World Tourism Day, founded by the World Tourism Organisation, (WTO) was inaugurated thirty years ago. The decision was made in a general assembly of this organisation which took place in the Spanish city of Torremolinos, an icon of tourism development during General Franco’s dictatorship. The act of this assembly states, “The main objective of World Tourism Day is to encourage awareness of the importance of tourism and its social, cultural, political and economic values amongst the international community”. Yet it is hard not to consider that behind this official objective, there were other, not such explicit motives, such as the desire to provide a propagandistic cover up for an industry whose growth depended on governmental and multinational support; or the eagerness to benefit the political aspirations of the WTO.
If we consider World Tourism Day as an instrument of support to this sector’s development, it has to be said that it has formed part of a successful policy. In 2003, the WTO achieved its goal of entering the United Nations as a specialist organisation, which brings with it legitimacy and an increase in political influence; and in these last three decades, the growth of the tourism industry has been exceptional.
However, the darker side of tourism has become more apparent in this period also: the destruction of ecosystems, the monopolising of resources necessary to the functioning of other productive sectors, (land, water, public funds...), deplorable working conditions, urban speculation, facilitating corruption, etc. At first, these aspects remained confined to zones in countries in the North, or their neighbours, such as the Northern Mediterranean coast. But with air travel becoming less expensive, they were soon exported to other more “exotic” territories, from a western point of view, such as Southeast Asia, Polynesia and the Caribbean. It was then that the first criticisms started to emerge. Texts that are today considered sociological tourism classics, such as “Tourism: Passport to Development?” by Emanuel Kadt (1979) or, in the Hispanic world, Francisco Jurdao’s compilation, “Los mitos del turismo” (1992), began to analyse and spread the message of these negative impacts.
In the tourism industry, the need to tackle these criticisms became apparent. Due to this, in a deft strategic move, not without cynicism, the industry was able to claim the terms used by those social sectors that denounced the negative impacts of tourism as their own: sustainability, responsibility, or fight against poverty, all became common terms used in its corporate discourse.
In this sense, the concept of Responsible Tourism has become what W. B Gallie calls an “Essentially Contested Concept”. That is to say a concept around whose definition there is endless debate as it can lead to incompatible, yet valid definitions, depending on the aspects that are focused on and the context in which it is raised.
However, it was not always this way. Initially, Responsible Tourism was developed as a proposal which affirmed that alternative tourism models were possible, models capable of respecting the environment, fundamentally benefiting the local economy, and in which the host country would play a significant governing role. Going further than simply promoting alternative models, Responsible Tourism appeared to also be a social movement that fought the consequences of dominant tourist models and which denounced their main perpetrators: the multinational business sector (its principal beneficiary) and the governmental and multilateral authorities who supported it.
Yet currently, the concept of Responsible Tourism is being used precisely by the bodies that promote and benefit from the dominant tourist models: the multinational business sector. Because of this, they attract invaluable support from self-defining agents such as civil society, (foundations, institutions, etc) or specialist professionals, (consultants, research centres...) who propose actions designed to give the industry a makeover without dealing with the fundamentals, and therefore, without tackling the roots of the problems that are generated.
Thus, under the auspices of Responsible Tourism, plans of action have arisen in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). In a period of neo-liberalism, in which the state has been ceding its sovereignty, pressured by corporate capital, the business sector has wanted to appease citizens, assuring them that this is not a cause for concern. CSR, which is no more than the voluntary acceptance of a series of auto-regulated measures, has shown itself to be an ideal strategy to generate this tranquillity and trust.
Yet something doesn’t seem to work in this system of auto-regulation when a multinational tourism company like Sol Melia, the main Spanish hotelier chain, and one that invests heavily in promoting and building its CSR line (“The commitment to social, environmental and cultural responsibility is an essential value in our company today”, it affirms on its website), puts pressure on the governments and public institutions of southern countries to be able to build in areas of ecological importance (in the case of the Emerald Coast Resort in Quintana Roo, Mexico). It sets about transferring water from the local population to cover the needs of its golf courses (as in the Paradisus Playa Conchal Resort in Guanacaste, Costa Rica) and devastates mangroves, the first and only effective line of defence against hurricanes and tsunamis, as the population of Indonesia well know (as in the cases of Paradisus Resort Playa del Carmen and Paradisus Riviera Cancun in Mexico). Or when it is denounced for its policies which infringe the rights of their workers (see the report, “Las cadenas hoteleras españolas en América Latina y las libertades sindicales”. Written and edited by the Latin-American trade-union committee, Rel-UITA in 2008).
