The Background of Sustainable Tourism

The Background of Sustainable Tourist Experiences

Introduction

The relationship between sustainable development and tourism is the subject of this article. We shall first have a look at the backgrounds and the reasons behind the concept of sustainability. The debate on sustainable development started because many things in the world were going terribly wrong: diminishing biodiversity, a thinning ozone layer, noticeable greenhouse effects, discrimination against large populations. Eventually there were so many symptoms it appeared to be a serious disease. The principles of sustainability were originally developed as a response to these problems. In order to examine how deeply rooted these destructive elements are in our Western societies and why there is a need to take a look at our environment with different eyes, we shall put things in a historical perspective and give a brief overview of the development of the relationship between people and their environment.

The Issues

From the legal point of view it is interesting to see how the role of our environment has changed over time. We are talking about things, which form part of the collective memory of a whole society or of a group of people sharing the same environment. From a juridical point of view the way people have considered their environment and nature has changed. Roman law distinguishes in this context two important concepts: a thing or good can have no owner, or there are things or goods that belong to everybody. These concepts are known in Latin as res nullius and res comunis. The butterfly whirling around light heartedly has no owner. However at the moment she is captured, she is owned and she stops being res nullius and simply becomes a good. In the case of res comunis we think of things that belong to all of us, such as the air we breathe, the sunlight we absorb or the sea we enjoy. Those goods never have just one owner.

The more people there are on the planet, the more we can see a tendency for fewer things to belong to the category of res nullius and the goods that belong to all of us are of ever greater importance. It may be clear by now, that nature in the form of flora and fauna originally was considered to be res nullius. The human being has always organized himself in relation to his environment. Social and economic structures were set up to secure a place in nature and it is this relationship between people and their environment that has seen drastic changes over time. From the development of the first Homo sapiens, humans competed with all other animals in nature for food. Nature did not have an owner, people formed part of nature and the concept of “private property” was not yet invented. When people started to develop agriculture, they became conscious of the fact that there were things in nature exclusively for them, and that animals had to be excluded. In terms of law, the fact of exclusion forms the basis for the concept of property.

The negative influences that gardening and animal breeding had on the environment were mitigated by the fact that people (some 20 to 30 thousand years ago) felt they were part of nature. The magic of growing plants and the close links with Mother Earth were the cornerstone of their vision of the environment. From the time when people stopped being nomads and founded villages – later to become towns – the link with nature started to change slowly from that moment on. In part, this was a consequence of the conceptualization of God and the belief that the human being was His creation. The vision of the human being in the centre of the universe has led, among other things, to the development of the concept of private property. People claimed the right to possess something, from which everybody else was excluded – a development that turned out to be of great importance for the development of the Western world.

Much later in history, a need to protect res nullius to a certain extent arose, which resulted in the legal figure of state or public property: goods whose exclusive use are restricted to nationality.

As we shall see later, there are economic considerations in play as well: plants and animals in nature in many places are res nullius and as such lack economic market value; but once they are captured, cut down or shot, they are converted into goods with economic value.

From the seventeenth century on, the concepts of private and public ownership developed to such extent that property became absolute and untouchable in character, breaking the link between nature and society and consequently responsibility for the environment diminished, leading to the situation nowadays property rights include the right to destroy one’s own property. While a few centuries ago there was once an agreement on how to handle the environment, this link has been lost and with it an enormous part of social solidarity in favour of untouchable property, excluding any consideration on the conservation of nature, environment and society. Additionally, property as a right for future generations is only partially acknowledged. On the basis of higher legal security, life insurance and high inheritance taxes in Western societies, the trend is for those living now to have little concern for the future of the coming generations. They think those newly won securities will cover them during their lifetimes. Diminishing religious interest (as a consequence of this attitude), living in the present,  trying to be fashionable all the time, the feeling that “you live only once” and the ever more dominating concept of “this is mine and nobody can touch it” start to dominate Western thinking. The notion of private property has reached such a state that neither children nor grandchildren are being involved. Property forms an inseparable part of the ego of a person. Not only do people’s considerations of their own future generations play no role at all, solidarity with fellow citizens and with the environment has largely disappeared. Things without owners hardly exist anymore and even those goods under the heading of res comunis are under pressure, not only because of pollution, but also because of the tendency to characterize everything in this world as property – either private or public. The conversion of drinking water into a commodity is one example.

