
foreign money, the "conventional" model of tourism has had a negative
legacy in less developed countries.
Ecotourism is analogous to a silver bullet of sustainability. When misused, it has hurt many livelihoods
in the Third World. But when used
properly, it has amazed many environmentalists and conservationists with its
potential power. Currently, there are
concerted efforts to motivate the international tourist industry toward the
type of sustainable practices embodied in the ideology of ecotourism.
Ecotourism is conceptually
rich and well intentioned, but in terms of it being a practical model of
development, it is still in its infancy.
"Presently the term [ecotourism] is used as a catchall applied
indiscriminately to almost anything linking tourism and nature" (Scace
1993). Tour operators and government
agencies throughout the world are using terms such as "ecotourism" to
attract a growing population of travelers who are concerned with the
environment. Nowhere is this more true
than in Costa Rica, a country that has become a popular international tourist
destination through its early identification with the ecotourism movement. Costa Rica holds a truly unique position
among the world's tropical nations with regard to conservation. this small
country simultaneously is among the nations facing severe environmental threats
and the nation that is perhaps most active in conservation efforts. While Costa Rica remains a leader in
environmentalism, such crass exploitation of the ecotourism label has led many
European visitors to refer to Costa Rica as "Eco Disney."
Costa
Rica
Touted as the vanguard of
the conservation movement, Costa Rica has been looked upon as "a model
country in the development of ecotourism" (Budowski 1990). In fact, Costa Rica won international
acclaim one fifth of the national territory was dedicated to parks and more
than half of all United States public and private funding was received for
international conservation.
The strength of the
[reserve] system is in the representation of the country's key physiographic
regions: Almost all of the natural existing habitats or natural communities
such as deciduous forests, mangrove swamps, rain forests, marshes, paramos,
cloud forests, Raphia swamps, oak forests, coral reefs, riparian forests, and
swamp forests are conserved. (Fennel, Eagles 1990)
The attraction of Costa Rica
for tourists is heightened by its political stability, relative economic
wealth, and the rich and vibrant ecological system. Even more impressive is the country's flora and fauna: there are
850 recorded species of birds, 200 recorded species of mammals, 150 species of
amphibians, and 9000 species of vascular plants making up an estimated total of
five percent of the world's species (Hill 1990). Furthermore, Costa Rica is considered to be the bridge between
North and South America; species migrating between the two have produced a
spectacularly diverse wildlife.
Realizing that conservation is not preservation, Costa Rica recognized
tourism as the economic component of conservation in order to ensure the health
of the reserved lands.
Tourism in Costa Rica is the
country's second largest money earner of foreign exchange after bananas. According to the Economic Intelligence Unit,
tourism has been growing rapidly from $140 million in 1986, $175 million in
1988, $281 million in 1989 and $421 million in 1992 (http:Hwww.txinfinet.com/mader/planeta/0595/0595tico.html).
The environmental tourism business has likewise skyrocketed. Based on the U.S. Travel and Data Center's
National Travel Survey, more than 85 percent of travelers are likely to support
or patronize travel companies that claim to help preserve the environment
(Budowski 1990). Unfortunately, many
travelers who take advantage of irresistible
package prices are oblivious
to the sordid history behind the construction of such posh, all inclusive
resorts (Wheeler, Blake, Becher 1991).
Having a concern for the
environment does not ensure that taking an "ecotour" will help
preserve the environment. It is often
the case that neither tourists nor tour operators are aware of how tourism can
be a force for ecological conservation.
In fact, many tour operators use ecotourism to promote and attract
travelers to trips that do not support conservation or local economies. Wheeler (1992) takes a critical look at this
"conventional" form of tourism when he writes that it wrongly enables
"the traveler to enjoy the holiday experience they want with a clear
conscience."
Costa Rica is one of many
countries strapped with large debts that pursues the "conventional"
model of mass tourism (Hill 1990).
Conventional tourism strives for large volume and rakes in profits that
surpass the alternative model of ecotourism.
Ecotourism's objectives limit tourist populations to minimize
impact. However, this distinction runs
solely along lines of GDP and ignores the uncalculated costs of conventional
tourism or the benefits of ecotourism.
Although it has one of the highest percentages of conserved land, Costa
Rica also has more deforested land than any other Latin American nation (Blake,
Becher 1991).
