Our Future Environment

I noticed a few visitors to the site are in the Philippines so I investigated Philippine eco-tourism websites. There are an abundance of sites offering caving trips, snorkeling, surfing, and wildlife watching. Apparently the Philippine government launched a 20 year eco-tourism plan in 1991 to boost the economy. But, just looking through the first page of search returns (not a good sample) it seems that people are either trying to get you to visit or get you to worry about whether Philippine eco-tourism is a good idea.

Mary Ann Chen ng writes:

Ecotourism is commonly thought of as an alternative model as opposed to mass tourism. This is a typical example of an alternative form of development wherein problems are solved using a bottom-up approach as opposed to the traditional top-down approach. In this sense local communities have the autonomy to make decisions about their livelihood and environment. The assumption is that people will become empowered and free to determine their future.

In a way, this focus on local concerns can be interpreted as a paradoxical response to globalization. There is an inherent tension in the term, that is, ecotourism would not have evolved without globalization; but in order for ecotourism to be sustainable, “localities and lived experiences” need to be emphasized (Kong, 1999). Another implication here is that while the concept of ecotourism assumes a “greater degree of autonomy” from the government; at the same time, it is vulnerable to “the global system itself”(Meethan, 2001). In this polarity, local or indigenous communities are represented as simple, natural and therefore real. The value assigned to localities reflects a romanticized view of authentic life as opposed to the alienation of modern life. There are certain problems in applying this interpretation in the Philippine context.

In its rhetoric, the Philippine government has adopted ecotourism as a vital component of its overall plan for sustainable development. On the surface, government, civil societies, local and indigenous communities seem to be in agreement about the logic of promoting economic growth and environment conservation. Sufficient incentive, strong motivation, and social justice are just some of the reasons why ecotourism should succeed. However, agreement and commitment may not make much of a difference in the end. Agreement alone is not satisfactory in the presence of self-interest (Mackie, 1977). That is, agreements tend to be broken when it is advantageous to do so. Another variant is making agreements in the interest of pakikisama , a form of social interaction, which avoids direct confrontation in favor of unexpressed hostility (Lynch, 1984). One can agree socially but disagree personally. This then becomes a rationale for not actually agreeing. As the cliche goes, one remains true to oneself.

In other words, there exists a basic lack of trust of the public world—that is, anyone outside of one’s private sphere. “Philippine society is largely maintained by the astute manipulation of strategic ties along the basis of kinship, locality or personal connection “(Pertierra, 2002). In this arena of conflicting interests, with a government characterized by personalism, individuals engage in practical tactics for success. Despite being underpinned by strong personal religious values, Philippine society is often controlled by a powerful elite that furthers its interests —which may run contrary to environmental and social interests. As can be seen in Boracay, “socially responsible” civil society groups themselves are often members of the local elite.

Mulder (2001) argues that contemporary Philippine society’s response to globalization seems to be closer identification to “more particularistic, more primordial bonds”, such as those offered by the family, region of origin, religion and sects”. Given this social structure prone to inequity and personalism, it may be difficult for local elites to allow an authentically empowered local and/or indigenous community to exist, let alone control the benefits of ecotourism. In this sense, ecotourism may become a tool for increased marginalization and authentic alienation of local communities in ecotourist destinations.

Is there no hope for ecotourism in the Philippines? Is it a possibility that in this neo-feudal system of vested interests, ecotourism is just another buzzword in a long line of buzzwords such as that 70s poster child for development- green revolution. What about the poor themselves? One finding of the World Bank’s report on poverty is that poor Filipinos do not tend to belong to people’s organizations or non-government organizations (World Bank, 2001). Contrary to this being a sign of apathy, one obvious reason is that people in developing countries can not afford to be out of work. In effect, people are actively taking part in the global system. The poor “do not recline in their uncomplicated, unsullied existence, at one with nature, but strive to free themselves from poverty and drudgery” (Butcher, 1997). What can be more authentic than this? Taking this into account, the self-interest model mentioned previously can then be reinterpreted as a move towards preservation or “love of life” (Macer, 1998) in the form of an inherent hope for a more dignified and humane existence.

Oh, and there is also a Miss Philippines EcoTourism beauty pageant.

Filed under: philippines, eco-tourism on June 26th, 2008