Eco Tourism and Certification - Confronting the Principles and Pragmatics of Socially Responsible...

8/3/2019 Eco Tourism and Certification - Confronting the Principles and Pragmatics of Socially Responsible Tourism

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eco-tourism-and-certification-confronting-the-principles-and-pragmatics-of 1/16

Ecotourism and Certification: Confrontingthe Principles and Pragmatics of SociallyResponsible Tourism

Laurie Kroshus Medina

Associate Professor, Depa rtment of Anttiropology, Michigan StateUniversity, Easf Lansing, Mi 48823, USA

Many ecotourism proponents advocate certification as a means to distinguish legiti-mate ecotourism from counterfeit 'greenwashed' products. This paper discusses

efforts by certification advocates operating in global arenas to generate standards formeasuring compliance with one dimension of widely accepted definitions ofecotourism, the stipulation that it should provide benefits to local communities. Thepap er then presen ts an ethnog raphic case study from Belize that reveals d isagreem entsamo ng ecotourism stakeholders in Belize and between them and international expertsabout the m eaning of several key terms: wh o should count as ' local ', what should countas 'participation' by locals, and what constitutes a 'benefit' to local communities. Theauthor argues that divergent perspectives on these issues must be recognised andaccomm odated in the process of harm onis ing or stand ardis ing certification criteria forecotourism; failure to do that could imperil both the principled and pragmatic ratio-nales behind the requirement that ecotourism provide benefits to local communities.

Keywords: ecotour ism, cer t i f icat ion, ecolabel ing, Bel ize , local communi t ies ,par t ic ipat ion

Certification: Potential an d Pitfalls

Certification programmes represent an increasingly important strategy forencou raging the sustainable pro duc tion of goo ds and services. As the 1992 EarthSummit focused global attention on efforts to remake development in moresustainable forms, emerging tra de regim es impo sed limitations on the ability of

gov ernm ents to set enviro nm ental and social stan da rds for businesse s. Certifica-tion initiatives emerged as non-government, market-based interventions toprom ote sustainability by encouraging the preferential consum ption of goods andservices from compan ies that adhere to high social and environmental stand ardsin their production (Coriroy, 2002: 109). Since the Earth Summit, certificationprogra mmes have been created to define an d m easure sustainability in a num berof industries.

Within the tourism industry alone, 104 certification or ecolabeliing pro gram meshave been developed (Honey & Stewart, 2002b: 4). Debate h as ensu ed over the

potential positive and negative impacts of such certification schemes. Whilecertification initiatives aim to pus h the indu stry tow ards m ore sustainable op er-



282 Journal of Sustainable Tourism

thaf privilege fhe inferests of fhe global Norfh over fhe needs of fhe developingglobal Soufh, and the concerns of the profit-oriented private sector over those ofenvironmentalists (Sasidharan & Font, 2001; Sasidharan et ah, 2002). Resulting

standards may be too low to provide adequate protection for the environmentand too high for small and m edium enterprises in developing coun tries to meet,exacerbating global inequities along a N orth-S outh div ide. Additionally, it is notclear that the mark et for certified tourism pro duc ts is sufficiently large to enablecertification programmes to become economically viable (Sharpley, 2001).Further, scholars and practitioners on both sides of this debate agree that theproliferation of ecolabelling schemes in tourism h as genera ted confusion am ongconsu mers, making it difficult for any progra m m e to function effectively (Honey& Stewart, 2002a; Sanabria, 2002; Sharpley, 2001).

Several recent initiatives address these concerns. In 2000, an internationalworkshop on Ecotourism and Sustainable Tourism Certification convened toaddress the problem of proliferating certification programmes by developingbroadly applicable standard s for ecolabelling program mes in tourism. The work-shop brough t together participants from twenty coun tries, wh o represented m ostof the leading sustainable tourism and ecotourism certification programmes.Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and intergovernmental organisationsinvolved in certification, academics, consultants, business leaders, and otherswith expertise in tourism and ecotourism certification and environmentalmanagem ent. The Mohonk A greement they drafted is a two-tiered framew ork,

wi th one set of criteria for certification in sustainable tourism and an add itiona lset of criteria for ecotourism (this Agreem ent is reproduc ed as an app en dix inHoney (2002b) and can also be found at www.rainforest-alliance.org/program m es/tourism /certification/m ohon k.htm l). In related efforts, the Rain-forest A lliance, The International Ecotourism Society, the Center for Ecotourismand Sustainable Developm ent, the World Tourism Organisation, and the U nitedNations Environment Programme are collaborating to harmonise criteria for'green ' certification program m es in tourism and possibly to create an accredita-tion body for certification programmes in sustainable tourism and ecotourism

(Buchara et ai, 2004). The Rainforest Alliance is also tackling the North-Southdivide in a project that targets training and technical assistance to small andmed ium-sized enterprises in five Latin American countries to enable their partic-ipation in certification prog ram m es, at the same time that the project facilitatesthe harmonisation of best management practices and certification standardswithin the region (Buchara et ah, 2004). This paper calls attention to some issuesthat should be considered in the context of such initiatives to develop regionaland global standards for certification.