Ecotourism
vs Conventional Tourism
The fostering of ecotourism
is suggested by indigenous people in developing nations, by the nations
themselves, and by international conservation organizations as one of the best
methods to preserve natural resources and biodiversity almost anywhere that
they are threatened. But does ecotourism
always help local economies and significantly preserve visited habitats and
wildlife? As with any popular program
that undergoes rapid growth, there are problems. Costa Rica is now facing the tension between capitalism and
income generation and culture and environment protection. Many people who monitor tourism- researchers
and government officials- believe that in the rush to make money from
ecotourism, benefits are often overstated and problems ignored. Indeed, the government is at a crossroad on
how to pursue development. Costa Rica's
tourism board, the ICT, has been creating policy for tourism development in the
last decade, attempting to simultaneously develop two types of models:
small-scale ecotourism and a larger-scale conventional model. However, many criticize that developing both
types of models concurrently is not only impossible but dangerous for the
industry.
There are several cases
where ecotourist development has contributed to such problems. The government-approved Papagayo project on
the northwestern coast of Costa Rica was responsible for massive
deforestation. Ironically, this replica
of an "authentic" Caribbean village also boasts several golf courses
and 40,000 rooms. The size is
substantial when one considers that there only 12,000 hotel rooms in the entire
country.
In this case, nominally
"green" tourism can cause similar problems to the type of it
conventional" tourism to which it is supposed to be an alternative. Such problems include substantial leakage of
receipts back to industrialized countries, marginal employment opportunities
for local people, negative social change, and environmental degradation.
Profit
Leakage
Many private companies
purporting to be "ecotour" operators are "eco-" in name
only; they are interested solely in profits, and are not concerned about local
economies or the wild areas into which they take tourists. There is growing concern about monetary
"leakage" despite attempts to keep most of the ecotourist revenues in
local destination economies. With
hotel, airline, and tour industries increasingly dominated by transnational
corporations, much of the money earned in host countries leaks back to
developed nations. A study revealed
that for every dollar spent on tourism $0.40 went to buy imports for tourist
demands, another $0.40 went to private hotels and other businesses and $0.20
went to host governments in the form of taxes (Lea 1988). Relatively little is actually spent on
conservation. Large transnational
corporations have an advantage over smaller tourist enterprises because they
can utilize economies of scale and get better deals for each aspect of the
vacation. In this scenario,
transnationals create tour "packages" that consist of flights, hotel
accommodations, meals and entertainment with little opportunity for money to
enter local host communities (Green 1982).
Employment
One of the argued advantages
for tourism as a model of development is the creation of jobs (Papagayo is
supposed to provide 2000) for nations that are strapped with high rates of
unemployment. It is often the case that
policy makers gauge the successes of tourist development through the narrow
lens of GNP and employment rates. Black
and white statistics measure money generated and jobs created but ignore the
marginal employment of the local population.
Moreover, serious problems face Costa Rica in choosing "the kind of
tourist development that regards local people merely as a pool of potential
maids, waiters, gardeners, laundresses and nothing more" (Blake
1991). Oftentimes these low-paying
service jobs actually replace more sustainable jobs such as farming, fishing,
or traditional arts. Indeed, ecotourism
is an unstable source of local employment and economic well-being. Tour bookings are heavily dependent on seasonal
trends, on the weather, on a country's political situation, and on worldwide
currency fluctuations. Yet, even the
low economic incentives are initially enough to recruit local people into the
travel industry. In the process of
designing a strategy for tourism development, governments may find seasonable
stability and more jobs at first-rate hotels appealing but a closer look
reveals the underlying societal costs.
Social
Impacts
Although the prevailing
emphasis on wilderness protection (i.e., parks, forest preservation, and
wildlife conservation) and ecotourism is applauded by many conventional
northern environmentalists, this approach is biased. It mainly serves the interests of privileged upper-middle-class people,
primarily scientists and tourists from the north. The total extent of protected area (i.e., 27% of the land) is
perhaps excessive or at least questionable, in view of the landlessness and
poverty affecting many rural people.
Although inequality of land ownership is not as extreme as in the other
Central American countries, the problem is nonetheless apparent: 37% of
landholders are small farmers who own just1% of all farmland whereas the top1%
of landholders own more than25% of the farmland (Seligson 1994). Furthermore, only 22% of economically active
peasants are landholders, whereas thousands of rural people are landless
agricultural workers (Seligson 1994).
