Paper presented at the International Seminar on “Tourism: Unfair Practices – Equitable Options, 8th – 9th December 2003, Hannover, Germany, hosted by DANTE/ The Network for Sustainable Tourism Development.
“Our world is not for sale!” was the rallying cry for activists in Cancun last September. I am going to argue here that it is highly necessary to come to terms with the globalized tourism trade where, indeed, our world is for sale, probably more than in any other sector.
The corporate tourism system, in the pursuit of maximum profits, wants to own and commodify everything for tourist consumption, and it is known for using any and all means to achieve its goals. So we should not be confused about the industry jumping on the bandwagon of “corporate social responsibility” and the World Tourism Organization’s (WTO/OMT) rhetoric of “poverty alleviation” and “social harmony” as part of its new initiative with the well-sounding name “Tourism Liberalization with a Human Face”. It is by no means a novelty that damaging, predatory and even criminal practices have been painted over by excessive spin from corporate powers involved in tourism. The “ecotourism” and “greenwash” stunts have been clear examples of that.
In fact, privatization of land and natural resources for tourism is also nothing new, as developers all over the world have a long history of “privatizing” public assets - by simply stealing them! Over recent decades, we have experienced again and again the illegal takeover of public beaches, forests and mountain areas for the construction of hotels, resorts, golf courses and other commercial tourism facilities. The illegal “privatization” of water from public reservoirs to fill hotel swimming pools and bathtubs and to water the greens of golf courses has also been going on for many years.
What is new, however, is that the robbery of people’s land and resources is increasingly organized under corporate regimes and legalized through privatization and liberalization agreements between government and industry. Among other things, that means authorities in charge have less problems to ward off criticism for turning a blind eye to the exploitative and illicit activities of tourism-related businesses. Indeed, governments are now openly collaborating in the corporate takeover of the public domain.
National parks
To illustrate that, I first want to focus on the degradation of national parks. Worldwide - from the United States, South Africa, China to Thailand – parks are being privatized, built over and styled to lure more tourists and their dollars. Among advocates, the argument goes that private sector involvement is in the “public interest” because cash-strapped governments are lacking the necessary resources for nature conservation and visitor facilities to accommodate growing public demand. But often, the consequences for local people and the environment are devastating. The recent World Parks Congress in Durban, South Africa, was a reconfirmation that protected areas are threatened as never before. Damage of ecosystems due to excessive developments, social inequality, and commercialization that often results in an irreversible loss of authenticity are just a few of the problems to be mentioned.
America served as a model when it was to establish countries’ national park systems, often at the cost of local and indigenous communities who faced dispossession and displacement as authorities and conservationists stepped in to protect forests and wildlife. Now, it seems, land and natural resource managers worldwide are copying the American model again – this time in terms of privatization and Disneyfication of parks.
To many it may sound like a bad joke, but it is true that US government agencies concerned with conservation - including the Forest-, the Natural Resources Conservation- and the National Park Services - have signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Walt Disney Company on cooperation in land and natural resource management and environmental education. And following this example, pristine natural areas everywhere are being transformed into money-spinning theme parks. At the entrance visitors are stopped by private security guards and fee collectors and instead of forests you might find the area plastered with the logos of Coca Cola, McDonald, KFC and other US corporations. What is often promoted as benign “ecotourism” is in reality industrial tourism with hardly any authentic nature left.
Motorization also plays a significant role in industrial tourism, which only adds to already existing environmental problems in ecologically and culturally sensitive areas. For example, motor rallies and caravans, organized by automobile and oil companies in partnership with other industries and tourism authorities, have become fashionable to promote products from off-road-vehicles over gasoline and cigarettes to new adventurous “ecotourism” routes. Ironically, sponsoring firms are now often using these condemnable events for planting trees or donating to poor villagers along the way in order to demonstrate their “social and environmental responsibility”.
With the opening up of natural areas for commercial tourism, there have also been constant warnings about the privatization and trading of biological resources and Indigenous Peoples’ traditional knowledge. In this context, alarming reports have surfaced about “tourists” illegally collecting and trading species and traditional medicine recipes that are of value for the biotechnology industry.
