Development Tourism - Is it good?

[Daniela Papi]

My thoughts are, it's not black and white - it's not "all good" or "all bad". In fact, personally, I find it mostly bad. Yet, it's an industry I work in and believe in, because I think it CAN be done better.

Added my thoughts to the discussion started by Easterly's criticism of MDV projects here:
http://tinyurl.com/kqu882

--

When reading the first 25 pages of White Man's Burden a few years ago I felt like Easterly was putting into words the exact problems I had seen working in development in Cambodia. In our tours at PEPY, we often have half of the travelers read this section detailing his planner/searcher mentality (with the other half of the group reading from Sachs and then discussing the differences). In those discussions, like in the above post, I tend to agree with Easterly often, but not 100%. Why? Because it's not black and white - it's complicated - and I think that some arguments from both camps completely disregard the majority of projects which are in the grey area.

For example, this statement "if I was poor and still in my birthplace of West Virginia, would I want tourists coming by to see how poor I was and how some project was rescuing me from my miseries?" assumes that "rich people" being in an area where "poor people" are is bad. Period. It also assumes that people who are working to improve their lives in different ways still consider themselves "in misery" and wouldn't want others to learn about the work they are doing.

There is an organization in Cambodia called CRDT which I really respect. It was started by young Cambodians a number of years ago, is still completely locally run, and implores a variety of "applicable rural technologies" (bio-digesters, improved fish-pond designs for better water gathering/retention, mushroom growing, etc). These technologies are being taught from peers to peers and have improved livelihoods. Their "tours" to see the projects are led by and designed by the communities and allow community members to teach about the technologies they are using, the successes they have seen, and the lessons they have learned.

One of our Cambodian staff members wanted to learn about how to make a cleaner incinerator for his village, so we connected him to the CRDT tour. He, a Cambodian, learned skills from a Cambodian, which had been taught to him from other Cambodian NGO workers. Bill, what do you think about that scenario? Is that wrong? Are our ideas that the MDV tours are wrong because the people touring are rich and white? Are our ideas that the MDV tours are wrong because the people teaching the skills and driving the whole MDV project to begin with are rich and white?

I have my own issues with certain aspects of the MDV that I have been exposed to, and I certainly agree that the majority of development tourism, "poverty" tourism, and voluntourism breeds colonialist attitudes, but I certainly don't think that we should put up walls and keep the rich people in their camps and only allow the poor people to travel around, seeing what they don't have, and not visa versa. If done properly, it can be empowering for those in the poor camp to show that perhaps they aren't as "poor" as others might think and to be the teachers in the relationship. On my visit, I too learned more about how to make a better incinerator, and we are now using them in our projects as well.

We had people up in arms when we proposed bringing some students/teachers to the US to a camp they had been invited to. "How will the poor people survive returning home to their poor villages once they have seen the wealth of the US?" were some reactions. So, we westerners can travel and deal with our share of culture shock when we return home to our opulent and over-using societies, but "poor" people can't deal with such transitions?

In my opinion, it's not implicitly bad to have the rich and poor mix. It can lead to very negative impacts on both sides, if it is not designed properly. Rather than discussing if this is right or wrong, let's talk about how we can design these facilitated interactions better so that both sides can learn, share, and improve the greater global society.

[Daniela Papi]

In response to further discussion here I have added the following:

I do not think the problem goes away if you don't pay. Actually, PAYING, if the money is going back into the community programs (not to a tour operator or travel agent), is often the most positive part of the visit.

In Cambodia, where I live and work, I think some of the worst "poorism" is from those who don't pay and just show up, or in the worst cases, pay a travel company but don't support the projects or areas they visit.

There is a garbage dump, the largest in Cambodia, outside of Phnom Penh. We used to work with a program supporting education programs in the area where we would donate $5000+ per year and we would sometimes visit the dump through this program. In 2006 we stopped visiting the area because we realized that, even though we thought we were doing it "the best way possible" (visiting with an NGO we were supporting significantly), it was still poorism and the benefits of the visit were more for the travelers than the community. There was no educational interaction and little "point" to us being there besides for our own interest in the program.

There are still busloads of people who show up at the dump to take pictures. And there are tour companies where you can pay to have this included in the tour - stop the bus, get out and look at the poverty or perhaps stop and see the NGOs working in the area and move on. Funding the programs working to counter the problem, in my opinion, makes it better, but still not right, and it makes me cringe to think we used to take people there. Paying money to a tour company to see the poor people, makes me cringe too, and so does the idea of "just showing up to look" even if you didn't pay anyone.

The difference with this project being debated seems to be, though I don't know it personally, that the people in the community are doing the teaching. They are "inviting" people (if that is indeed the case) to learn about the work they are doing, so they become the teachers, not the recipients. The yellow flags I have, though I believe it was touched on in one of the posts, are the fees you have to pay and where the "profits" go. What percentage of the money goes back into the program and what becomes "profit"? Even if the profits are minimal, who gets them? Who has the ultimate motivation to make this a success? Who holds the final deciding card in if/how the programs are continued and how they are designed? Those are the types of questions I would want answered when doing this type of tour.