Ecotourism as a Special Case: Principies an d Pragm atics



Confror^fing tlie Principies and Pragma tics of Sociaiiy Responsibie Tourism 283

Stewart, 2002a). Early on, ecotourism was defined by The Ecotourism Society(now The International Ecotourism Society (TIES)) as 'responsible travel tonatural areas, which conserves the environment and improves the welfare of

local people' (Honey & Stewart, 2002a: 1). As the concept was elaborated, itbecame increasingly distinct from natu re tourism and m ore explicitly no rmative(Blamey, 2001: 6; Campbell, 1999: 535). The current executive director of TIESdefines ecotourism as

travel to fragile, p ristine, and usually protected areas that strives to be lowimpact and (usually) small scale. It helps educate the traveler; providesfunds for conservation; directly benefits the economic development andpolitical empowerment of local communities; and fosters respect fordifferent cultures and for human rights. (Honey, 2002b: 381)

Ecotourism's proponents assert that it is 'qualitatively different' from otherforms of tourism, including n ature tourism; while nature tou rism is defined onthe basis of wh at travellers do, ecotourism focuses on 'th e impact of their travel onboth the environment and the people in the host country. Ecotourism posits thisimpact should b e positive' (Honey & Stewart, 2002a: 1, italics added ). As a result,

Ecotourism standa rds go beyond ques tions of ecoefficiency (i.e., those tha tare both cost-saving and environmentally better) and are more responsiveto nationa l and local stakeholde r concerns. They look beyon d the tourismentity itself an d ask how ecotourism com panies can contribute to conserva-tion of protected areas and what mechanisms are in place to ensure thatbenefits reach local people. (Honey & Stew art, 2002a: 63)

This paper focuses on the widely accepted stipulation that ecotourism mustbenefit local communities, a principle with both ethical and pragmatic roots.Ethically, the requireme nt th at local com munities benefit from ecotourism andparticipate in decision mak ing is 'the socially responsib le, or right, thing to do', asit seeks to diminish inequalities betw een No rth and S outh and across class lines

within the developing world (Blamey, 2001: 13). The instrum ental rationale isdriven by the assumption that 'local communities are most likely to protect ormaintain a resource base in a form that is suitable for tourism if they stand tobenefit from it' (Blamey, 2001:13). As Northe rn env ironm entalist NGO s wo rkedto establish protected areas in developing countries to conserve biodiversity,they promoted tourism to those protected areas for two key reasons. Eirst,tourism revenues could fund patrols and management for protected areas in anera when government revenues and resources for such management wereshrinking (Ashton, 1991). Second, the creation of protected areas curtailednearby com mu nities' access to some resources. In response to - or to forestall -

protests or 'poaching ' by local populations, conservationists prop osed that reve-nues from tourism to protected areas should com pensate nearby comm unities




Conservationists, economists, and tourists alike have awakened to therealisation that you can't save nature at the expense of local people. Ascustodians of the land, and those most likely to lose from conservation,

locals shou ld be given a fair sha re. Sound politics and fair econom ics arguefor making local people partners and beneficiaries in conservation, asopposed to implacable enemies of it . . . Conservation and tourism thatdenies the rights and concerns of local comm unities is self-defea ting ... [It]takes only a few disgrun tled peop le to disrupt tourism. (W estern, 1993:8-9)

Ecotourism pro pon ents have embraced the idea of certification as a means ofmoving ecotourism 'beyond conceptualisation to codification' and for distin-guishing 'genuine ecotourism ' from 'ecotourism lite' and greenwashing (Honey,2002a: 370; Honey & Stewart, 2002b: 3). Certification advocates confront the

question, 'Ho w does one decide when a nature-based tourism experience is suffi-ciently supporting of local communities and/or conservation to qualify asecotourism ?' (Blamey, 2001: 14). While the env ironm ental impac ts of tourismhave been studied and - partially - quantified (though m any issues rema in unre-solved; see Honey (2004)), the evaluation of community involvement and thecreation and measurement of socioeconomic indicators is perceived as evenmore difficult to standardise and quantify; it has rarely been undertaken bysustainable tourism prog ramm es (Epler Wood & Halpenny, 2001:127). How ever,the social and economic aspects of ecotourism are critical to its success, since a

few disgrun tled local peop le have the ability to un de rm ine the protected statusof the flora and fauna in reserves and thus destroy the base for eco tourism.

This paper summarises the criteria proposed by certification advocates inglobal arenas to measure benefits to local communities; it then turns to anethnograph ic case study from Belize to identify issues that shou ld be consideredas global and local agen das intersect in the process of creating an d imp lem entingecotourism certification schemes.

Development of Criteria for Ecotourism Certification

Though most of the literature on certification in tourism focuses broadly oncertification for sustainable tourism, this paper focuses on efforts to generatecriteria for assessing benefits to local com mu nities for the pu rpo se of ecotourismcertification, in particular. The Mohonk Agreement, mentioned above, repre-sents one important part of such efforts. The two-tiered framework outlinescertification criteria for sustainable tourism with an additional list of require-ments for ecotourism certification. Criteria for sustainable tourism includeindicators of social and economic sustainability in add ition to indicators of envi-ronmental sustainability. Those social and economic criteria are quite general.For example, the Agreement calls for 'mechanisms to ensure that negativeeconomic impac ts on local com munities are minimised and preferably that thereare substantial economic benefits to local communities' (Honey, 2002b: 376). It



Confronting ttie Principles and Pragma tics ofSociaily Responsibie Tourism 285

standards, and contribute to the dev elop m ent/m ainten ance of local communityinfrastructure (Honey, 2002b: 375-6).