Unfortunately, many important cultural sites are facing a fate similar to natural areas. As for World Heritage Sites in Asia - such as the Angkor temples in Cambodia, the ethnic town of Lijiang in China’s Yunnan Province, and the ancient capital Hue in Vietnam – UNESCO has formed partnerships with tourism heavyweights such as the Pacific Asia Travel Association (PATA) in order to implement conservation projects while promoting tourism. The consequence is that indiscriminate tourism development and the plundering of precious cultural and archaeological features have become the most destructive forces for exactly those sites that UNESCO identified to be protected and restored in the first place.
Privatization galore
It is disturbing that in tourism-related “public-private partnerships”, the “private” appears to have gained absolute primacy. Often, these cooperation agreements result in a weakening of governments’ decision-making power with the dominating private partners appropriating public agendas. For instance, heavily pushed by commercial tourism interests, governments have plans to privatize a railway in Macchu Picchu, an ancient Inca site in Peru, and to allow the construction of privately operated cable car systems at Phu Kradung mountain, a part of a national park in Thailand, and at the Banaue rice terraces on Indigenous Peoples’ land in the Philippines. Notably, all these projects were drawn up without proper public participation and were fiercely opposed by local residents.
Common sense tells us that the world’s last nature reserves, important cultural and religious sites and Indigenous Peoples’ ancestral domains should be kept free from commercial tourism forces and properly maintained for public good, now and in future. But under the new liberalization schemes such as the General Agreement of Trade in Services (GATS) under the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) system, there seems to be no more place and nothing more on Earth that is safe from corporate greed.
The far-reaching consequences of privatization and “free trade” for people and countries are not yet fully understood - particularly in terms of tourism, which is a very complex and diverse sector. But wherever Big Business takes over state property and enterprises, reports about corruption and fraud abound.
A major target for tourism-related privatization are infrastructure systems worth billions of dollars, and one may wonder what happens, for example, when all major airports of a Third World country are taken over by British Airways or Lufthansa, or urban mass transport systems handed over to Siemens.
People in several European countries are up in arms over the privatization of water supply, but it is an especially critical issue in tourist destinations that are regularly suffering from water shortages. In times of crises, water conflicts between tourist businesses, private households and agricultural farms will inevitably exacerbate. Poor communities are likely to be the losers vis-à-vis stronger tourism businesses.
The grave concerns that have been raised in relation to the privatization of education and health systems can also be linked to the tourism sphere. For years already, corporate-led forces have been active in sponsoring tourism studies and trainings, with the result that tourism-related knowledge has been increasingly monopolized and stripped of critical content. The progressive privatization of universities, research and training institutes might result in an even greater “brain drain” with less possibility for independent and problem-oriented tourism research and education.
A new and quite unexpected phenomenon with regard to the privatization of the health system is the recent boom of medical tourism in many countries that can offer relatively cheap health services. Whereas private hospitals are being revamped into five-star complexes that cater to rich tourist patients, public health care is rapidly deteriorating in most parts of the world.
With the power of democratically elected governments and the influence of international political institutions fading, corporate tourism forces are well positioned to continue with their unprecedented attack on the public domain and expansion of other harmful practices, with little or no respect for human rights, social welfare and environmental protection.
Fair trade in tourism?
Therefore, it is not surprising that a number of local communities, Indigenous Peoples groups and civil society organizations are discussing “fairer” and more “equitable” options aimed to mitigate the impacts of liberalization and globalization in the tourism sector.
No doubt, small farmers and manufacturers in developing countries can benefit from fair trading schemes when they get a better price for their agricultural and manufactured produce than under exploitative world market conditions. But in terms of tourism, to simply respond to the excesses of “free trade” with calls for “fair trade” can be risky and counter-productive. We first have to fully understand what trade in tourism actually means, and what it implies.
Is it acceptable, for example, to trade tourism assets as if they were bananas, coffee or textiles? There is the reminder that trade and commerce in our capitalist economic system is based on private ownership. People or companies can claim private ownership of a hotel, restaurant, shop, golf course, a tour agency and certain other services. But notably, all tourist experiences are being traded, including those that are part of the public domain – natural, cultural and religious sites and features; rural and indigenous villages and surrounding commons and so on. Everything is now given monetary value and thrown onto the global market - from elephants and lions in an African safari park to “long-neck” hilltribe women in remote villages on the Thai-Burmese border. Not enough, non-physical assets are also part of the tourism trade, such as rural and ethnic lifestyles, traditional festivals, songs and dances, religious ceremonies, people’s friendliness and hospitality.