When so many people lack access to land, preservation of large areas as
parks is incongruous. The creation of
parks or reserves by private wealthy individuals, such as Janzen's acquisition
of 50,000 hectares in northern Costa Rica, is particularly controversial. The appropriation of a large area of land by
privileged North Americans, even though well-intentioned, perpetuates inequitable
patterns of development. This not only
conflicts with the interests of the land-hungry poor, but also imposes northern
ideas and interests.
Studies have found that many
Costa Ricans are not interested in wildlife, parks, and ecotourism, largely because
they are poor and do not have access, desires, or financial capacities to enjoy
such activities. Many rural people
logically are critical of or opposed to parks, particularly those who lack
resources. For example, a study in the
region of Puriscal found that 65% of 120 small farmers interviewed expressed
aversion toward the creation of reserves and parks, even though most were
concerned about soil erosion and deforestation and practices agroforestry
(Thrupp 1989). They see parks and
reserves as inaccessible or inappropriate for their purposes, and when parks
are located near farmland, they constitute sources of wild animals and pests
that disrupt farmers’ crops and farm animals.
In a study of rural peoples near Gandoca-Manzanillo Wildlife Refuge near
the Panama border, Dorothy Anger found similar opposition to the
conservationists' refuge projects funded by the World Wildlife Fund. Opposition was largely because the local
people "see the conservationists, in their lifestyles and ideologies, as
having less in common with them than the loggers and developers who may be
their neighbors" (Anger 1989).
The "tourist
enclave" has been described as "a self contained resort area totally
severed from native society" (Sachs 1993). Tourists in such enclaves gain little sense of the host country,
as their only relationships are with service personnel whose job is to pamper
and amuse them. Cultures are often
forced to adapt their traditions for the sake of providing tourists with the
cultural experiences they come to see.
Western travel brochures further stereotype cultures and bolster
ignorance. Problems of false
advertising come from many sectors of the industry. In Costa Rica, tourist sites sport slogans such as: "Nature
at its Best", "Just Natural Sense", and "Eco
Paradise." This is ironic when common business practices are
uncovered. For example, the German
owner of the Las Palmas "ecoadventure" bulldozed the beach and forest
in front of the hotel to build a canal way for easy access to the ocean.
Most importantly, what
effect will the influx of a large numbers of "foreigners" have on
these communities that in the past have had relatively little interaction with
the outside world? In short, how much
of their culture will be lost, and what will be the overall impact to community
life. As the globalization process
continues, all communities will be enlightened to new cultures and
ethnicities. Thus the goal should be to
preserve the characteristics that make each culture unique.
Environmental
Impacts
The foremost cause for
environmental concern is deforestation.
Most forest cutting and burning is not to obtain timber but to clear
land for cattle pastures, crop fanning, and the building of hotels and
airports. The entire country was once
forested, but now most of it has been cleared, much of it recently. Presently, Costa Rica has one of the highest
rates of deforestation in Central America and, in fact, in the world. According to the World Resources Institute,
Costa Rica ranked fourth among the world's nations in rate of deforestation,
with 3.9% of its forested area being cut each year
(http:Hwww.txinfinet.com/mader/planeta/1198/1198cr.html). Particularly hard-hit
has been the tropical dry forest habitat that occupied Costa Rica's northwest
Pacific lowlands. Unfortunately, these
dry forests lands were easily accessible and able to support several types of
agriculture; by now, less than 1% remains of the original dry forests of
Central America.
Permanent restructuring of
the environment is caused by the building of hotels and airports on wildlife
habitat and the air and water pollution that follows. Hotels have often been built with little thought given to waste
planning. Costa Rica's Puerto Viejo de
Talamanca has seen drastic population growth in the last five years due to
tourism. Since the town has no sewage
system, many simply pump their sewage directly into the ocean, a practice that
has caused health problems for local children.
Urgent human environmental problems, such as water contamination, harmful
sanitation conditions, pesticide poisoning, and urban overcrowding are given
relatively little attention in environmental policy. Here, it is important to recognize that human degradation
problems (such as poisonings and contamination) are mainly borne not by
tourists but by the poor.