In addition to these criteria for sustainable tourism certification, the Mohonk

Agreem ent provides a second tier of criteria for certifying ecotourism enterprisesthat include, but go beyond, fhe standards for sustainable fourism. These aredirectly linked fo the principles thaf define ecofourism; they include 'economic,social, and cultural benefits for local communities', 'fostering of communityinvolvement, where ap prop riate', 'minimal im pact on and presentation of local(indigenous) culture', and 'interpretation and environmental awareness ofnature, local society, and culture' (Honey, 2002b: 377). How these abstractcriteria may be defined o r m easured is not specified, buf a recent sum ma ry of theacademic literature on ecotourism certification offers a somewhat less abstractlist of criteria for econom ic susfainabilify, including assessme nt of fhe struc tureof employment opportunities, fhe distribution of income from ecofourism, thebalance of trade impacts of fourism on communities or regions, and backwardand forward linkages betw een fourism and other formal and informal econom icactivities in local communities (Sirakaya et al, 2001: 423).

Current efforts such as fhe Mohonk Agreement go beyond the beneficiaryapp roach to developme nt often faken by ecofourism ven tures in fhe past, wh ichaimed to generate employment and income for residents of communities nearprotected areas without involving fhem in decision making. Incorporating thecalls for 'participation' and 'empowerment' fhaf emerged during fhe 1990s fo

enable local communities fo collectively prioritise their needs and chooseme ans for mee ting them (Brandon, 1993; Cernea, 1991; Ch am bers, 1997; W ells& Brandon, 1992), the M ohonk A greem ent stipulates that 'the develo pm ent of acertification scheme should be a participatory, multisfakeholder, andmulfisectoral process' thaf includes representatives from local communities,fourism businesses, nongovernmental organisations, community-based organi-sations, and gov ernm ent agencies (Honey, 2002b: 374). Ifs call for 'm echanism s'to minimise negative economic impacts on local comm unities, provide economicbenefits, and ensure recognition for fhe rights and aspirations of local people

suggests a need fo deve lop participatory processes for planning , implem enting,and assessing ecofourism. These prescriptions reflect an emerging consensusamo ng experts thaf stakeholder participation is integral fo the developm ent andapplication of susfainabilify indicators for monitoring ecotourism impacts(Sirakaya et al., 2001: 422).

However, stakeholder involvement in setting criteria for certification iscomplicated by fhe simultaneously global and local scope of fhe problemsecofourism is trying to addres s. As environme ntalist disco urse has con ceptual-ised the entire earfh as a single ecosystem over fhe last two decades,

environmenfalism has become an increasingly transnational practice (Keck &Sikkink, 1998; Princen & Finger, 1994; Sachs, 1993; Taylor & Buftel, 1992).




programm es and ecotourism itself, efforts to establish wo rking agreem ents on aglobal scale may conflict with the integration of local perspectives regardingequity and participation.

Epler Wood and Halpenny warn thaf efforts to set criteria for ecofourism inglobal arenas inevitably lead to vague, general prescriptions: 'It is difficult toimagine how an international certification programme could appropriately sefstandards for the ecotourism world, given fhe number of local concerns' (EplerWood & Halpenny, 2001:129). They suggest fhat na tional certification schem esare likely fo produce m ore concrete, m easurable criteria that are more sensitive fothe issues of local people. Two exam ples sup port this assertion. The Na ture andEcotourism Accreditation Program (NEAP) in Australia, a nationalprogramme developed through stakeholder participation from both private

and public sectors, requires thaf enterprises seeking ecofourism certificationprovide local employment and purchase goods and services locally; provideinterpretation for their clients relating to indigenous cultures and brief themabout how to minimise fhe cultural impacts of fourism on local communities;consult with representatives of local and indigen ous com munities; and providesup po rt or discounts for local organ isations or schools (Buckley, 2001:171). TheCosta Rican Certification for S ustainable Tourism (CST) programm e, also devel-oped through consultations with stakeholders, provides even more detailedsuggestions for the ways enterprises shou ld p rovide benefits to local comm uni-ties. (This progra mm e prov ides sustainable fourism certification, but if does so in

a country that positions itself overall as an ecofourism destination.) Under thecategory of direct economic benefits, fhe CST stipula tes fhaf em ploye rs shou ldrecruit workers locally and then follow up with training and promotion. Itsuggests varied m eans by which fourism enterprises ough t fo promo te indirectlocal/national benefits: encouraging their guests fo patronise other local busi-nesses, buying and utilising locally produced goods such as food and drinks,providing space for the sale of work by local artisans, using local products fodecorate their facilities, and supporting local sporting and cultural events. CSTcriteria also include contributions fo cultural developm ent th roug h such m eans

as selecting cultural traits fo feature in promotional materials for the business,designating a place where locals can posf announcements about upcomingevents, prom oting fhe developm ent or maintenance of cultural activities such asdance, and design ing activities for hotel guesfs fhat introduce fhem fo elem entsof local cultures. Additionally, CST socioeconomic criteria include contributionsfo public health, infrastructure, and security (ww w.furismo-sosten ible.co.cr/EN / sobreCST / man ual / infro.shtml).

