Socio-environmental organisations: where shall

6 Socio-environmental organisations: where shall

we save next?

13111 Much of the discussion so far has been underlined by the uneven and unequal nature of tourism development. This is most vividly expressed at a macro-scale as the inequality of First World and Third World tourism. In particular it has been suggested that ques- tions of power which underlie the way in which tourism is owned and controlled largely from the First World for example, should not stop with the analysis of the tourism industry itself. This is especially true in an analysis of new tourism.

In this chapter we consider the involvement and activities of the socio-environmental movement and the role of socio-environmental organisations; although, as we examine below, these are very broad terms. Chapters 1 to 4 emphasised that a good deal of the debate concerning the emergence of new forms of tourism has centred upon questions of environmental harm attributed to traditional forms of tourism and has sought ways in which to prevent or mitigate these negative effects. Equally, however, it has been argued that such activity can also be traced to the desire to preserve environments; the areas of so-called wilderness and virgin territories where nature can be experienced by ‘discerning’ new tourists. This also reflects two facets of sustainability: on the one hand, an environmental or ecologically centred meaning of sustainability as protecting and enhancing resources and biodiversity; and, on the other hand, an attempt to sustain cultural products for the benefit of (predominantly) First World new middle-class tourists, or, in other words, retaining places that are free from mass tourism and tourists.

As might be expected, the socio-environmental movement has spearheaded the advo- cacy and implementation of programmes and policies centred upon sustainability. This movement is, therefore, a key interest in the analysis of new tourism, and the Third World has become a major focus for environmental concerns partly as a result of its spectacular environments. There are two introductory observations that can be made, each of which embodies a paradox. First, in general, environmental issues and environ- ment-centred organisations have been treated as benevolent causes and have attracted widespread interest and support, even in the light of quite interventionist policies. While this support reached its height during the 1980s and has subsequently waned somewhat, it nevertheless remains a significant pull for the new middle classes. Second, tourism very much represents a double-edged sword for the socio-environmental movement in that it is an activity which is both reviled and revered. It has become a focus for both criticism, as a result of its impacts, and promotion, as one means of achieving sustain- able development. With the concerns expressed primarily in terms of the environmental and cultural impacts of tourism, the new socio-environmental movement has rounded upon some forms of tourism (that is, mass tourism) and promoted others (alternative, appropriate, sustainable and so on). Concerns have centred on the need to protect en- dangered habitats, maintain biodiversity and promote minority rights. An example of the latter is Survival, an INGO supporting and campaigning on behalf of tribal peoples.

11111 It presents us with an interesting contradiction in that its advocacy has tended to result

142 • Socio-environmental organisations

in exclusionary policies that subsequently lead to a reduction in visitor numbers and the inevitable outcome of elitism in tourism. (Survival and its tourism campaign, ‘Danger Tourists’, are covered in some depth in Chapter 8.) Where new tourism projects exist they are often lauded for their vision and sensitivity, while mass tourism stands accused of crassness and environmental genocide.

This chapter attempts to introduce these debates and to reflect the complexity of the positions taken, the range of environmental concerns and how these relate to tourism. Initially it reflects back on the previous discussion to suggest the links between new tourism, the new middle classes and so-called new socio-environmental movements (of which the environmental movement is a key part). It then traces the different streams of the environment and tourism debate through a continuum of environmentalism. In doing so we are seeking to avoid a simplistic reading of environmentalism as an undif- ferentiated whole. Following the central thrust of our argument, we also seek to demon- strate how and why power is a fundamental component of tourism analysis.

New socio-environmental movements

Chapter 2 sketched out the most noted social, economic and political changes in the late twentieth century and suggested ways in which the growth of new forms of tourism were related to these factors. In particular it was argued that there are apparent rela- tionships between the growth of the new middle classes and a concern with ‘otherness’ which includes an interest in minority cultures, religion, ethnicity and, arguably most significant, a concern with environment and ecology. Notably, the 10–12 per cent of all tourism that is attributed to new tourism activities is similar in proportion to that of the First World populations interested and concerned with these other issues (WTO/OMT, 1995: 28).

The growth of interest in sustainable lifestyles was singled out as the most momen- tous of these movements and an important component of a so-called ‘new politics’ which stand in contradistinction to ‘old’ style party politics. The emergence and growth of a ‘new social movement’ (or what we refer to here as socio-environmental organisations) that lies at the heart of the new politics and which has been responsible for campaigning and politicking on single issues (anti-nuclear and world peace, anti-globalisation, anti- racism, environment and so on) has in some ways ‘transformed the political scene’ (Crompton, 1993: 16). The socio-environmental movement in its many guises has become one of the most enduring images since the 1980s and has captured the public imagination in a way that has far surpassed other movements. As Eckersley comments in her study of environmental political thought:

The environmental crisis and popular environmental concern have prompted a considerable transformation in Western politics over the last three decades . . . Whatever the outcome of this realignment in Western politics, the intractable nature of environmental problems will ensure that environmental politics (or what I shall refer to as ‘ecopolitics’) is here to stay.