Often, this commodification for tourism takes very subtle forms, and there seem to be no moral limitations. I find it shameful, for example, that more and more initiatives are trying to cash in on people’s plight, by trading Third World poverty, social turmoil and wars as tourist attractions. Recently, we even learned about a NGO project that aimed to attract interest in “dictatorship tourism” and to package travel to military-ruled Burma as a sort of fair, sustainable special interest study tour programme, despite the fact this troubled country has been subjected to a long-year tourism boycott.
I believe there is something fundamentally wrong about such practices that come along with unfettered trade in tourism - any form of trade: free or fair. At the heart of the problem seems to me the rampant erosion of non-material/human values in combination with growing economic power and corporate culture. And that explains the increasing ignorance of the fact that all places and things formerly valued as beautiful, dear, and sacred to local people are now thoughtlessly sacrificed for tourism, the self-proclaimed “world’s biggest industry”.
In view of this, I urge all concerned parties – and particularly civil society - to rethink the issues of trade, and fair trade, in tourism. Fair traded tourism may bring economic benefits to some local people and communities involved in the business. But beyond that we need to ask ourselves honestly: If we accept tourism as trade, are we not abetting the forces of commodification and privatization? Where is the line to be drawn between tradable and non-tradable assets? What are the physical and non-physical features that, as a matter of principle, should never be up for sale on the market? Who has the right to trade what? Who can claim ownership over the tourism products?
If we encourage Big Business involved in tourism to adopt fair trade practices we may want to effect a better sharing of benefits. But by doing so, are we not inevitably creating more problems than we are trying to solve given the well-known rapacious nature of the corporate tourism sector? Are our partnerships with the industry for ethical/fair traded tourism schemes compatible with our intentions to safeguard human rights and values and to work for a fairer and equitable world in general?
Corporate social responsibility: a new label
Taking these issues a step further, let us think about the current efforts to steer tourism-related businesses towards “corporate social and environmental responsibility” through ecotourism certification and fair trade labeling in local and indigenous communities, for example. Such measures may help consumers to make better choices and to feel more satisfied, but alas, what right do those involved in such activities have to qualify, certify and stick labels on communal assets that nobody is supposed to own?
Also, in contrast to the proclaimed intentions to enhance cultural and ecological diversity, promoters of certification and labeling are now working to introduce international standardization in destinations. In fact, the result will only be more homogenization and uniformity - and a loss of diversity and “authenticity”.
To wrap up: Indeed, as far as tourism is concerned, our world is for sale; here we have it all:
Privatization – commodification – standardization – homogenization – corporatization – Disneyfication – industrialization – denaturalization – deculturalization - dehumanization …
I have often compared tourism with prostitution to open up new perspectives for discussion. And here I am doing it again, despite the awareness that descriptions of tourism as a form of prostitution create discomfort. But that just shows the double standards that are at work in the debate.
In fact, both tourism and prostitution can be considered as multi-million-dollar businesses that are contributing to poverty alleviation, job creation and income generation. Meanwhile, both trades (that are partly overlapping because of sex tourism) are utterly unfair and exploitative, victimizing millions of unfortunate people worldwide and causing great harm to society.
In prostitution, the victims are women, men and children who are selling their bodies to survive. In tourism, it is local people who are also selling something to visitors in order to survive: their homes and villages, their natural and cultural heritage, their agricultural and manufactured products, their workforce, their hospitality, their smiles - and sometimes also their bodies. Having said that, you may realize that the “selling-out” in the tourism trade is much more comprehensive than in the sex trade.
Of course, we do not blame the prostitutes for their sex work nor the local communities and small businesspeople for eking out a living from tourism. Leaving aside any moral concerns, we sympathize with and try to support those who have been victimized; in most cases, they are just pawns in the game, poor, have little choices, lack education and skills, and are vulnerable to dependency, exploitation and maltreatment.
What about fair options for the victims? Imagine the following scenario: A European man travels to Southeast Asia for vacation and gets involved with a woman in a nightlife district in Pattaya or Manila. Accused by feminists of being a sex tourist, he insists he has not come to buy a prostitute. He claims the woman is his girlfriend and he really likes her; and of course, he does not exploit her in any way; she has a good life with him, maybe better than ever before; and it’s an absolutely “fair” deal because he’s paying for all her expenses and he even gives her some extra money to take care of her family.
