About Your Thoughts? [CROSSPOSTED]

I started out to write an article on 'Ecotourism' and first knew I needed to plan the piece. I thought about the length, scope, tone, thrust, factors to consider and all those things that a good writer should do.

'Ecotourism', the word, or should I say buzzword, seems to be everywhere these days and serving any master who chooses it. So I figured my article should be relatively straight forward. All I needed to do was define the term, give some pros and cons on on different 'versions' of 'ecotourism' and then sum up the article with a pithy non-opinion.

Since research is often a factor in determining the success or failure of an article I started with the best source in the universe, USENET. A Google Groups search on 'Ecotourism' should give me tons of well-reasoned arguments pro and con, right? WRONG!

After 20 Google pages into the search I stopped to wonder why I was seeing so many articles with only 1 thread. I saw notices, advertisements, courses, seminars, organizations, governments' studies, and more non-information than I remember ever seeing in a Google search.

One travel/tour company defined 'ecotourisn' as [paraphrased] 'Seeing and doing in nature what you want to do.'

I'm sure there is a good definition of 'Ecotourism' out there. And I know all the 'pros & cons' are there among your varied opinions. I think part of the definition is about leaving nature as you found it.

I did not see one mention of the 'people' of a region, like the hilltribes in Southeast Asia. Are they not considered part of the ecology? BTW, I have always detested the 'zoo' mentality of displaying humans (or animals) for observation; notable in tours to the 'Long Neck' villages of Northern Thailand. I wonder if someone actually calls that 'ecotourism'?

Is it true that 'Ecotourism' is making sure the ecology is unchanged . . . including for the benefit of the local people? Would that then mean the best 'Ecotourist' is the one who doesn't go?

But I can't write a travel article that draws that conclusion. :-

No, I'd say a better definition of 'Ecotourism' uses the modern philosophy of development: 'sustainable'. The impact on the whole ecosystem should be harmonious with the survival of the people who live in it, and the tourism shouldn't negatively impact the reasons for its being there. i.e., if the draw of a destination is its natural beauty and the diverse species of plants & animals living there, then the exploitation of the tourism mustn't significantly change those things.

Does that mean 'don't go' is the only moral/right approach? NO, sometimes quite the opposite! You mention the people who live there, and they are a critical part of the equation. Without the $$$ from tourism, their only approach to living may be slash'n'burn, or fish to extinction, or farm prawns and destroy the watershed, or grow bananas on an industrial scale and destroy the subsistence agricultural infrastructure. With the tourism, the ecosystem then has a $$$ value put upon it, and a wealth (effectively) drawn from it.

We once visited a couple of nice eco-projects in Kenya near Malindi. One was a recovered mining site, made into forest and lakes, with tours/displays showing how all the bits of the ecosystem fit together & how those must be put into the mix to turn wasteland back into useful nature. Part of that is a fish-farming project. Visiting such a site I would definitely consider 'eco-tourism'.

Another impressive project was a butterfly farm, whereby locals are taught the life-cycle of various butterflies, what they eat, how they lay eggs. They then net butterflies, have them lay eggs on the right kind of plants, keep and tend the caterpillars in nets/cages, until they form pupae. Then the pupae [a natural stable/transportable form] are packaged up and sold to N.American butterfly parks and wedding vendors etc. The eco impact of netting the 'parent' butterflies is minimal. The net impact is that people living in the region actually draw a useful & sustainable income from the forest/jungle, and its value then means it can be kept intact benefiting both visitors and the local environment. Their other option would be to cut it down to grow subsistence crops, resulting in complete destruction of all the species that need the forest to survive [and not -just- the butterflies].

In the caribbean, the islands of Tobago and [Commonwealth of] Dominica both have seen light in 'eco-tourism'. Dominica's exploitation seems to me a bit more 'take what you can from the word', but there are definitely people there [also] who -truly believe- in it. They have certain eco-taxes and pass schemes, but do not [in my opinion] sell those [including the reasons behind them] well enough. Here are things like well-maintained hiking trails with various levels of accessibility, and knowledge of the importance of the local whale community for valuable tourism. Counter that with the fact that Dominica 'sold out' on the pacific whaling sanctuary issue to China. They also wanted to levy something like a $0.25 per-passenger cruise ship 'eco-impact' tax. [Cruise ships are notorious for dumping waste, spawning useless & blandly uniform commercial retail, and contributing little to the businesses of the local economy]. When told they would increase per-passenger tax by $0.25, the cruise companies merely said 'okay, we'll go elsewhere'. To me, a proper eco-tourism destination would say 'fine', rather than cave in.

