Issues in Economic Expansion: Ecotourism in Developing Nations

Eagle Island, a remote safari camp in Botswana

Ecotourism is a growing industry in many developing countries.  As an alternative to mining, hunting or farming, it seems more sustainable.  It preserves the rainforests, the rivers, and the savannas, but what does ecotourism mean for economic development in these countries?  In many countries that formerly relied on colonial plantations for income, ecotourism is an industry that makes a lot of sense.  It preserves natural ecosystems, making it more sustainable than agricultural expansion, and it provides a venue for unskilled laborers to work without the input of capital necessary for industrialization.  It seems like a perfect solution.

In my travels, the people I spoke to often praised their governments’ support of ecotourism and nature preservation. In Botswana, the alternative had been hunting reserves as a supplement to the mining industry. Photographic safari reserves provide a sustainable and more fashionable alternative.  Costa Rica, the poster-child for ecotourism, have made a name for themselves as the adventurous, grittier alternative to Mexico for American tourists. It leads me to wonder what will happen if the success of this product is based on its novelty?

The underlying framework of this argument lies in the theory behind the position of developing nations vis-à-vis globalization.  Developing nations enter the global market at a distinct disadvantage. They lack the capital for heavy industry and large-scale agriculture, mining, and tourism are often funded by foreign multi-nationals.  Tourism creates jobs, but it does not necessarily lead to development. Most jobs in tourism are menial and provide little upward mobility, creating a conundrum.  On one hand, ecotourism creates jobs and provides a growing and sustainable industry relative to farming, hunting, or mining in countries with growing populations and shrinking wild lands.  On the other hand, relying on tourism traps these countries in a cycle of dependency on the countries that provide the tourists. This leaves them vulnerable to the whims of those people and the fluctuations in their markets.  Obviously, recessions in developed countries can wreak havoc on developing countries if they become reliant on something as transient as tourism.

The problem with ecotourism is that while it is sustainable, it is also exclusive. It excludes mining and agricultural expansion and precludes the development of industry by putting high demands on land conservation and pollution control.   I don’t know the answer to this problem, but it seems to be the dilemma of all “latecomers” to the global economy: how to overcome dependency without isolating themselves.  Further, in ecotourism, like many other industries often run remotely by foreign companies, how do you ensure that the country making the product reaps the benefits?  The second question is easier to remedy than the first, but in either case economic diversification remains a difficult issue, especially in developing nations. I just wonder if the move toward ecotourism is sustainable in the economic sense rather than just the environmental sense.

Obviously the counterexample would be a fast-growing, developing economy such as India or China that has taken to heart internationally decided pollution exemptions for industrial expansion in developing countries. While this leads to a larger, more diversified economy, and faster growth, some countries that have followed this model, most notably China, are beginning to see the repercussions of fast economic growth without regard for the environment.  Many of China’s rivers and natural places are hopelessly polluted, and its cities are plagued by thick smog from burning coal, which is the cheapest fossil fuel, to meet the giant populations ever-increasing energy demands. All of this environmental destruction is finally affecting their ability to grow food as well as people’s health.  In contrast to ecotourism, this model does better people’s quality of life much faster, the economy becomes more diversified, and there is more upward mobility. However, it leads to health, food and sustainability problems in the long run.  I am not sure which model is better because you don’t see the China/India model in places with small populations, and you don’t see the ecotourism model in densely populated countries because that would imply that the natural areas were already encroached upon.  I wonder if there is a way to reconcile both economic and environmental interests in developing countries when they seem so far in opposition under most definitions of development.

You May Also Like

  • Until the conservation NGO’s step in and fight for local equity in ecotourism development, big business will control the profit line.

    From Pago Pago,

    John Wasko

  • Nalliah Thayabharan

    The economists define wealth and justice in terms of access to the market. Politicians echo the economists because the more dependent that people become upon the market, the more securely they can be roped into the fiscal and political hierarchy. Access to land is not simply a threat to landowning élites — it is a threat to the religion of unlimited economic growth and the power structure that depends upon it.
    The market (however attractive it may appear) is built on promises: the only source of wealth is the earth. Anyone who has land has access to energy, water, nourishment, shelter, healing, wisdom, ancestors and a grave. Ivan Illich spoke of “a society of convivial tools that allows men to achieve purposes with energy fully under their control”. The ultimate convivial tool, the mother of all the others, is the earth.
    Although the earth gives, it dictates its terms; and its terms alter from place to place. So it is that agriculture begets human culture; and cultural diversity, like biological diversity, flowers in obedience to the conditions that the earth imposes. The first and inevitable effect of the global market is to uproot and destroy land-based human cultures. The final and inevitable achievement of a rootless global market will be to destroy itself.
    In a shrunken world, taxed to keep the wheels of industry accelerating, land and its resources are increasingly contested. Six billion people compete to acquire land for a variety of conflicting uses: land for food, for water, for energy, for timber, for carbon sinks, for housing, for wildlife, for recreation, for investment. The politics of land — who owns it, who controls it and who has access to it — is more important than ever, though you might not think so from a superficial reading of government policy and the media.
    Rome fell; the Soviet Empire collapsed; the stars and stripes are fading in the west. Nothing is forever in history, except geography. Capitalism is a confidence trick, a dazzling edifice built on paper promises. It may stand longer than some of us anticipate, but when it crumbles, the land will remain.