Popularity as an ecotourism
site may inevitably lead to its failing.
As ecotourism expands dramatically, sites that are over-used and
under-managed will be damaged. Trails
in forests gradually enlarge and deepen, erosion occurs, crowds of people are
incompatible with natural animal behavior.
Also, ecotourism's success harms itself in another way: when any area
becomes too popular, many travelers wanting to experience truly wild areas and
quiet solitude no longer want to go there; that is, with increasing popularity,
there is an inexorable deterioration of the experience.
Another obstacle to tourism
is the management of Costa Rica's national park system. According to a study conducted by the
Inter-American Development Bank, one serious threat is the combination of
increasing numbers of visitors, and the park service's inability to manage
them. While over half a million visit
the country's national park system, visitors pay the same $2 fee as locals, a
sum barely adequate to pay park staff let alone maintain quality. Although the Costa Rican park staff are
generally praised for their level of training and esprit de corps, none are
specifically trained in visitor management, and few have the time to spend
assisting visitors, directing them onto appropriate trails, and explaining or
enforcing rules and conduct. Granted,
most of the parks do have trail systems, but few if any are designed to
concentrate visitors in the less fragile scenic areas, leaving sensitive
ecosystems undisturbed (Not-ns 1994).
Finally, while Costa Rica
has thousands of pages of written laws and regulations that concern resources
and the environment, most of the laws are weak and unenforced. Environmental law itself is not formally
recognized and established in the Costa Rican legal system, and environmental
lawyers are very rare. Even when laws
are violated and the violators are discovered, the cases are rarely heard in
court, and sanctions are lax. For
example, in cases of violations of pollution laws, the guilty parties are
merely warned or pay a small fine.
Furthermore, the laws are often contradicted by long-standing
development laws and economic incentives of the government. Despite efforts to improve the effectiveness
of the laws, the constraints persist.
The government is overloaded with numerous judicial issues in other
areas, and legal priorities are "controlled primarily by political
forces... Conservation-type laws seem to be ignored by government
officials" (Hartshorn 1992). Yet
again, the socioeconomic implications of environmental destruction are given
too little attention, and the majority of Costa Rica's rural people bear the
burden.
Government
Responses
Loss of the world's
rainforests and the plant and animal species they contain - their biodiversity
- is occurring at an alarming rate.
People and governments are beginning to realize the scope of the problem
and to take action. But the problems
are long-established and severe, the possible solutions new, tentative, and
difficult to introduce and enforce. It
must be asserted that successful projects do exist, but these models are not
necessarily transferable. As one
conservation researcher explained,
It is difficult enough to
change agricultural practices and implement conservation programs in the USA, a
relatively rich, educated, technologically-advanced, democratic country;
imagine how much more difficult it must be for environmentalists in smaller,
poorer countries to try to change long-standing agricultural and forestry policies,
countries in which business concerns usually hold sway.
(http:Hwww.txinfinet.com/mader/planeta/I 198/1198cr.html)
Wheeler (1992) writes about
significant barriers that stand "between the appealing theoretical notions
of good tourism and the practical realities of its implementation." By
most criteria, Costa Rica has an admirable environmental record. By pursuing a number of conservation
policies, by establishing and protecting parks, and by promoting ecotourism the
country is doing much to preserve its environmental heritage. Costa Rica has a long history of interest in
biodiversity conservation, having enacted strict wildlife trade laws in 1970
and, in 1975, being the first Central American signer of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). There are also non-profit organizations such as the Ecotourism
Society which provide readers with the basic elements of successful ecotourism
projects and explore their application in the context of real world
examples. However, many governments are
ambiguous in their attempts to implement these strategies and transform
sustainable ecotourism into a reality.
The IC's approval of the
Papagayo project reflects the ambiguity of their proposed objectives to guide
tourism development. Their 1993 report
states, "The product 'Sun and Beaches' was not included [in ICT
objectives] since it is not competitive in the referred market... The principal
attraction that Costa Rica has to offer and should develop is that which is
based in protected areas" (ICT 1993).
However, in reality, the foundation of the Papagayo project has always
been to attract tourists- at any cost.