In order to accom modate specific local priorities as well as fhe need for stand-ardising certification criteria across programmes and national borders, Epler

Wood and Halpermy recommend a process fhat tacks back and forth betweeninternational and local/national arenas: 'Ecofourism certification programmes



Confronting ttie Principies and Pragma tics ofSociaily Responsible Tourism 287

Wood & Ha lpen ny, 2001:137). TheRainforest Alliance 's current project in LatinAm erica could exemplify such an app roach , as if aims fo develop or streng thenBest Management Practices and certification standards locally and harmonise

fhem across fhe region (see ww w.rainforesf-alliance.org/program mes/fourism/certification/index.hfml). At fhe same time, fhe Alliance is involved in efforts tocreate a global stew ardsh ip council fo further stand ardise or harmonise criteriafor certification.

The case study fhat follows is from Belize, one of fhe cou ntries targe ted in theRainforest Alliance's Latin Am erican project. This case study reveals failures oftranslation between global and local arenas fhat could und erm ine harmonisafionefforts if not recognised. These failures of translation include disagreementsamong ecotourism stakeholders in Belize and between them and international

experts about who should count as 'local', wh at should count as 'participation',and what should count as a 'benefit' of ecofourism. This fype of definitionalproblem h as nof yet been addre ssed in fhe literature on ecofourism certificationinitiatives. However, such problems are especially important for ecofourism,because of the pragm atics of imp lementing ecotourism as well as the principlesthaf guide such efforts. All of these terms must be operationalised in order toassess fhe performance of ecofourism businesses, and fheir definitions m ust fakeinto account fhe perspectives of local entrep reneu rs and comm unities as well astransnational businesses, NGOs, and intergovernmental organisations, if envi-ronmental protection and ecotourism development are fo be viable 'on the

ground'.

Ecotourism in Belize: Local Participation, Local Benefits?

Belize embraced ecofourism in the late 1980s and early 1990s in order fo diver-sify ifs econom y, as free trade initiatives th reatened fhe viability of ifs prin cipa lagricultural exports (M edina, 1998,2004). Sand, sun an d sea tourism h ad begu nearlier on fhe cayes off fhe northern coast. However, as fhe concept of ecotourismbecame popular, both fhe Government-financed Belize Tourism Board (BTB)

and the private-sector Belize Tourism Industry Association (BTIA) began foprom ote Belize as an ecofourism destination, emph asising the co untry's tropicalforests, barrier reef, and diverse cultures. Existing sand, sun, and sea destina-tions established marine reserves; inland entrepreneurs in western Belizeenthusiastically applied the concept of ecofourism in their marketing andproduct development, utilising new and existing reserves; and in heavilyforested southern Belize both village-based organisations and entrepreneursdeveloped ecotourism ventures in conjunction with new or existing protectedareas.

Virtually all Belizean tourism enterprises are small: 90% of the lodgin g accom-modations offer fewer than 20 rooms, and only three of 437 are large by



288 Journai of Sustainabie T ourism

host countries in the developing global Soufh and smaller-scale businessesown ed by in dividuals or families 'wh o are either nationals or long-time foreignresidents' of developing countries and who consequently keep more of their

profits within the host country (Honey & Stewart, 2002b: 20; see also Honey(1999: 173), regarding as 'locally-owned' businesses fhat belong to 'long-termforeign residents').

Although Belize has no national certification programme for ecofourism, fhecountry is targeted by the current Rainforest Alliance-led project fo harmonisebest managem ent practices and certification standard s in Lafin A merica (Bucharaet al., 2004). The study fhaf follows is based on research fhaf explored how theecofourism concept was being defined through both rhetoric and practice inBelize; fhe resulting d ata reveal issues fhat require attention in efforts to develop

and ha rm onise certification s tandards , facilitate fhe particip ation of small enter-prises in certification schemes, and enable linked conservation and ecofourismventu res to succeed.

Methods

Research was conducted over two summers in fhe Gayo District of westernBelize, because the m ost vocal privafe-secfor pro ponents of ecotourism in Belizewere based there. A group of 20 fo 25 Gayo lodge ow ners especially interested inprom oting ecofourism had formed fhe Belize EcoTourism Association (BETA) in

fhe early 1990s. During 1998, I conducted semi-structured interviews withmem bers of BETA and fhe Gayo bran ch of the BTIA (fo which all BETA membersbelonged), asking how they believed ecotourism should be defined and howtheir businesses were implementing ecofourism. In addition, I interviewedseven of 13 members of fhe Small Ho tel Association (SHA) (which included fwofour operators), organised by Gayo entrep reneu rs as an alternative to the BTIA.Semi-strucfured interviews with SHA members explored whether or not theyused the concept of ecotourism in promoting and organising fheir businesses,and ho w fhey believed the concept should be defined and implem ented on local

and national scales. Additionally, active mem bers of fhe Gayo Tour Gu ide Asso-ciation (GTGA) were interviewed regarding how they defined ecofourism andhow fheir work met fhe criteria fhey specified. The sample included 23 lodgeow ners and 12 four operators or tour guides.