Trinidad & Tobago, on the other hand, has recognized the vital importance of its nature in attracting tourists. They've protected turtles to create a huge resource in drawing divers and snorkellers [other islands pass lip service to turtle protection] and on a wider scale have decided that Trinidad will be the basis for industrial development, while Tobago will be delegated a much more 'sustainable' approach to tourism dev'mt. I sincerely hope that their investment in protecting reefs/fish/turtles/forest pays off in tourist $$$.

In my mind, the true eco-tourist is one who is willing and happy to pay a premium because she can actually see the sustainable approaches which are made visible: water conservation, waste management, sustainable harvesting, limited tourist numbers with high-return per each, small-scale and family or community-owned projects as opposed to $M multinational tower hotel 'investments'. He wants to partake in self-propelled activities and absorb a lot of cultural and environmental -information-, as well as consume the local produce. They are willing to put up with conditions that aren't like they are at home, because they do not want 'home away from home'; when they travel, they want to go away to a more perfect world.

There you go, there's your article. If you publish it, please pay me. (c) Ken Tough 2002

I thought 'ecotourism' was originally tourism that doesn't cost so much, i.e. is economical for the tourist, not for his destination.

These days it may be used as some kind of euphemism though.

My post was to stimulate discussion both pro and con so I can read differing points of view . . . not trying to get someone to write an article for me.

'Sustainability' can mean anything. Disaster can be sustained.

The impact on the

People will likely survive even though the ecology is devestated.

and the tourism shouldn't negatively

I'll go along with the last phrase.

Assuming a sufficient amount of the $$$ filter down past tour operators, government fees, etc. And then what is the cost to their culture if they become dependent on tourism. And then if ecotourism is a fad and fades away . . .

Sounds like a butterfly farm tourist attraction similar to what we have around Chiangmai. We also have orchid farm tourist attractions.

Their other option would be to cut it down

Do you actually think a significant number of eco-tourists are interested in the above?

limited tourist numbers with

It doesn't necessarily need to be one extreme or the other, does it?

Well, not quite.

'Sustainable' has a very specific and well-known definition in terms of international develoment. Do some research.

Hence my comments on family-run, community-owned projects.

A necessity it seems, not only in developing countries but in economically-challenged ones in the developed world: look at Cornwall UK, and the maritimes, Canada. Culture is not necessarily independent of tourism, in fact it can be sponsored by it. In Cornwall, the wealth of tourism has allowed a great deal of art [theatre, literary, fine] development -by locals- which has explored and built on local culture and history.

Uhhh, 'sustainable'? I am talking about characteristics of a tourism which is not attached to the label. It is clearly not something that can be created just by appropriate decoration of your hotel or printing of your tickets. It involves a whole integrated set of features.

Not tourist attraction. They were geared to the industry of farming, not the industry of visitors. It's in the backwoods of nowhere. Its purpose is as I describe.

Yes. Right now, they do things that are more accessible, like Kayak in Canada or hike in the Rockies or backpack through Cuba. Their wealth has been and is continually increasing, and they are looking for new outlets. The smart countries will find out how to link them into the chain.

More or less, yes it does.

Sounds like you've already decided on a popular slant for your article. Where are you planning to publish this? I'll keep my eyes open for it.

If you want to be rude, 'do some research' this will be my last comment to you. My comments re: 'sustainability' are about eco-tourism not international development. The two are hardly equal.

<snip>

In that case I would say the ecology and the culture has been severly compromised. Many attractive areas of the world are economically-challenged . . . othere are downrint poor.

look at

This concept seems to justify the 'Longneck' zoo type attractions of Northern Thailand.

In

That's fine, but I wouldn't call it eco-tourism.

See above?

I am talking about characteristics of

You seem to be talking about an industry. I'm talking about a concept.

Well, was it a tourist attraction or an industry or both? Did you go in tour busses or vans and have lunch?

I think ' . . . Kayak in Canada or hike in the Rockies or backpack through Cuba.' are considerably more interesting than ' . . . water conservation, waste management, sustainable harvesting,'

And I would suspect they fall more under 'Adventure' that 'Eco.'