Critics assert that the
Situr project is using the image of Costa Rican natural beauty as a marketing
scheme. Currently, the Costa Rican
Defense of Habitats is suing Situr to stop the project. Additionally, the Center for Environmental
Studies is charging that project profits contribute to the service of
environmental aggression with tremendous violations against Cost Rican
laws. "What we are fighting
against is not Papagayo only, but this model of tourism development" (de
Kadt, 1989). Beyond the actual
environmental and constitutional problems, the image of Costa Rica as a country
committed to small-scale nature-based tourist development is tarnished by such
projects as Papagayo, Situr, and Monteverde.
Monteverde
As a private organization
linked with national research facility, Monteverde (or "Green
Mountain") enjoys an internationally acclaimed reputation and the capacity
to fund itself. Monteverde has been a
model for conservationists from Colombia, Honduras and Peru who see the
autonomous structure of Monteverde as a financially solvent means of protecting
rainforest. Contributions and grants-
not admission fees- finance land acquisition or improvements to the visitor's
center. Moreover, the preserve has
grown from its original 4,000 acres to 50,000 acres in size (Jacobson and
Robles 1992).
Monteverde is also the home
of today's hot ecotour of "canopy touring." It started out as a way
of studying the ecology at the highest level, or "canopy", of the
rain forest, but has evolved into a thriving business with over 600 tours given
each year. Darren Rennick, a native of
Vancouver, Canada, started The Original Canopy Tour after scouring Costa Rica
and finding the perfect location in Monteverde. The Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve is one of the last areas of
first growth cloud forest left in the Americas. This ecotype once covered vast tracts of Central America, but
unrestrained clearing has reduced it to just 5% of its original size.
Rennick boasts, "Our
main objective is to provide tourists a unique activity and ecological
experience while, at the same time, helping to aid in the preservation of the
worlds endangered rain forests through direct financial support to
conservation, education and reforestation efforts"
(http://canopytour.com/). He, along with other tour guides, educate visitors
about the local flora and fauna, ecology, and history, with asides on Central
American environmentalism ranging from efforts (or the lack thereof) by the
Canadian International Development Agency to those of Green Peace. In addition, a portion of the seasonal
operating revenues are diverted into local ecological initiatives. Rennick also points out that he personally
hand-constructed all of the landing platforms out of deadfall wood he selected
from the surrounding jungle. He refuses
to cut down living trees to build an ecological business despite the added
expense this incurs.
(http:Hvanbc.wimsey.com/-ayoung/canopy.htm)
Increasingly, though,
Monteverde is losing its forest cover, and the conservationists are becoming
teachers and sympathizers with the local populace instead of trying to maintain
their green island. Canopy tours, despite
being educational, still require cables and risk damage to one of the last
cloud forests in the Americas.
In addition, the number of
tourists has skyrocketed, and Monteverde's increasing popularity has also
created new problems. The preserve's
director, William Aspinall recollected a more primitive time,
If you ever came to
Monteverde over ten years ago, the trails were all leaf-covered, and it was a
very gratifying experience. With the
increment of tourism, the animals and birds avoid the trails, so you defeat
what you're trying to do. We don't want
Monteverde to become a
tourist attraction.
Yet as more tourists arrive,
entrepreneurs and hotels have blossomed to cater to their needs. Speculation of Holiday Inns, golf courses,
finer restaurants and a local airport haunt the native population. Monteverde, like Papagayo, is a tourist
attraction, and the culture gap has forever changed the community.
Successful
Ecotourism
It must be noted that there
are nature lodges in Costa Rica deserving of the ecotourism label, promoting
unique natural resources and attractions in and of themselves. Specific sites include Rara Avis, Albergue
Savegre, Cabinas Chimuri, Marenco, and Tiskita. Amos Bien, on visiting Costa
Rica years ago, was alarmed at the rate of disappearance of rainforests outside
of the national parks and other reserves.
The result of much thought, time and energy was Rara Avis (or "Rare
Bird"), a forested property on the edge of the extensive Braulio Carrillo
National Park dedicated to testing economic projects which avoid local
practices of destroying forests. Unlike
other biologists who were concerned solely with the understanding of life
within that reserve, Bien stepped outside the borders in order to understand
why peasants were deforesting the neighboring land. Bien foresees Rara Avis not only as a model of ecotourism but as
a new means of forest appreciation. He
believes that if the people of Los Horquetes can see that the forest adds to
the economic well-being of the community via ecotourism and a specialty plant
and animal trade, then the impression of the forest as an obstacle to
development may gradually be erased.