Since ecofourism is supposed to provide benefits fo 'local communities',research d urin g the sum m er of 1999 in a Gayo District village of approxim ately1400 res idents explored fhe degree fo wh ich res idents felf fhey benefited fromtourism and the form those benefits took. The village was selected for its prox-imity fo the mo st-visited tourism site in weste rn Belize as well as fo ma ny of the

lodges belonging to BETA m em bers. Many of fhe village's residents work ed forwages in tourism-related enterprises in the region or were self-employed in



Confronting ttie Principies and Pragm atics ofSoclaliy Responsible Tourism 289

Results

Echoing the emerging global discourse on ecotourism, BETA established a

code of efhics for ecolodges in Belize thaf included measures fo 'support

economic and social sustainabilify' as well as environm ental susfainability. Toachieve economic and social sustainability, the code called for ecotourism bu si-nesses to encourage small-scale tourism development, employ local people,purchase local produ cts, instruct their guests to be environm entally and cultur-ally responsible, and provide education for their clients in Belizean geography ,customs and culture (Bien, 2002:144). Although ecofourism entrepreneurs who

belonged fo BETA emphasised environmental preservation as the defining aim

of ecofourism, four of seven interviewed added thaf ecofourism should providetangible benefits to local communities, either as a matter of ethics and social

responsibility or as a practical step fo broaden support for conservation andecotou rism. For exam ple, one lodge owner described ecofourism as 'tourism fhafthinks beyond itself, thaf fhinks about fhe community which if lives wifhin'.Another suggested:

The archaeo logical sifes, the barrier reef, fhe rain forest, the fauna of Belize,all these can only be conserved if fhe people are in tune with fhe conserva-tion of Belize. And fhe people can only be in fune with this if they are

benefiting financially from if.

Accordingly, BETA members listed numerous ways thaf fheir businessesprovid e benefits to local people and expan d theBelizean national economy. M ostobviously, fheir businesses created jobs. They also stimulated productiveactivity in ente rprises w ith which fhey d o business: fhey hire d local seamstressesto make curtains or uniforms, local tour operators provided fours for theirguesfs, and local carpenters constructed buildin gs and furniture; fhey promotedcomm unify-based giff shops or purc hased locally produced craffs for fhe lodge 'sown giff shop; fhey purchased food for the lodges' restaurants from localproducers or wholesalers. One lodge owner suggested fhat these practices

helped fhe local peo ple fo 'become a parf of fhe tourism product. They're not onfhe outside looking in.' Indeed, this list echoes many of fhe criteria for assessingeconomic benefits fo local communities proposed in certification initiatives.

However, BETA members' perceptions of fheir contributions to local and

national development depart sharply from fhe perceptions held by members ofthe SHA and fhe GTGA. Although all fourism enterprises in Gayo are smallaccording to international definitions, tour guides and SHA members drewdistinctions between them selves and BETA or BTIA mem bers, whose businessesfhey described as 'big' or 'more established', as a result of their full-servicenature, fhe economic resources their owners were believed fo command, fhe

income fhey were believed to generate, and fheir owners' foreign origins.Indeed, most BETA memb ers were foreign-born; SHA memb ers and four guides




me mbe rs' lodges as efforts to avoid sharing tourists and their dollars with others.SHA members argued that they were the real contributors to local and nationaldevelopment, because they 'shared' tourists with other locally owned hotels,

restaurants, tour operators, and gift shops. As noted above, some ecotourismliterature draw s the mo st significant lines of distinction betw een transnationalconglomerates that drain profits away from local economies and small-scaleenterprises owned by nationals or long-time foreign residents that retain andshare profits within the local economy (Honey, 1999: 173; Honey & Stewart,2002b: 20). However, SHA and CTGA members drew the line between busi-nesses that d rain profits aw ay from Belize and those that circulate profits locallyto stimulate the Belizean economy in a different place: they did not countlong-term foreign residents as 'local' or as contributors to the local economy.Rather, Belizean-born hotel owners, tour operators, and tour guides discountedexpatriate entre pren eurs' claims to provide benefits for the Belizean economyand local communities, claiming that 'foreign' investors were pursuing theirown self-interests rather than the greater good of Belize.

SHA and CTGA mem bers also questioned w hethe r No rth American or Euro-pean expatriates or Belizean elites could or should educate tourists aboutBelizean cultures, as required by the BETA code of ethics. Full-service lodgespursue this goal by encouraging employees to share with guests informationabout their cultures, contracting local guides to provide 'local flavour' in theirtours, hiring m usical or dance grou ps from nearby villages to perform for tour-

ists, or establishing medicinal plant trails on their properties to teach touristsabout Belizean traditional herbal healing know ledge. Howev er, SHA mem bers -and one Belizean-born BETA member - argued that, in order to really under-stand and appreciate Belizean cultures, tourists would need to spend time inethnically distinctive communities (for example, Maya, Garifuna, or Creole)learning from com mun ity residents them selves about their culture. Such claimsregarding cultural expertise have an economic dimen sion, since teaching tour-ists about local cultures through immersion in villages would lead to touristdollars being spent in those communities and open opportunities for entrepre-

neurial activity by com mun ity m em bers. Thus, while international ecotourismexperts call for tour operato rs and lodge owne rs to educate tourists about localcultures and minimise the impact of tourism o n local cultures, Belizean tourismentrep reneu rs asserted that local comm unities should benefit from and exercisecontrol over either cultural change or the ma intenance of cultural tradition s byrepresenting their own cultures directly to tourists.

