Eco-tourism is a great idea in theory, who could argue with it. But the reality doesn't always match the dictionary definition. Who can know the true impact of a business which adds 'eco' to it's promotional material without detailed research. The so called 'greenwashing' is simple, add a few images of trees, animals and local villages, add a blurb about supporting the community.
It's the same technique the elephant tour operators of Thailand have used to convince tourists of the ethics of their trip. Of course every elephant business is a sanctuary, nobody is going to say non-domesticated animals brutalised until they follow commands. On a national policy scale eco-tourism could be a success. The creation of a protected area, bringing in foreign currency, provides an alternative to commercial exploitation, farming and logging. But this depends on a very capable government.
Much of this frustration stems from the poor state of Nam Ha nature reserve in northern Laos. Officially it's been a protected area for a long time, and ecotourism has been promoted for many years. The arrangement seems to be that you part with 30+ dollars a day, and maybe 5 of these go to the owners of homestays. And since the numbers of tourists x 5USD is not enough, destructive practises continue unabated. Unsurprisingly they are not keen on independent trekkers, no maps, and agencies will tell you nice lies about being arrested 'by the army'. (One village was concerned about police trouble but this was the minority). Land clearing is still going on, Google maps satellite images show forest where there is none now. Any path into the forests ends in a felled tree, cut into planks in situ. The houses are surrounded by mountains of broomsticks freshly picked.
I'm starting to think the original aim of the project was never costed. I don't see how the income from 100 daily tourists can ever be expected to non-destructively employ tens of thousands of people. It's only even a factor because of the vast wealth difference between the two populations. If you really want to protect the forest send the children to school in the city. Education is the key to protection.
It's the same technique the elephant tour operators of Thailand have used to convince tourists of the ethics of their trip. Of course every elephant business is a sanctuary, nobody is going to say non-domesticated animals brutalised until they follow commands. On a national policy scale eco-tourism could be a success. The creation of a protected area, bringing in foreign currency, provides an alternative to commercial exploitation, farming and logging. But this depends on a very capable government.
Much of this frustration stems from the poor state of Nam Ha nature reserve in northern Laos. Officially it's been a protected area for a long time, and ecotourism has been promoted for many years. The arrangement seems to be that you part with 30+ dollars a day, and maybe 5 of these go to the owners of homestays. And since the numbers of tourists x 5USD is not enough, destructive practises continue unabated. Unsurprisingly they are not keen on independent trekkers, no maps, and agencies will tell you nice lies about being arrested 'by the army'. (One village was concerned about police trouble but this was the minority). Land clearing is still going on, Google maps satellite images show forest where there is none now. Any path into the forests ends in a felled tree, cut into planks in situ. The houses are surrounded by mountains of broomsticks freshly picked.
I'm starting to think the original aim of the project was never costed. I don't see how the income from 100 daily tourists can ever be expected to non-destructively employ tens of thousands of people. It's only even a factor because of the vast wealth difference between the two populations. If you really want to protect the forest send the children to school in the city. Education is the key to protection.
No comments:
Post a Comment