The exportation of forest products-- whether plants or seeds-- are
visible clues to the economic value of the forest. Bien told a story of a neighbor, who was shocked at the value of
exotic plants:
When I pointed out that an
ornamental palm--an endangered species thought to be extinct-- had a market
value of $100, fie started raising them in his house and on his last piece of
forest that hadn't been converted for cattle.
He said, "I'm awfully glad you told me because we were going
through with machetes and cutting them down as weeds.
(http:Hwww.rara-avis.com/)
Bien believes that
acknowledging the economic value of the forests and the needs of the local
populace must also be recognized by conservationists. His thesis is: "If you want to prevent forests from being
cut down outside of the national parks, you have to make it economically useful."
The second site, Albergue
Savegre is a family farm in the high Talamanca Mountains south of San
Jose. It has become a center of
research on the quetzal bird of the cloud forests. By nurturing the small wild avocados that provide food to the
species, the Chacon family's success in helping the quetzats has led other
landowners to follow suit. Thanks to
them, the quetzal population of the Savegre Valley is even more abundant.
Another site, the Cabinas
Chimuri is near the Caribbean beach community of Puerto Viejo. Accommodated in simple thatch huts, visitors
experience the lifestyle of the Bn'bii and Cabecar Indian tribes. Additionally, Cabinas Chimuri offers
carefully managed hiking trips to learn the forest lore and visit Indian homes
deep in the reserve.
As the fourth site, Marenco
protects 300 hectares of primary forest on the northern border of Corcovado
National Park. Offering its own system
of private rain forest trails, Marenco is owned by the Mirandas, a Costa Rican
family that pioneered the idea of the private biological reserve combining
tourism, education, and research.
Groups of Costa Rican high school students are also invited to Marenco
for their first glimpse of the true rain forest.
Lastly, on the mainland just
south of the tip of the Osa, Tiskita Lodge combines ecotourism with experimental
fruit farming. The land has been
reforested with fruit trees from all over the world, reaping products that far
surpass traditional monoculture farming practices. Tiskita also contributes a portion of its profits to the support
of local schools (Chant, 1992).
Each of these lodges
represents a different region and a different concept, yet they all receive
high marks in the three essential criteria of ecotourism: environment,
community, and education. With respect
to the environment, projects minimize the impact of their own facilities and
take a proactive role in protecting the surrounding natural environment. With respect to the community, they are
responsible members of their local communities, providing opportunities for
employment and advancement and serving as a model for other projects. With respect to education, they offer a
quality training experience. Some tour
companies allow part of their profits to subsidize locals participation as
tourists by training guides to share their environmental education and
knowledge within their communities. At
its best, this goes beyond appreciating birds and trees to inspiring visitors
to preserve the environment, the underlying foundation of ecotourism.
Evaluating
Ecotours
When evaluating an ecotour,
visitors as well as policy makers must question low impact natural resource
use, local participation, and long-term costs.
Does the project drain the local infrastructure- water, electricity,
waste facilities- depriving the local community? Do they avoid pollution problems or minimize environmental
impacts on fragile ecosystems? Do they
monitor the group to assure all participants in your tour respect and follow
low-impact guidelines? Will the tour
promote and encourage the preservation of natural values among local
people? What is the profit percentage
actually directed to local community development? Are locals really in charge of the project or is it controlled by
outside interests or good-intentioned environmentalists? Are locals given opportunities as planners
and managers? Are the tours designed to
ensure direct community support that boost the local economy? Will travelers stay in locally-owned
accommodations, eat in locally-owned restaurants, use local guides? Are there opportunities for local
ecotourists participation? Will the
local population be able to participate as ecotourists and better appreciate
the area?
Future
Pursuits
Costa Rica's policy makers
see tourism as a key factor in their national development plans. Carlos Munoz, president of the Costa Rican
Chamber of Tourism, feels that the country needs a strategy that will increase
the in-flux of tourists while protecting its natural resources (Hill
1990). He concludes that Costa Rica is
facing a developmental paradox. Because
of a tremendous foreign debt, the country needs to capitalize on the potential
for tourism to bring in big money.