Their wealth has been and is continually increasing,

And will probably call it 'ecotourism'?

'More, or less? ;>

I don't think so. First, I don't want the article to have a 'pro or con' slant. It is intended to present all sides so a responsible tourist will think. An irresponsible tourist usually won't.

And it seems to me the popular slant is that 'anything associated with nature can now be labeled eco-tourism.'

Where are you planning to publish this? I'll

On a web site that won't be launched for 2 - 3 months.

Come on, 'disaster can be sustained'. What kind of comment is that? Disaster is clearly not 'sustainable'. The word means an industry or practice that can be (within some boundary) self- supporting, without the need for continued budgetary cash or resource injection [including externally trained human resource], and without resulting in the gradual and continual destruction or degradation of its 'environment'.

They will be compromised anyway, as a result of the combined effects of 'globalization' [yahoo! buzzword] and migration [human and industrial]. If it keeps the culture from dying out completely [take mining ghost towns as an example] then the compromise may be considered positive.

I said how having the cash injection sponsors local cultural 'investment', research, and continuation, in the form of creating new arts, new poetry, new plays, reviving old crafts [like traditional boat building & racing], sustaining history, story-telling, traditional fishing techniques, etc. This is not 'longneck zoos', it's vibrant activation of culture. Look at the towns where mines have closed and industrial fishing has dried up, and ports have shut down. They were drying up entirely with migration of all youth & working age. Nowadays those youth can afford to stay and engage in the same cultural activities that their fathers did.

No, that is not eco-tourism. We were talking [at this point in the conversation] about how tourism in general can impact culture. I hold that it's not just an artificial packaging of faut culture. Eco-tourism [as in my description just being a tourism with the right infrastructure] can work like any other tourism in this way.

Yes, the concept describes and requires an industry. If you want to use the word 'concept' as synonymous with 'label', then no, it carries no weight, importance, or relevance beyond a passing fad.

It was an industry that also catered to passing tourists. [Similar to an abalone farm we stopped at, near Cape Aghulas S.A.] No bus, we passed it in our own car and decided to stop in. They did not have any form of restaurant, but did have some leaflets & sold postcards. We were shown around by a university student who was doing research.

Come on, I really don't believe that went over your head. They aren't going -for the joy of- those things, they would preferen tially choose a place that had such things because they feel it is important. They go to hike in the rain forest, to do sea kayaking, to snorkel, to learn about biology or geology with scientists, to see live volcanoes, to experience a desert, to cycle through fields of wildlife etc. They feel better about doing this when they can 'pack out their garbage', rather than doing it and going back to a tower hotel with industrial-size requirements. That's why they go backpacking in the tundra, you see. They like to be self-sufficient and to do 'low impact' activities. If you don't believe such people exist or spend a wad of cash, you are sorely wrong!

You may well have to have the labels reprinted.

Quite likely, but they'll need to identify the difference between -it- and the type 'Suntours' will create. So new descriptions or terms may have to be adopted.

Either it's attempted 'unilaterally' by individual tour companies or resorts [which I hold is not possible], or it's done across-the- board by a combined government policy and small-businesses. Since I feel a big part is feed-back into the local economy [as evidenced by the resurgence of popularity of B&B], it is almost by definition only possible with a broad community backing.

(Sorry, I've completely 'lost the thread, but someone wrote:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Whaaaaaaattttttt??? They are released out of their natural environment just to let fly over brides? (Or does it mean something else?) I bet the animal rights people have a field day with that!

Nope, that's right. It ain't nice for the butterfly, but then again the ones in the butterfly parks won't mate or live long either. [Some species of course don't have the ability to eat anyway.] Can't say I think that it's a good thing, but it happens. And people release pigeons too, which aren't always able to 'home' back to the supplier. To each his own, I guess.

Actually, when we were at this farm [back in 1995] such wedding things didn't exist, but I imagine they would have expanded to that market now. Basically, they just supply pupae to whoever buys them, and I can't imagine they go too far into ethical bug treatment.

Most prefer to focus on the cute & furry ones...

Sorry. In my experience ecotourism means 'We have no toilets, go shit in the woods'.

Ahh, perhaps the most 'unsustainable' sanitation approach; clearly mislabelled!