8 Social divisions in the Bay Islands of Honduras An examination of the costs and benefits of tourism developments on the island of Roatán,

Box 4.8 Social divisions in the Bay Islands of Honduras An examination of the costs and benefits of tourism developments on the island of Roatán,

off the Caribbean coast of Honduras, was made by Stonich, Sorenson and Hundt and reported in the Journal of Sustainable Tourism (1995).

Guanaja

Roatán

Utila

CARIBBEAN SEA

Bay Islands

GUATEMALA

San Pedro

Sula

HONDURAS

NICARAGUA EL SALVADOR

Tegucigalpa

0 100 km

The Bay Islands of Honduras

Inhabitants on the island were categorised by: Community

Ethnicity

Gender

West End

islanders

male

Sandy Bay

ladinos

female

Flower’s Bay

The degree of tourism development differs considerably in each of the three settlements. Variables describing income, household economic strategies and demography were analysed for each of the above categories.

Among other findings and conclusions were: •

increased social differentiation as a result of tourism developments; •

the assignment of the majority of ladinos and islanders to low-status, low-paid, tempo- rary jobs;

• reduced access for local people to the natural resources on which they depend for their livelihoods;

• escalating prices; •

land speculation; •

increased outside ownership of local resources; •

deterioration of the biophysical environment.

Tourism and sustainability • 103

the activity sufficient either to cover the cost of any special measures taken to cater for the tourist and to mitigate the effects of the tourist’s presence or to offer an income appropriate to the inconvenience caused to the local community visited – without violating any of the other conditions – or both. As expressed thus, it may appear as if the other aspects or conditions of sustainability are being ‘bought off’. In other words, regardless of how much damage may be done culturally, socially and environmentally, it is perfectly acceptable if the economic profitability of the scheme is great enough to cover over the damage, ease the discontent or suppress the protest.

Economic sustainability, we would argue, is not a condition which competes with other aspects of sustainability. Rather, it can be seen as equally important a condition in its own right. On the other hand, it is not the only condition of sustainability, as might appear to be the case from the thoughts of numerous active agents of the industry. The

13111 condition of this as an element of sustainability in no way reduces the significance or level of acceptance or tolerance of the other conditions. Nor does it cloud the impor- tance of the contextual issue of power over tourist activities. With this in mind, the ques- tion of who gains financially and who loses financially often sets the power and control issue in sharper and more immediate focus than all other facets of sustainability.

The educational element

It is often stated that an important difference between the new forms of tourism and conventional tourism is found in an element of educational input into the activity. This does not mean that it is necessary to reach high academic levels in order to be a sustain- able tourist; but a greater understanding of how our natural and human environment works is often a goal, if not always stated, of the activity. At times, however, it is stated as a goal without being practised. Pressure of business may render this so, but cynicism may also explain it – the flimsiest pamphlet of information for the tourist can be used as evidence of an educational input, and therefore of the ‘genuine’ motives of the oper- ators and the real desire to aim for sustainability.

Again, it is important to refer this principle back to its context of power and devel- opment. Who is the beneficiary of the educational element? Does this enhance their degree of control over the activity and its distribution of benefits? This element, we would argue, has the potential to further widen the inequalities of tourism developments.

Belize 1992; Ecotourism – A Sustainable Option, Royal Geographical Society 1992;

At conferences on the subject (First World Congress on Tourism and the Environment,

Managing Tourism, Commonwealth Institute 1995; Sustainable Tourism, San José, Costa Rica 1995; to name just a few) education in this respect is generally taken to mean one of two things: first, the enlightenment of the new tourist in the cultural ways and norms of those they are visiting – an education for its own sake; and second, the training of the ‘hosts’ so that they are better able to cater for the wishes of the new middle classes who visit them.

There are very few acknowledgements of the need to educate the local populace of the destination communities about the tourists. One notable exception to this is Krippendorf (1987), who encourages the dissemination of information about the tourists to those they are visiting:

By supplying the host population with comprehensive information about tourists and tourism, many misunderstandings could be eliminated, feelings of aggression prevented, more sympathetic attitudes developed and a better basis for hospitality and contact with tourists created . . . Such information should

11111 aim at introducing the host population . . . to the tourists’ background: their

104 • Tourism and sustainability

country, their daily life (working and housing conditions, etc.), their reasons for travelling and their behaviour patterns.