However, the constraints of opting for alternative ecotourism, with its
relatively low impacts on natural, social, and cultural resources mean that the
country will lose millions of dollars a year in income. The country cannot afford to take this route
exclusively; losing such revenue will affect not only its balance of trade but
also employment rates and support for regional development.
Thus, ecotourism is not a
miracle cure-all for conservation; these days it is understood to be a
double-edged sword. Clearly, large
numbers of people visiting sites cannot help but have adverse impacts on those
sites. But as long as operators of the
facilities are aware of negative impacts, careful management practices can
reduce damage. Leakage of ecotourist
revenue away from the habitats the money was meant to conserve is difficult to
control, but some proportion of the money does go for what it is intended and,
with increased awareness of the problem, perhaps that proportion can be made to
grow. Environmentally-sensitive
travelers can also take steps to ensure that their trips help rather than hurt
visited sites.
Overall, the image of Costa
Rica as an environmentally and socially progressive nation is somewhat
illusive. It seems that Costa Rica has
a long way to go to assert itself as a leader in the development of
ecotourism. To be successful,
ecotourism must promote sustainable development by establishing a durable
productive base that allows local inhabitants and ecotourist service providers
to enjoy rising standards of living.
Ecotourism projects must go beyond prevailing notions of
"ecologically sound tourism" to encompass the social dimensions of
productive organization and environmental conservation. Appeals for wildlife conservation are not
likely to interest poor people as long as their stomachs are empty and their
land eroding. Yet the rural poor also
deeply understand the value of resources seen from their own perspective. Their view and plights must be given
priority to build sustainable development.
Political leaders cannot begin to resolve resources problems by closing
their eyes to these issues. Unless
ecotourism actively incorporates the local society into service planning and
provision and includes programs to meet the fundamental needs for income and
employment for all locals, the special qualities of the site and its flora and
fauna will be irreparably damaged.
Costa Rica must also
directly confront underlying political and economic, and structural
problems. Approaches and institutions
must recognize that these problems are rooted in processes of capitalist
economic development, social structure inequities, and the export-dependent
growth pattern that is demanded by international banks and development agencies
and by elite decision makers. The
country's popular reputation as stable and socioeconomically thriving is
becoming a facade. In fact, Costa Rica
has an unstable basis: heavy debt, rampant inflation, domination by U.S.
interests, and economic instability which aggravate the deteriorating resource
conditions. Generally, the main
underlying causes are tied to driving economic interests, to exploiting
resources for short-term gain, and to the inequities in the distribution and
ownership of resources (Hartshorn 1992).
In effect, projects can not merely be "bandage" responses to
problems or reactions to emergencies or dwell on writing reports and creating
bureaucracies. Rather, projects need to
act as a cohesive unit for the rational utilization of resources and to
effectively resolve and prevent problems.
Ecotourism
at a Regional Level
Pursuing sustainable
ecotourism reveals significant obstacles not only for Costa Rica but for the
Third World as a whole. The obstacles
are an integral part of the world system polarized between the rich and
poor. A small number of nations
dominate the global power structure, guiding production and determining welfare
levels. The remaining nations-
including Costa Rica- compete among themselves to offer lucrative conditions
that will entice the corporate and financial powers to locate within their
boundaries (Eber 1992). Similarly,
regions and communities within nations engage in self-destructive forms of
bargaining- compromising the welfare of their workers and the building of their
own infrastructure- in an attempt to outbid each other for the fruits of global
growth. The powerful economic groups
that shape the world economy (transnational corporations and financial
institutions, and influential local powers) position the Third World to support
the existing structure of inequality and to engage in productive employment;
and, for those lucky enough to enjoy high enough incomes, to become customers.
While recent developments in
Costa Rica alone are promising, there have also been great strides made in a
regional effort to attack the problems associated with deforestation. One multinational effort, the Paseo Pantera
(Path of the Panther) is the most notable.
The Paseo Pantera is a "five year, $4 million project dedicated to
preserving the blodiversity and enhancing wild lands management in Central
America." The Paseo Pantera region is
a 1,500-mile-long greenbelt stretching the length of Central America. The signatories to this agreement are the
seven Central American countries- Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, Honduras,
Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama. In
signing this agreement all the countries agreed to cooperate in an effort with
the Wildlife Conservation International (a division of the New York Zoological
Society) and the Caribbean Conservation Corporation, with funding from the U.S.