The founder of the SHA, previously a BTIA member herself, also describedconflicts between the 'more established' businesses owned by 'foreigners' andthe 'newcomers' owned by Belizeans around issues of regulation. 'The moreestablished businesses are concerned about putting regulations (in place)', sheasserted. Indeed, BETA and BTIA mem bers expressed a desire to im prove both



Confronting fhe Prinoipies and Pragmatics of Socially Responsibie Tourism 291

nesses tomeet. Further, she asserted that Belizeans were being excluded from theprocess of establishing standards. 'The people it's affecting need to be moreinvolved ,' she argued. 'This ismy coun try, and I do n't w ant to go to any m eeting

wh ere I could not say my opinion. Foreigners are used to going to meetings andgiving their opiruons and im posing w hat they want on the meeting .' This asser-tiveness discouraged Belizeans from speaking up in meetings. Further, sheexplained, reflecting on her own experience in the BTIA, 'If you bring up aproblem you have, but other people do n't have that problem, they w on't listen toyou.' This entrepreneur raises two key issues, one concerning inequities in theability of businesses to meet performance standards, and the other concerninginequities in the process of defining such sta nd ards in the first place. Altho ugh'small' and 'large', 'established' and 'newcomer', 'foreign' and Belizean entre-prene urs have sometimes attended BTIA meetings together, the SHA founder's

critique sug gests that they do not all feel able to air their view points or have themconsidered seriously.

In response, this entrepreneur organised others with similar needs and frus-trations into the SHA, wh ose formation dem onstrate s the existence in Belize of aNorth-South divide writ small. This divide involves disparities in access tofinancial resources, but it is also marked by differences in expertise. Just asCampbell (1999) found in Costa Rica, non-elite locals have comparatively littleknowledge regarding how tourism markets are structured and how theyoperate, or what expectations tourists hold and how these might be satisfied (see

also Wearing, 2001). Several SHA members explained that they had earliersough t such information th roug h the BTIA, bu t they had be en disapp ointed . Thedifferences in resources and expertise that m ark an internal N orth -So uth dividein Belize are com po un de d by different styles of interac tion and different comfortlevels at formal meetings, which suggest that such meetings are not able toensure satisfactory 'local participation' in planning and assessing ecotourismdevelopment.

The research conducted in the Cayo village demonstrates further disagree-ment between Belizean villagers and national and international ecotourism

advocates regarding who benefits from tourism and what constitutes a benefit.In the 25% sam ple of villagers surveye d, a mino rity of 18% described their hou se-hold s as beneficiaries of tourism, while 82% asserted th at their househ olds didnot benefit from tourism. Am ong the 13househ olds that described themselves asbeneficiaries of tourism, five include d m em bers w ho w ere self-employed as arti-sans, vend ors, or tour guides, and tw o househ olds included employees (a waiterand a receptionist) in enterprises that service tourists. (The rem aining six hou se-holds did not specify how they benefited from tourism.) However, not allrespondents whose households included wage-earners in businesses thatservice tourists described their hou seho lds as benefiting from tourism . Five suchhouseh olds (including a waiter, a cook, two taxi drivers, and a golf cou rse main-tenance worker at a tourist resort) claimed not to benefit from tourism, thou gh




artisans, tour guides, and vendo rs who were self-employed as the real beneficia-ries of tourism . Further, 30% of the households earned income from constructionwork, and another 19% included members who worked as general unskilled

labourers, but no ne of these househo lds described them selves as benefiting inany way from tourism. This suggests that the multiplier effects of tourismextolled as benefits by ecolodge owners and industry organisations are notvisible to or valued by m any residents of the 'local com mu nities' deem ed to betheir beneficiaries.

Subsequent research in southe rn Belize in 2002 and 2004 has not contrad ictedthese trends. Village ent rep reneur s complain that full-service lodges monopo lisetourists and tourism revenue, while immigrant or elite Belizean lodge ownersemphasise employment creation in listing the benefits they provide to nearbycommunities. Though some villagers described wage labour in tourism as abenefit, most aspired to some form of self-employmen t, like their counte rparts inCayo. Some asserted that wage labour benefits the employer at workers'expense: 'They wo rk you like a horse, and they get richer wh ile you m ake verylittle money.' Thus, in the eyes of many villagers, self-employment benefits theworker, w hile wage labo ur benefits the employer. Such a perspective is quite atodd s with international exp erts' focus on job creation as a means of provid ingeconomic benefits to local comm unities. In this context, the full-service na ture ofsome ecolodges in Belize can be seen to expand oppo rtunities for emp loyment,but not the more desired opportunities for entrepreneurship.

Conclusions

This ethnographic case study reveals conflicts over the meaning of key termsused in standa rd definitions of ecotourism am ong small-scale entrep reneu rs inBelize and between some of them and an emerging consensus among interna-tional experts. These conflicts over w ho is 'local', wha t means for 'par ticip atio n'are adequate, and w hat constitutes a 'benefit' could be expected to carry over intoefforts to produce and implem ent certification schemes that w ould assess busi-

nesses' adherence to the principles of ecotourism. The case study dem onstratestha t Beiizeans draw lines betw een 'foreign' and 'loca l' in structura lly differentplaces than som e internafional ecotourism experts, though they articulate over-lapping criteria for the distinctions they draw, including the degree to whichprofits are retained and circulated within the local comm unity. The prom inenceof expa triates in ecotourism projects across the deve lopin g global South (Cam p-bell, 1999; Wearing, 2001) suggests that 'localness' could well be in dispute inother places also.