(1987: 143) Another form of educational input into sustainable tourism is the provision of ‘technical

information on how to do ecotourism right’ (our emphasis) (Whelan, 1991: 4). Arrogance like that betrayed in this paternalistic attitude expresses the idea that ‘we’ know how to do it and ‘the rest’ just need to be educated in our ways.

Local participation

The importance attached by many parties to the inclusion of the local populations is considerable. Indeed, there is more debate about the degree of inclusion or control to

be exercised by destination communities than about the need for their involvement at all. Six different types of participation are identified by Pretty and Hine (1999: 6), ranging from ‘passive participation’ (‘people participate by being told what has been decided or has already happened’) to ‘self-mobilization’ (‘people . . . taking initia- tives independently . . . [and] retain control over how resources are used’) – see Table

8.1. This debate is thrown into sharp contrast by the two standpoints of ‘host’ communi- ties as objects of tourism or as controllers of tourism. Again, this matter is often consid- ered to be at the heart of the difference between conventional mass tourism and supposedly sustainable new forms of tourism. But it is argued here that the issue of control is the same whether it refers to mass tourism or any of the new forms of tourism. Indeed, there may be something in the idea that the local authorities and local service providers of a mass tourism clientele have a greater degree of control and power over their activities than do those of the new forms of tourism.

The conservation element

It is often argued that new forms of tourism assist or should assist in the conservation of specific aspects of the biodiversity or culture of a given area, and hence that an essen- tial element of new forms of tourism is or should be such conservation. This criterion has the tendency to divide the conservationists into two distinct camps. On the one hand, we have the proponents of the benefits of specific new forms of tourism who cite examples such as the Annapurna Conservation Area in Nepal, private nature reserves in Costa Rica and selected rainforest areas in Brazil in order to illustrate the relation- ship between tourist money and the conservation of natural or cultural phenomena by placing a value on their retention rather than their extraction. Gerardo Budowski, for example (former Director General of the IUCN, former Head of Ecology and Conservation at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) and former President of the International Ecotourism Society), believes that ‘ecotourism cannot survive without conservation and a symbiotic relation must there- fore be established’ (Budowski, 1996).

On the other hand, we have those who believe strongly that the disbenefits of tourism outweigh the benefits, who see the only valid form of conservation as that which excludes the malign influence of human visitors, and who claim that the former group focus exclusively on species preservation at the expense of local people. This view sees ecotourism as a new form of ecological imperialism in which western cultural values override local cultural values and thereby oppose the principles of sustainability which ecotourism claims to support.

Tourism and sustainability • 105

The aspects of sustainability discussed above are not presented here as prescriptive. We are not suggesting that a given lodge, tour or reserve (or indeed a regional or national tourism strategy) can be assessed through these criteria for sustainability. In fact, it should be clear that no establishment would be able to meet all these criteria. If they were universally used for making judgements about whether a given practice was sustainable and if all criteria had to be satisfied, then clearly nothing would be judged as sustainable. But this raises the point that sustainability should perhaps be seen as a continuum, and should be assessed on a scale similar to that of probability, offering differing degrees of sustainability. Such an idea opens the concept up to distortion and misuse, but as we have seen and as we shall see, it is indeed misused already.

In any case, it is our contention that sustainability is contested and is not reducible to a series of absolute principles. If principles can be applied to the notion, then it can

13111 only be in a relative way, relative to each other without contradiction, relative to the varying perceptions of those who use them, and relative to the values, ideological and moral, of those who apply and interpret them. ‘Good’ and ‘bad’ are relative terms, as is sustainability. With this in mind, it is worth considering the priorities for sustainable development set out by Agenda 21.