(1992: 7) One of the most prominent organisations, both globally and within, for example, the

UK, is Greenpeace which reflects these significant changes. Figure 6.1 charts the growth in Greenpeace UK’s membership numbers from its early days. The most dramatic rise in its popularity came in the second half of the 1980s, reaching a peak in the early 1990s and falling off somewhat to the mid-1990s.

Socio-environmental organisations • 143

Figure 6.1 Annual membership of Greenpeace UK Source: Greenpeace UK

This growth accompanied a variety of other factors, including an increasing visibility through the media of environmental disasters and problems, and a concomitant rise in the public perception of these problems. Growth can also be attributed to concern about the increasing importance of the role of supranational organisations such as the World Bank, and a rising intrusion into most ways of life of transnational companies, and possibly a growing disenchantment with the potential for bringing about change through increasingly distant, but powerless, democratically elected representatives. Most recently, the debacle surrounding the Kyoto agreement on the reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases, together with the differing perspectives on the Rio + 10 Conference in Johannesburg in 2002 (the World Summit on Sustainable Development), have under- lined the significance of a globalised environmental politics.

factors (perhaps because of the lesser benefit of hindsight), but may well be traced back

The recent falling-off of membership numbers is a little less easy to link with other

to the demise of the Soviet Union and its geopolitical counterweight to the First World. This has given rise to both complacent attitudes of ‘victory’ and equally despair and apathy in opposition, both of which may well have led to a disillusionment with the purpose behind involvement and activism.

A second factor of relevance here is the fact that the environmental lobby, initially perceived as a single issue movement in itself, has managed to raise its public profile high enough to promote a range of single issues under the general umbrella of the environment. Environmental issues are still widely equated with ecology rather than society or culture, although this broadening of issues under the general term of the environment should be acknowledged. This division of issues has also been associated with a rise in the number of organisations now dedicated to more justifiably described single issues, especially within the field of tourism. Tourism Concern, for instance, was first established in the UK in 1989 with 200 members. By 2002 it had over 1,500 members and had gained a respectable reputation among the relatively highbrow sector of the country’s media. It had also become an organisation whose blessing was sought

11111 by some of the new and specialised tour operators (which are described in Chapters 3,

144 • Socio-environmental organisations

5 and 7). Similarly, the US-based International Ecotourism Society (TIES) can (2002) boast 1,700 members in 65 countries and recently changed its name from the less worldly ‘The Ecotourism Society’. TIES describes itself as an organisation for professionals from

a variety of disciplines who are ‘needed to make ecotourism a genuine tool for conser- vation and sustainable development’ (TIES website, 2002). TIES was heavily involved with the World Tourism Organisation and the United Nations Environment Programme in the organisation of events to mark the United Nations’ controversial International Year of Ecotourism in 2002 (see Chapter 9).

The Appendix lists the websites of many NGOs concerned with the impact of tourism. The list is far from comprehensive, but serves to highlight the recent burgeoning of organisations focused on tourism. Few of the organisations listed have existed for longer than twenty years or so. Many have their headquarters in First World countries and see the issues of global tourism or tourism to Third World countries as their major focus.

Another organisation whose remit can be considered to be a single issue is that of Survival. It is of particular relevance to the tourism industry partly because it has conducted research and produced reports on the effects of tourism on tribal peoples and partly because of the nature of these effects – an issue taken up again later in this chapter and in Chapter 8. Figure 6.2 indicates not only its growth since 1987 but also its predom- inantly European membership. It has its base and was founded in the UK, but since 1990 has opened satellite offices in France, Spain and Italy, which accounts for its high growth rate of membership in those countries.

This growth in membership of and support for socio-environmental organisations with their bases in First World countries is likely to result in the wider dissemination of their

Key

10 Rest of World Italy

Spain Thousands

France USA

Figure 6.2 Global distribution of Survival International’s membership Source: Survival International

Socio-environmental organisations • 145

particular interpretation of the role of tourism in the political, social, economic and cultural systems which prevail in Third World countries. As support for such organisa- tions grows, so will their ability to influence the relevant and topical debates. Whether this influence will act as a counterweight to the geopolitical forces currently wielded by transnational companies, supranational institutions and First World government interests or, on the contrary, as an additional weight to these forces, is still a matter for debate. There can be little doubt that many organisations representing the socio- environmental movement rail strongly against the activities of supranational institutions and their effects. But in different ways and in differing degrees they also represent a significant hegemonic interest in their own right, in convincing their constituents of the positions they adopt on tourism. The debates also reflect the contested nature of sustain- ability as competing interests struggle to legitimate their own definitions of the concept.