We may or may not believe this man. Perhaps he is just a “normal” sex tourist, who is trying to deceive himself that his involvement with a prostitute is more than just about money. Perhaps he is honest about trying to build a good and fair relationship with that woman. In fact, sometimes such relationships work very well and last for a lifetime.
Yet, we generally hear alarm bells ringing. This is because relationships between relatively wealthy men from industrialized countries and poor women from the Third World are inherently problematic and unsustainable due to the underlying structural political and socio-economic inequalities.
Even though it looks at first sight as if the man would make a perfect candidate for a “best practices” or “fair” relationship award, experience tells us that the woman needs to be cautious. Too often, men – for whatever reason – have turned to abuse their power, taking on paternalistic, racist and violent attitudes, with the women suffering incredible hardship. In the worst case, the women end up in slave-like situations, with no freedom and dignity.
Can we draw some conclusions from this story for people affected by tourism development? My argument is that tourism –all forms of tourism including ecotourism, sustainable, fair traded tourism – might end up as a form of prostitution with local or indigenous communities as victims. Unless we move to properly challenge the unjust and inequitable power structures involved in the tourism sector, the living and working conditions will only worsen for people in tourist destinations under the order of unfettered economic globalization.
It is worth noting here, that a few NGOs that consider fair trade as a promising concept to apply in tourism have come up with valuable critiques of neo-liberal tourism policies and the GATS, for example. But, unfortunately, these critiques are insufficiently linked to their ideas and activities related to “fair traded tourism”. So far, I have not come across any convincing explanation as to how the fair trade concept can effectively curb the power of Big Business in tourism. Nor have I seen any clear proposals on how fair trade initiatives could make corporations involved in the tourism sector liable for unfair, predatory and unlawful practices. So in my view, fair traded tourism cannot be considered as a viable instrument to defend local communities from further corporate tourism onslaught.
Challenges for civil society
Let me close with a couple of points for the discussion of strategies:
Firstly, we need to join forces to stop progressive liberalization and privatization and the increasing monopoly control of the tourism industry in the hands of transnational and national corporations. Pressure needs to be increased at all levels to prevent the expansion of the GATS; the existing agreement should be amended to stop privatization and deregulation of the tourism sector as well as basic services (e.g. education, health, water, energy, environmental services).
Secondly, given the bad experiences with regard to partnerships with Big Business in tourism, we, as civil society, should take a different approach and work for the disentanglement and separation of the public and the private spheres. “Multi-stakeholder” dialogues can be useful, but it is necessary to draw a clear line between private/corporate/for-profit interest and public interest. We need to lobby our governments at all levels to put people’s needs and wishes at the center of development policies and projects and to regulate the tourism sector in a way that it will not encroach upon the public domain.
Moreover, we should support the international campaign for a corporate-free United Nations because that can help to stop the global tourism industry from advancing their self-serving interests and influencing public agendas. As we are focusing on tourism issues, it is especially important to call for an independent and impartial World Tourism Organization. The WTO/OMT has just been transformed into a specialized UN agency even though its anti-democratic procedures and business machinations are obvious and by no means compatible with the UN’s role in serving “We the Peoples…”
Thirdly, civil society should continue to clearly represent public interests in the tourism arena and put emphasis on the support of grassroots struggles to ward off corporate takeovers for tourism development. This can be done by publicizing and denouncing the industry’s unjust and damaging practices, for example. I believe it is not the task of civil society to assist the tourism industry in the development and promotion of “corporate social responsibility” policies and programmes that are based on voluntarism (e.g. codes of conducts, certification and labeling, fair trading schemes, and social investment programmes). In this context, we have to clearly distinguish between the goals and agendas of (1) initiatives towards “corporate responsibility” that are generally corporate-led, and (2) the “corporate accountability” movement, which takes a clear stance against industry self-regulation and calls for legally binding frameworks to properly deal with Big Business.
Too often, voluntary industry initiatives related to tourism development have turned out to be shams and a subversion of law and democracy. Therefore, it is high time that we direct our efforts towards strengthening democratic control over tourism companies in order to check and redress their excessive activities. An important step can be made by joining the burgeoning “corporate accountability” movement that is vigorously lobbying the UN and its member states to put the right legal and administrative measures in place to ensure that human, social and environmental rights are respected by transnational corporations wherever they operate in the world.
Bangkok, December 2003