And it seems contradictory that the commercial tourism sector, responsible for these undesired impacts, is the sector that establishes its own corrective measures. The objective of a business is to obtain economic profits for its proprietors in a context of a free market. It is unlikely that a business would voluntarily agree to reduce their profits if they are not obliged to do so. Although the mantra of the CSR, repeated over and over again, tries to convince us otherwise, whatever regulations and controls are in place to effectively monitor the pernicious effects of tourist activity must be external. They must come from governmental institutions and independent multilaterals with the ability to establish rules and enforce them. Today however, under the definition of Responsible Tourism, it is the proposals of the CRS that predominate and not the actions of political lobbying with a view to making the state assume its regulatory role. Without these regulations and external monitoring, the CSR becomes just another marketing tool in favour of the commercial objectives of tourism corporations.
But the most extreme example that demonstrates how the commercial sector has subordinated the concept of Responsible Tourism is the proposal to convert tourism transnational capital into an agent of cooperation for development. This is the case with the methodology of Pro-Poor Tourism (PPT), developed from British cooperation. PPT works on the premise that tourism is always positive if it means an increase in the incomes of the poorest sectors of the community, even though these gains may be marginal, not distributed evenly and although it may be others (the multinational tourism industry) who monopolise the majority of the benefits that this activity generates.
With a narrow definition of poverty (PPT defines it simply as a shortage of monetary income), the solution consists of increasing the income of the poor, which can be achieved through some marginal activity (the making and selling of artisan products, local guides etc). Thus it is not necessary to consider mechanisms of re-distribution of profits which can have a negative effect on the commercial tourism sector.
It should be noted that proposals like PPT do not deny that the dominant tourism models generate distortions, (unsustainability, and impoverishment) but they consider that the problem is not in the model itself, rather in its management. For the PPT, in establishing some appropriate corrective mechanisms, these dominant tourism models and the multinational corporations that control them are not part of the problem. Further still, they become allied in the fight against poverty in the South: they become cooperative agents.
It is not strange, then, that amongst the principal defenders of PPT we find the likes of the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC), the platform formed by the key multinationals in the sector. The WTTC recommends the application of PPT proposals in its “policy recommendations” for those, euphemistically named, “emerging countries”.
For PPT, factors such as the impact on socioeconomic differences, the distribution of profits, or the environmental consequences of tourism development are considered secondary topics. In reality PPT accepts that the model, not only doesn’t fight for equality, but it can even bring problems for some of the population. The proposals for the fight against poverty have become laughable. Only a few years ago for example, Caroline Ashley, one of its principal promoters, advised that the governments of the South (poor) would financially support the multinationals (of rich countries) so that “PPT policies” could be applied, since if it was considered that these policies would generate profits for the venture in the long term, in the short term they would require an investment which these governments should support. In other words, she asked the impoverished countries to cede public resources to the large corporate tourism capital so that they could establish means of reducing poverty. (Ashley, C & J Ashton “Can the private sector mainstream pro-poor tourism?” id21 insights no 62. 2006)
Faced with these examples, the question is: How has the tourism industry been capable of allying itself with Responsible Tourism, a concept that was created precisely to denounce the industry? The answer is long and complex, but there are a few particularly significant factors that can give us some clues.
On the one hand, there is the eagerness on the part of the commercial tourism sector to improve its image (marketing ethic). Furthermore, they have an interest in cornering new areas in the market that crop up under the image of sustainability and solidarity. This is the case with ecotourism. Or more recently, volunteer tourism, for which certificates are being suggested, such as the European Fairtrade Labelling Organisations International (FLO), to transform it into a commercial product.
The other possible cause is the historic disregard for the tourism sector by international social movements. Although the impact of tourism is clear, in rich as well as poor countries, it remains low on the agenda of social movements.
The reason for this oversight would have to be investigated, and above all, addressed. Only a strong civil society, with its own lobbying agenda in the tourism sector and with the ability to analyse, can prevent the commercial sector subordinating concepts like Sustainable Tourism or Responsible Tourism to its own interests. The sustainability of tourism cannot be left to the free will of this industry. Sustainability, (environmental, social, economic and cultural) must be legislated and demanded. Therefore, it is necessary to break with the neo-liberal process of the dismantling of the state... a process which, perhaps not by chance, coincides with the 30th anniversary of World Tourism Day.
Publicado originalmente en la revista Contours, vol19, nº3 (2009)
Traducido por Rebecca Gainey
Septiembre de 2009