13111 How this debate will evolve is a matter for speculation, but it is already clear that all the interests involved in this struggle represent different facets of First World power.

While new socio-environmental organisations are of special interest in the way in which they defy, as it were, the traditional left/right political ideologies, they also tend to be closely related to class in that their memberships are drawn largely from the middle

classes. 1 As Dobson asserts, ‘there is plenty of sociological evidence to show that the environmental movement is predominantly a middle class affair’ (1995: 154) with its ranks drawn from the educated, ‘intellectual’, and ‘socially aware’ elements. And as Jonathon Porritt argues:

One must of course acknowledge that the post-industrial revolution is likely to

be pioneered by middle-class people. The reasons are simple: such people not only have more chance of working out where their own genuine self-interest lies, but they also have the flexibility and security to act upon such insights.

(Porritt, 1984: 116, quoted in Dobson, 1995) The reason for the predominance of new middle-class involvement in the new socio-

environmental movement (as both supporters, members and employees) and their partic- ipation in ‘green politics’ is a matter of considerable debate and disagreement and one that is reflected in the degree of involvement of the new middle classes in new tourism. As Eckersley explains, on the one hand there are the selfishness and self-interest argu- ments that posit that ‘it is mainly the new class that is involved . . . because it is a means by which it is able to further its own class interest’ (1989: 210). On the other hand, there are those who argue that the new middle classes are the vanguard of post- material values, the harbingers of sustainable lifestyles. Eckersley argues in favour of the importance of education and the new middle class awareness of the ‘scale and depth of the social and ecological problems’ (1989: 222). This is what Inglehart (1977, 1981) refers to as the empathy and sympathy that the new middle classes have with such issues and the new socio-environmental organisations that mobilise around them and which produce, he argues, an ‘ideology of the new middle classes’.

Although Eckersley strenuously defends the socio-environmental movement against charges of elitism, it is difficult to deny the piety and sacrificial overtones which are apparent in much promotion of new middle-class ideals. They are reminiscent of the ‘Peace-corps type tourists’ (Kutay, 1989) and the Explore leaders who put ‘promising careers on hold’. As Eckersley suggests:

the assumption that environmentalists will necessarily defend their own level of affluence simply overlooks the fact that many committed environmentalists

11111 have deliberately forsaken the material lifestyles and career opportunities of

146 • Socio-environmental organisations

their fellow class members (which they argue are wasteful and devoid of purpose) in favour of a more frugal and socially responsible lifestyle which is encapsulated in the slogan: ‘To live more simply that all others may simply live’ (Porritt, 1984: 205).

(1986: 28) While seeking to avoid a crude determinism and correlation between these various

factors of social, economic and political change, we can nonetheless detect some impor- tant apparent relationships. As already argued, many authors have traced the connec- tions between the expansion of the new middle classes and the emergence and growth of new socio-environmental organisations (Gouldner, 1979; Offe, 1985). And in turn it has been suggested that there is a significant, although clearly not exclusive, relation- ship between these phenomena and the growth of new forms of tourism. We are not able to present in full and unravel this complex debate. But it is interesting to begin to think about and question the dynamics of new tourism, new middle-class involvement and the campaigns and foci of new socio-environmental organisations.

Environmentalism and new tourism

Environmentalism, or ecopolitics as Eckersley refers to it, is a useful way of exploring the political globalisation and global political re-ordering that Chapter 2 touched upon. Yearley (1995) identifies several reasons for assessing environmentalism as a vehicle for examining ‘global political re-ordering’. First, the socio-environmental movement has repeatedly stressed the global nature, or ‘worldwide-ness’, of environmental problems and concerns embodied in the much-used, catch-all phrase ‘think globally, act locally’. Second, environmental issues more than any others have given rise to inter- national summits (such as the Rio and Rio + 10 summits) and agreements and the emer- gence of international and supranational bodies focused upon the environment.

Tourism adds another facet to this supposed global environmental politics and has become a focus for debates over the environmental impacts of tourism; a focus that has intensified as tourism has grown and spread. In addition, of course, much new tourism has become intimately associated with the environment, environmentalism and debates over sustainability on how to achieve less environmentally harmful forms of activity.