Beiizeans also problematised the concept of participation in two differentsenses: they raised issues regarding how people desire to participate inecotourism development - as employees or entrepreneurs; and they raised



Confronting the Principies and Pragmatics of Sociaily Responsible Tourism 293

other researchers as well (Johnson, 1998; Stevens, 1997; Wearing, 2001), toexperiment with a range of forms and forums for participatory stakeholderexercises, in order to enable differently position ed s takeh olde rs to edu cate on e

another about their aspirations, needs, and capacities. In current efforts toharm onise ecotourism certification criteria, it wo uld be a mistake to assume thata lack of vocal opp osition in formal. Western-style m eetings ind icates consensus,rather than 'm uting ' (Mitchell & Eagles, 2001. See also Brosius et al, 1998; Cohen,2002; Pottier, 1997).

The definition of what constitutes a 'benefit' has also been revealed as prob-lematic. International initiatives such as the Mohonk Agreement and nationalprogramm es such as NEAP or CST requ ire the prov ision of economic benefits tolocal communities, and outside experts share a broad consensus that employ-ment creation is a key benefit ecotourism might offer to communities locatednear protected areas. However, Belizean villagers express a preference forself-employment over wage labour, perceiving the latter to benefit the employermore than the worker. This preference suggests that the means through whicheconomic benefits to local com mun ities may be defined and measured may bemore contentious than anticipated by international experts.

Belizeans' preference for self-employment also raises issues regarding locals'access to financial resources for investment and information on what touristswa nt an d how the industry functions. If locals prefer to be entrepreneurs ratherthan employees, serious constraints in terms of financial resources, business

know ledge, and tourism expertise that mark a local 'North -Sou th divide' need tobe address ed. Such constraints to local, small-scale entrepreneu rship extend w ellbeyond Belize (Campbell, 1999; Wearing, 2001). These disparities point to theextent of diversity amo ng sm all enterprises in ecotourism; if all are disadv an-taged relative to transnational corporations, some are mo re disadvan taged thanothers. The Rainforest Alliance's current efforts to target Best M anag em ent Prac-tices training and information on certification to small and medium-sizedente rprises recognises some of this diversity, by offering program m ing for indig-enous or community-based orgarusations that differs from that offered to other

small businesses. But the creation of the SHA in Belize indicates that Belizeanshav e dra wn still finer distinctions am ong sm all businesses.

This case study suggests that the transnational and national organisationscurrently engaged in efforts to harmonise standards for assessing the social andeconomic sustainability of ecotourism ventu res - either globally or within wo rldregions - should explore the possibility that some key terms used in definingecotourism and setting criteria for its evaluation may have multiple andcontested meanings w ithin and across local and international arenas. This is animportant possibility to address in implementing and assessing ecotourism interms of its stated goals and approach to sustainability: if international expertsand the diverse membership of 'local communities' do not agree about what



294 Journal ofSustainable Tourism

them, and they do not count wage labour as a benefit, they are unlikely to

support local protected areas. If they do not support protected areas, then both

the conservation goals that led to their creation and the tourism that depends

upon and supports such protected areas are at risk.

Acknowledgements

The research in western Belize that informs this paper was funded by an All

University Research Initiation Grant from Michigan State University. Subse-

quent research in southern Belize was funded by a Research and Writing Grant

from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

Correspondence

Any correspondence should be directed to Laurie Kroshus Medina, AssociateProfessor, Department of Anthropology, Michigan State University, East Lansing,

MI 48823, USA ([email protected]).

References

Ashton, R., Jr (1991) The financing of conservation - the concept of self-supportingecopreserves. In J.A. Kusler (compiler) Ecotourism and Resource Conservation (pp547-56). Berne, NY: Ecotourism and Resource Conservation Project.

Belize Tourism Board (BTB) (2003) Travel and Tour ism Statistics, Belize 2002. Belize:

Government Printer.

Bien, A. (2002) Environmental certification for tourism in Central America: CST and otherprograms. In M. H oney (ed.) Ecotourism and Certification (pp. 133-59). W ashington, DC:Island.

Biackstone (1998) A tourism strategy plan for Belize. Unpub lished docum ent.Blamey, R.K. (2001) Principles of ecotourism. In D.B. Weaver (ed.) The Encyclopedia of

Ecotourism (pp. 5-22). N ew York: CAB International.Boo, E. (1990) Ecotourism: The Potentials and P itfalls. W ashington, D C: W orld Wildlife

Fund.

Boo, E. (1991) Ecotourism: A tool for conserv ation. In J.A. Koster (compiler) Ecotourism and

Resource Conservation (pp. 517-19). Berne, NY: Ecotourism a nd Resource Conse rvation

Project.Brandon, K. (1993) Basic steps tow ard encou raging local participation in natur e tourism

projects. In K. Lindberg and D. Hawkins (eds) Ecotourism: A Guide for Planners andManagers (pp. 134-51). North Bennington, VT: Ecotourism Society.

Brosius, J.P., Tsing, A.L. and Zerner, C. (1998) Represen ting c om mu nities: Histories andpolitics of community-based resource management. Society and Natural Resources 11,157-68.