Agency for International Development, to create a development program that
works with conservation strategies to achieve sustainable development for all
the members. In short, Paseo Pantera
has tried to persuade the countries of Central America to stop looking at
national borders when it comes to questions about the environment, and thus,
try to envision the region as a whole when making decisions. Moreover, the "Paseo Pantera proffers
ecotourism as Central America's salvation, a form of sustainable development
that will employ locals, introduce hard currency, and put a monetary value on
an intact ecosystem."
(http:Hgurukul.ucc.american.edu/TED/COSTTOLTR.HTM)
The concern for
biodiversity, in its broadest sense, encompasses not only threatened flora and
fauna, but also the survi-v ability of communities who struggle against
powerful external forces to defend their individuality, their rights, and their
ability to survive. Only when members
of the Third World unite to rebuild a foundation free from the evils of the
industrialized powerhouses and inequality will the ideals of sustainable
development and ecotourism become an awesome silver bullet of reality.
Chapter
3: Bibliography
Anger, D. (1989) "We Do
Not Want the Refugee: Conservation and Community in Costa Rica"
Alternatives, 18.
Budowski, G. (1990)
"Tourism and Environmental Conservation: Conflict,
Coexistence or
Symbiosis?" Environmental Conservation 3 1.
Chant, S. (1992)
"Tourism in Latin America: Perspectives from Mexico and Costa Rica"
p.p.85-101 in Harrison (ed) Tourism and the Less Developed Countries, New York,
Halstead Press.
de Kadt, E. (1989) "Tourism:
Passport to Development," in E. de Kadt ed. Perspectives on the Social an Cultural Effects of Tourism in
Developing Countries. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Eber, S. ed. (1992)
"Beyond The Green Horizon, Principles for Sustainable
Tourism," A discussion
paper commissioned from Tourism Concern by World
Wildlife Fund UK.
Fennell, D.A. and Eagles
P.F.J. (1990) "Ecotourism in Costa Rica: A Conceptual
Framework," Journal of
Parks and Recreation Administration, 8.l.
Green, D. (1982) "Cultural
Authenticity," Cultural Survival, 6.2.
Hartshorn, G. (1992)
"Costa Rica: Country Environmental Profile: A Field Study," Tropical
Science Center and U.S. Agency for International Development.
Hill, C. (1990) "The
Paradox of Tourism in Costa Rica," Cultural Survival, 14. I.
Jacobson, S.K. and Robles,
R. (1992) "Ecotourism, Sustainable Development, and Conservation
Education: Development of a Tour Guide Training Program in Tortuguero, Costa
Rica," Environmental Management, 16.6.
Jones, L. (1993) "Eco
Travel", p.p.300-308 in 1993 Earth Journal, Boulder, Co, Buzzworm Books.
Norris, R. (1994)
"Ecotourism in the National Parks of Latin America," National Parks,
68.1/2.
Scace, R. (1993) "An
Ecotourism Perspective" p.p.59-83 in Nelson, Butler and Wall (eds) Tourism
and Sustainable Development: Monitoring, Planning, Managing, University of
Waterloo, He@ritage Resources Centre.
Sachs, J. (1993) "The Display of Culture: A Comparative Study of
Eastern and Western Tourist Brochures," paper for GEOG 4173 at C.U.
Boulder, professor Erikson.
Seligson, M. (1994)
"The Peasantry and Agrarian Capitalism of Costa Rica," San Jose,
Costa Rica: Editorial Costa Rica.
Thrupp. L. (1989) "The Political Ecology of
Pesticide Use in Developing Countries: Dilemmas in Costa Rica," Ph.D.
dissertation, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, England.
Wheeler, B. (1992)
"Alternative Tourism- a Deceptive Ploy," in C.P. Cooper and A.
Lockwood (ed) Progress in Tourism, Recreation and Hospitality Management,
London, Belhaven Press.
http:Hvanbc.wimsey.com/-ayoung/canopy.htm
http:Hcanopytour.com/
http:Hwww.rara-avis.com/
http:Hwww.txlnfinet.com/mader/planeta/0595/0595tico.html
http:Hwww.txinfinet.com/mader/planeta/l
198/1198cr.html
http:Hgurukul.ucc.american.edu/TED/COSTTOUR.HTM