From an economic point of view in modern market-related economies the concept of wealth is only related to what has market value. Goods or services for which value cannot be expressed in money (market exchange values) are not counted as ‘wealth.’ This means, among other things, that nature is not comprehended in the concept of wealth, because it does not represent tangible market value. The destruction of nature, therefore, is not seen as a loss. To the contrary, this destruction forms an important part of increasing wealth, as seen from the point of view of market-directed economies.

This has not always been the case. Centuries ago, those economies functioning within capitalist relations were not only focused on the value of things, there was a content side to it as well. Any productive initiative demanded an investment to be able to start its economic life. With capital one can produce. However, this concept of content has been pushed into the background since the end of the Second World War, while the formal side of capitalism – values imposed by market relations – is dominating. This has led to a growing trend of using capital just to earn more money without being productive. Stock exchange speculation is an example; it’s a ‘game’ in which one gets richer while another gets poorer. Real estate, insurance and world currency market dealings are other examples of people trying to earn money without being productive (i.e. creating material and spiritual wealth by its content). How much people earn seems to be the focal point, regardless what or how much they produce – physically, mentally or culturally.

The increasing pressure on market economies to reproduce capital has led to shorter production cycles. This has been achieved in two ways: by shortening the useful life of a good or by combining a good with the concept of fashion. This means that after some time, products become old-fashioned, lose market value and are replaced, even if they are in excellent condition. In other words, to be able to continue producing at an ever higher pace pushed on by the need to produce gains faster, production has to be growing all the time. The consequences for nature are twofold: raw materials are being extracted from the Earth at an increasing pace while rubbish heaps are becoming mountains, because of the growing number of goods that are ‘returned’ to nature. Both effects lead to the destruction of nature, but neither is seen as causing a loss of wealth. They are rather considered a necessary element of creating wealth and development.

Market-related economies have realized that nature cannot be replaced and that its reproduction is relatively slow. This means that if capital wants to ensure its reproduction, protective measures have to be taken towards nature and natural resources. This has led to the curious situation whereby in many market-related economies, big investments are made to ‘repair’ destroyed nature, despite the fact that this same nature is still considered to have no market value and its destruction is impossible to measure. From a technical market point of view they are investing in something that, according to the same market relations, does not exist. These types of market relations have come to the fore during the last 150 years or so and have been accomplices to the vast destruction of nature to date.

Humanity lives on unequal terms with nature. During the second half of the 20^th century the number of species has diminished by 30%. However, nowhere on this planet has this loss of biodiversity been booked as an economic loss. It must be clear that the limits of sustainability have been exceeded and the speed with which nature reproduces itself is well behind the rhythm of the reproduction of capital. In other words, we take more from the Earth than she can spare for us. Our planet not only has limitations in terms of natural resources, but also as a recipient of waste and CO2 emissions, among others. The principals that mercantile economies are based on do not contemplate maintenance of the Earth. These economies are so concentrated on the production of profits that all else is subordinate to this and our planet does not receive any attention at all, much less its future. ‘Capital reproduction must be achieved right now and tomorrow we shall see how we can make more profits again’ seems to be the slogan. Life on Earth is being sacrificed for the reproduction of capital in the short term.

This development has led to what we call the consumer society, whereby buying has become nearly as important as owning. More and more we are dealing with goods of which we should ask ourselves, do we really need them? It is all about a society where consumption has become a matter of survival, where solidarity in a society has largely disappeared and the human ego and property have become focal points to the extent that people are only concerned with life today and the future hardly plays any role at all.

Unfortunately, there are more factors active in making the total picture only gloomier. Agriculture suffers a lack of investments because of high risks and low returns in this productive sector, but there is another reason, too. Too much money within the mercantile societies is being used with only one aim: how to reproduce money as fast as possible without thinking for one moment that the production of food needs investments as well. Additionally, under the pressure of diminishing natural fuel resources, oil in particular, bio-fuel production is gaining ground, but this means that fewer resources will be available for food production. Food is becoming scarce and will become very expensive.

The concept of Sustainable Development

Measures to protect nature and the environment from destruction have become of interest to people at a rather late stage in history. The notion of nature and environmental protection, however, is an old one, but as a social movement we have to go back to the nineteenth century. During the 1860′s a number of national parks were established in the United States (Yellowstone among others) and countries such as Canada and Australia soon followed suit. In Holland, the Society for the Protection of Animals was set up in 1864. On an international level the first act to be signed was for the foundation of the International Counsel for Nature Protection in 1913, which later became the World Conservation Union. In those times, the focal point was the primarily the protection of nature, as well as the environment.

A new movement was observed by the late 1960s. The high post-war birth rate (‘baby-boomers’) and changing population structures in the Third World (demographic transition) that began in the 1950s spurred many environmental changes. The report produced by the Club of Rome in 1972 made clear that nature protection in itself was not enough. Apart from the introduction of many ecological issues, other crucial factors came into play: poverty and hunger. One of the basic concepts from these times was the idea that the achievement of a healthy society would depend on a radical reorganisation of social structures on a global level.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, new rumblings were heard. The Bruntland Report of 1987 and the Rio de Janeiro Conference in 1992 developed a number of basic concepts on what would come to be called ‘sustainability.’ It is interesting to note that the idea of sustainable development was accepted by most political camps. Bringing economy into harmony with ecology sounded good and led to technical innovations, among other things.

Tourism hardly played any part at all during these three early movements. When tourism began to develop on a global level, it had little impact on nature protection. During the 1960s and 70s, tourism was not affected by the environmental debate and was still considered a positive phenomenon – a green industry. It wasn’t until the end of the 1990s that tourism was lured into the debate on biodiversity. In 2001, rules were established for Biological Diversity and Sustainable Tourism (Convention on Biological Diversity in 2001). The United Nations declared 2002 as the Year of Ecotourism. It is important to note in this context that the concepts of sustainable development in tourism were already playing an important role at grassroots levels. Many action groups, NGOs or environmental associations had an important stake in the development of sustainable tourism, while international discussion of sustainability had halted somewhat. The Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development shed some new light on the issues and in 2003, the Marrakech Process was begun as a ten year plan whereby several Task Forces would analyze the issues of Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) in support of regional and national initiatives.

There is widespread consensus on the three main cornerstones of the concept of sustainability: the promotion of a healthy environment and nature protection, the active participation of all parties involved, and economic gains for all participants. In the first place, sustainability is all about the development of a region, a country or a community in ways that affect nature, environment and socio-cultural relations as little as possible so as not to jeopardize these relationships for future generations. In other words, one tries to stimulate the kind of development that allows populations to satisfy their present needs while ensuring that future generations can satisfy theirs in the same way or better.

Sustainability is all about a vision of development clearly directed at the future. This vision includes close cooperation with local populations, which in turn means a clear recognition that a community, local population or ethnically homogenous group need protection for the conservation of their environment and their culture. Moreover, this development vision wants to ensure the type of development that will allow all participants to become better off in both material and socio-cultural ways. This may be related to monetary income and/or to improvements in infrastructure or access to (state) services. Apart from this, the United Nations has drawn up a series of basic human rights, including the right to education, proper nutrition, drinking water, and so on.

To ensure that future generations can satisfy their needs in ways that are the same or better than now, we must mitigate any negative impacts of our actions. The damage we are causing can be roughly divided into two types. There is a group of small-scale damage factors on the one hand and negative effects on a macro level on the other. Issues at the micro sustainable development level entail the harmful impacts of overcrowding, nature destruction, pollution, exploitation, vandalism and crime, among others. The jobs and works needed to protect a nature area, such as the creation of a buffer zone around it or the construction of environmentally-friendly infrastructure, are all quite costly to implement. Unfortunately, funding this work is all too often seen as a matter of government responsibility, rather than as an issue of sustainable development that concerns us all. Other activities that help mitigate harmful effects include organic vegetable gardens, soil conservation by means of permaculture, and avoiding the use of fertilizers. Obviously, recycling is an important example and a necessary practice. Rubbish, litter, garbage and pollution have become nearly unsolvable problems on both micro and macro levels. These issues must first deal with the magnitude of the problem, the degree of damage caused, and the slow rate of biological decomposition.

It must be clear that many actions directed at a sustainable tourism development are taken at the so-called lower levels: action committees concentrate on a certain development matter, while other harmful effects are ignored. Sustainable development often lacks clear problem definition and instructions for their solutions. Financial means are often lacking, too, as well as slow decision making (too many parties involved), lack of regulations and laws, knowledge gaps, manpower and, more than anything else, relevant information. Extensive organisational structures directed at sustainable development issues can have a positive impact on the awareness of an entire population, even though government involvement may be small. That is why we sometimes see that the protection of nature and environment is better developed in one country than in another. Local action committees, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and pressure groups may form a very important lobby for the sustainable development of a region.

Harmful effects at the micro level can also be divided another way: clearly visible versus hidden. The latter refers to harmful actions that are not directly visible and their causes may not be clear. One example is land speculation in tourist areas. This practice seems to be a favourite of foreigners (non-locals) in many parts of the world and rising real estate prices are the usual consequence. This can have disastrous effects on a local economy but no one seems to see this as a problem and there is no talk of trying to stop it.

The second group of harmful effects are large-scale in nature; disappearing biodiversity, diminishing ozone layers, noticeable greenhouse gas effects, marginalized populations are all examples of this group. The macro problem of air pollution caused by aircraft is a matter of international cooperation, while on a micro level local authorities must play their role. Who is going to have a stake in solution-seeking activities may well depend on the pressure exerted by countries, populations or international organisations.

The Balance

On the basis of the considerations above it must be clear that more is needed than just good intentions and development visions directed at future generations. The reasons why our planet has been affected to such enormous extent are deeply rooted, as explained in this article. The principles of sustainable development form an important initiative, but they are not the cure for the disease. Economic issues that have led to the systematic destruction of nature need much more serious solutions than a mere development vision. People’s attitudes, including their attitudes toward property, must change drastically, particularly in the Northern hemisphere. Money must again be used to produce while consumption should be in line with one’s needs; the durability of goods must also be extended. Solidarity with the environment must re-emerge and actions must be taken to involve future generations. Economic models based on zero growth will be necessary.

It should be clear by now that the principles of sustainability can be handled much more effectively on a small scale at the local level, while issues such as the changing of macro-economic systems need international attention at the highest levels. Working to conserve the Earth at the local level requires, among other things, a strong educational element focused on making people aware of the harsh facts and giving them a tool to create greater solidarity among communities, countries and continents. The role of sustainable development should be extended, since changes at local levels are an inherent part of achieving the solidarity needed. We can consider the points below in this respect:

1       The conceptualization of sustainable development should be taken more seriously and not on an ecological level only;

2       Much more direct action must be taken to curb the negative impacts of globalizing processes, such as trends toward homogenized lifestyles, cultures, attitudes and even language. In the case of tourism, destinations must be unique enough to attract tourists and in this sense, globalizing developments may become a threat to them.

3       There must be a growing interest in the ethical side of development issues and in socially-responsible government at all levels.

Achieving the changes needed at the macro level may require that independent global organisations, the United Nations for example, start coping with all the major issues on ecological and economic levels. However, others maintain the view that the globalizing effects of modern times have been the most harmful and they feel that solutions must be taken by countries on the basis of mutual negotiations without any interference from global organisations. Trying to stop the unlimited use of raw materials such as oil, iron and copper will need much more than good intentions and above all, the consumer sector will have to make a response. Recycling can be achieved on a scale much larger than that of today and the necessary investments should be made as soon as possible.

However, as long as humans consider property as an absolute concept and continue to base their vision of life on it, it will be hard to realize any change at all. Man’s vision of himself must change dramatically and with it, his relation to his environment and nature.