Buchara, D., Luna-Kelser, J., Vela, M., M urray , B., He rtz, K., and Soler, S. (2004) Interna-tional Accreditation System andConsolidation of National Systems for Sustainable Tourism

Certification to Facilitate SME Competitiveness and Market Access, TC-03-03-02-4-RG,Donors Memorandum. Inter-American Development Bank. On WWW at http: / /ww w.iadb .org / exr / doc98 / apr / rg8382e.pdf.

Buckley, R.C. (2001) Ecotourism accred itation in Australia. InX. Font and R.C. Buckley(eds) Tourism Ecolabelling (pp. 165-73). Oxon: CAB Intern ational.



Confronting the Principles and Pragm atics of Sociaiiy Responsibie Tourism 295

Conroy, M. (2002) Certification systems for sustainable tourism and ecotourism: Can theytransform social and environ me ntal practices? In M. Hon ey (ed.) Ecotourism and Certifi-cation (pp. 103-29). W ashington, DC: Island.

Epler Wood, M . and H alpenn y, E. (2001) Ecotourism certification and evaluation: Prog-

ress and prospe cts. In X. Font and R.C. Buckley (eds) Tourism Ecoiabelling (pp. 121-39).Oxon: CAB Internation al.

Ho ney , M. (1999) Ecotourism and Sustainable Development. W ashington, D C: Island.Honey, M. (2002a) Conclusions. In M. Honey (ed.) Ecotourism and Certification (pp.

357-71). Washington, DC: Island.Honey, M. (ed.) (2002b) Ecotourism and Certification.. W ashington, D C: Island.Honey, M. (2004) Letter from TIES executive director. EcoCurrents (first qua rter), 2.Hone y, M. and S tewart, E. (2002a) The evolution of 'gree n' stan dard s for tourism. In M.

Honey (ed.) Ecotourism and Certification (pp. 33-71). W ashington, DC: Island.Honey, M. and Stewart, E. (2002b) Introduc tion. In M. H oney (ed.) Ecotourism and Certifica-

tion (pp. 1-29).W ashington, DC: Island.

Johnson, M. (1998) Nature and progress in rural Creole Belize: Rethinking sustainabledevelopment. Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of Michigan.Keck,M. and Sikkink,K. (1998) Activists Beyond Borders. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Lindberg, K. and Hu ber, R.M., Jr. (1993) Economic issues in eco tourism ma nagem ent. In

K. Lindberg and D. Hawkins (eds) Ecotourism: A Guide for Planners and Managers (pp.82-115). North Bennington, VT: Ecotourism Society.

Medina, L.K. (1998) The imp act of free trade initiatives on the Caribbean basin. LatinAmer-

ican Perspectives 25 (5), 27-49.Medina, L.K. (2004) Negotiating Economic Development. Tucson, AZ: U niversity of Arizona

Press.Mitchell, R. and Eagles, P. (2001) An integ rative ap proach to tourism : Lessons from the

Andes of Peru. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 9 (i), 4-28.Pottier, J. (1997) Tow ard an ethno grap hy of participatory a ppraisal a nd research. In R.D.Grillo and R.L. Stirrat (eds) Discourses of Development (pp. 203-27). New York: Berg.

Princen, T. and Finger, M . (eds) (1994) Environmental NGOs in World Politics. New York:Routledge.

Sachs, W. (1993) Global ecology and the shad ow of 'dev elop m ent'. In W. Sachs (ed.) GlobalEcology (pp. 3-21). London: Z ed.

Sanabria, R. (2002) Accreditation: Certifying the certifiers. In M. Honey (ed.) Ecotourismand Certification (pp. 325-56). W ashington, DC: Island.

Sasidharan, V. and Font, J. (2001) Pitfalls of ecolabeliing. In X. Font and R .C. Buckley (eds)Tourism Ecoiabelling (pp. 105-19). Oxon: CAB International.

Sasidharan, V., Sirakaya, E. and Kerstetter, D . (2002) De veloping countries an d tourismecolabels. Tourism Management 23 (2), 161-74.Sharpley, R. (2001) The consumer behaviour context of ecoiabelling. In X. Font and R.C.

Buckley (eds) Tourism Ecoiabelling (pp. 41-55). Oxon: CAB International.Sirakaya, E., Jamal, T.B. and Choi, H.S. (2001) Developing indicators for destination

sustainability. In D.B. Weaver (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism (pp. 411-32). NewYork: CAB Interna tional.

Stevens, S. (ed.) (1997) Conservation Through Cultural Survival. W ashington, DC: Island.Taylor, P. and Buttel, F. (1992) How do we know we have global environm ental problems?

Science and the globalization of environm ental discourse. Geoforum 23, 405-16.Wearing, S. (2001) Exploring socio-cultural impac ts on local comm unities. In D.B. Weaver

(ed.) The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism (pp. 395-410). New York: CAB nternation al.Wells, M. and Bran don, K. (1992) People and Parks. W ashington, DC: W orld Bank.Western, D. (1993) Defining ecotourism. In K. Lindberg an d D. Haw kins (eds) Ecotourism:

Eco Tourism and Certification - Confronting the Principles and Pragmatics of Socially Responsible...

Documents

Transcript of Eco Tourism and Certification - Confronting the Principles and Pragmatics of Socially Responsible...