Agenda 21 and sustainable development in tourism

Agenda 21 is a global action plan endorsed by the 1992 Rio Summit (see Box 2.1) in Brazil. It sets out the priorities for sustainable development into the twenty-first century. Stancliffe (1995) provides the following summary of the points of relevance in Agenda

21 for the tourism industry. Agenda 21 impinges on tourism in two ways. First, tourism is specifically

mentioned as offering sustainable development potential to certain communi- ties, particularly in fragile environments. Second, tourism will be affected by Agenda 21’s programme of action because its many impacts may be altered by the legal framework, policies and management practices under which it oper- ates. Among other priorities given in Agenda 21, governments are urged to:

• improve and reorientate pricing and subsidy policies in issues related to tourism;

diversify mountain economies by creating and strengthening tourism;

• provide mechanisms to preserve threatened areas that could protect wildlife, conserve biological diversity or serve as national parks;

• promote environmentally sound leisure and tourism activities, building on . . . the current programme of the World Tourism Organisation.

Business and industry, including transnational corporations, are urged to: •

adopt . . . codes of conduct promoting best environmental practice; •

ensure responsible and ethical management of products and processes; •

increase self-regulation.

(Stancliffe, 1995) In its widest sense, tourism is a form of trade, not of goods perhaps, although the

commodification of tourist destinations and talk of the ‘tourist product’ is now firmly established and accepted. Shortly after the Rio Summit, Arden-Clarke argued that ‘the whole of the Agenda 21 section dealing with trade amounted to an evasion of key trade

11111 and environment issues, rather than a basis for their solution’ (1992: 13).

106 • Tourism and sustainability

Arden-Clarke’s arguments about Agenda 21’s treatment of the general area of trade are applicable to the field of tourism. Essentially, his criticism is based on two partic- ular features of the Agenda: first, it endorses the GATT rules which encourage the exter- nalisation of environmental costs; and second, it endorses the idea that only trade liberalisation will bring about sustainable development.

The first of these endorsements stems from GATT’s agreement that the degree to which a country internalises its costs is left to choice. This effectively fixes the exter- nalisation of environmental costs as the norm and makes clear that those countries which deviate from this will lose short-term competitiveness. The second endorsement on trade liberalisation implicitly depends on:

the ‘trickle down’ mechanism to solve environmental problems – free trade leads to increases in per capita income through the economic growth it engen- ders, which in turn creates wealth, some part of which can then be invested in environmental protection . . . The argument essentially says that you must first dirty your own backyard to generate the wealth to clean it up . . . [This] ignores the facts that:

a) there is no automatic mechanism which guarantees that ‘trickle-down’ wealth is invested in the environment;

b) environmental damage is cheaper to prevent than cure, and in many cases is irreversible.

The flaws in this argument are being learned painfully around the world, but most notably in developing countries.

(Arden-Clarke, 1992: 14) Arden-Clarke’s critique highlights the ideological values which underpin the priorities

of Agenda 21 and reinforces the arguments about the importance of relationships of power. The principles of sustainability are not absolute and immutable. In any tourism analysis there is a need to examine the questions of who is stating the principles, prior- ities and policies, who will benefit from related action and who will lose, and the argu- ments around Agenda 21 illustrate this point.

Sustainability, or certain elements of it, may be measurable; it may be judged according to given yardsticks. But in the same way that the principles of sustainability may be contested, so too may be its measurement. As with the principles of sustain- ability, it is necessary to examine the exercise of power in its measurement. Those who employ the tools used to measure sustainability (covered in the following section) may also exercise power over its definition.

The tools of sustainability in tourism

The last section made mention of the tools and techniques available for use in assessing or measuring various aspects of sustainability. Box 4.9 lists these techniques under eight major groupings.

Area protection

As applied to the field of tourism and for the purposes of this chapter, we use the term ‘tools or techniques of sustainability’ in a general sense. Even the designation of an area of land as a national park or as some other category of protected area can be seen as a

Tourism and sustainability • 107

Box 4.9 The tools of sustainability The following listing of techniques is not exhaustive. Each group of techniques is briefly

discussed in the main text.

1 Area protection

5 Carrying capacity calculations

Varying categories of protected area status: • physical carrying capacity • national parks

• ecological carrying capacity 13111

• wildlife refuges/reserves • social carrying capacity • biosphere reserves

• environmental carrying capacity • country parks

• real carrying capacity • biological reserves

• effective or permissible carrying • areas of outstanding natural beauty

capacity

(AONBs) • limits of acceptable change (LACs) • sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs)