 |
|
Dialogues@RU is published
annually
by the
Writing Program at
Rutgers, The State
University of New Jersey
Volume Three
Spring 2004
Ecotourism: Behind the Green Curtain - Page 3
by
Melissa A. Zappulla
Unfortunately, misguided locals, in hopes of improved income, often switch their focus to the tourism industry, uprooting their families to live in commercially toured areas. Once at home in the Galapagos, they soon realize that economic opportunity is limited because they are not capable of competing with the larger, foreign establishments. As these areas were largely uninhabited by humans, and there are often restrictions on the areas locals are permitted to occupy, overcrowding and strain on natural resources has become a problem. Honey and Littlejohn tell us that the Galapagos is Ecuador’s fastest growing province (5). Since the 1960’s, the population has increased from few hundred to approximately twelve thousand, all of whom are confined to three percent of the territory outside of the national park (Honey and Littlejohn 5). Biologist Drumm says that this immigration “is presenting the greatest threat the Galapagos has faced since perhaps the whaling industry back in the nineteenth century” (Honey and Littlejohn 5). Not only are locals disadvantaged in moving their families to the Galapagos, but the environment suffers as well. The natural resources of the Galapagos are simply not equipped to handle this influx of human population.
In Uganda, the local population has seen no more benefit from tourism than the inhabitants of the Galapagos. In fact, they have even been displaced from their normal surroundings. In the establishment of the BINP, locals were closed off from the forest, robbing them of valuable natural resources essential to their health and well-being. For instance, they were denied access to the medicinal nyakibazi tree, which is routinely used to treat internal parasites (Hamilton et al. 2). Alan Hamilton, author of “Conservation and Conflict in Uganda,” makes us aware that “89 percent of people around Bwindi are infested with whipworm and 34 percent with Ascaris. Yet, to be caught collecting nyakibazi could result in a fine or imprisonment” (2). In Uganda, “the poor have become even more economically marginalized” (Hamilton et al. 4). It has become evident that local communities are not benefiting from ecotourism as the tourist industry so loudly proclaims. In fact, the effect on the inhabitants of these regions is outright contrary to those offered by the defenders of ecotourism. Local residents are not enjoying an improved quality of life nor are they enjoying an enhanced economic status but are harmed by the tourist industry’s claim on their environment.
The displacement of residential communities and the lack of revenue obtained by local people causes resentment and backlash against the environment. In Bwindi, locals have purposely set fires to the BINP and threatened the safety of the gorillas (Hamilton et al. 2). More vividly, Hamilton states, “It is estimated that over half the 240 gorillas in the original sector of Kahuzi-Biega National Park (DRC) have recently been killed. . . probably by hungry villagers following the withdrawal of park guards when war erupted locally in August 1998” (2). This statement screams at us, calling to attention the impoverished state of the locals and the resulting backlash that occurs against the environment. The fact that guards must be in place to protect these fragile ecosystems speaks volumes and cannot easily be ignored. Where is the economic benefit for the locals and the resulting inclination to preserve the environment?
Similarly, the Galapagos has experienced a backlash against ecotourism. There, poaching has become a major concern and “a significant portion of the reserve’s budget must go to guarding the reserve from poachers” (Lindsay 5). Everything from sea cucumbers, to giant tortoises, to seal teeth and genitalia are under attack for financial gain. Violence has also become a reality.
In January 1995 and again in September 1995, an unruly mob of masked sea cucumber fishers descended upon the headquarters of the National Park Service and Charles Darwin Research Station. Wielding axes and machetes, they harassed staff and threatened to take tourists hostage, to kill animals ¾including Lonesome George, last of the Pinta Island race of tortoises ¾and to burn parts of the park if their demands were not met. Station director Blanton received death threats. (Thurston 4)
As in the BINP, locals in the Galapagos are pushed aside for the gain of the tourist industry, culminating in violence against tourists and the fragile ecosystems in question. We desperately need to understand that where there is little financial gain for indigenous communities, there is little incentive for local people to actively preserve the environment in question. More importantly, there is motivation, whether for political protest or financial gain, to commit crimes against these sensitive environments. This hardly matches the picture of joyful, environment-preserving, local communities that the proponents of ecotourism so eagerly portray. Without a doubt, these situations are the exact opposite of what any environmentally concerned individual would hope for.