DIÓXIDO DE CARBONO (CO 2 )

The alternative development paradigm evolved as a direct criticism of the Eurocentric, meta- narrative, economic models of development seen in the previous paradigms. This theory is more pragmatic and people oriented. First of all, using a bottom-up approach the central focus is on local participation. Local participation is believed to lead to empowerment and local control over decisions in development. Furthermore, the alternative theory also emphasises small scale, locally owned development (Brohman, 1996; Sharpley, 2002; Telfer, 2009).

Development goals were therefore redirected and greater emphasis were placed on the bottom-up approach and on human development, particularly the basic need to address other factors such as infant mortality, disease, literacy, malnutrition and sanitation. The alternative paradigm also

recognised the role of women so that everyone is able to participate in community development and become self- reliant. This development strategy gained great support from international and bilateral aid agencies and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). The former advocate for basic needs approach while the latter expanded their policies to advocate for bottom-up approaches. As such, many of them started to work with poor and marginalised communities by providing service delivery (Telfer, 2009). However, there were some criticisms of the participation of NGOs in such community development initiatives. It was questioned as to whether the approach is truly bottom-up or was merely another form of top-down approach which only served to achieve the objectives of the NGO rather than really fulfilling the needs of the poor and marginalised people (Mtapuri & Giampiccoli, 2013).

The second component of the alternative paradigm is the concern for ecological preservation, which was becoming a concern in the 1980s. One of the critiques of the previous paradigms was the lack of attention given to the environment. The focus of this alternative paradigm was to design

developmental policy that recognised the issues of environmental awareness and conservation. This tension between the environment and development triggered the release of a report ‘Our Common Future’ by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) in 1987. Thus, to encompass a broader conceptualisation of development the concept of sustainable development emerged and was promoted. The concept promotes a holistic development policy that includes the environment, economic, socio-cultural and political dimensions. Sustainability refers to “meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the needs of future generation” (Sharpley, 2002, p. 48). Thus the development discourse included the environmental process, resources

18

(including people), and the economic system. Further to that, empowerment, self-reliance and social justice were defined as major aspects of sustainable development (Telfer, 2002).

Tourism as a tool for development also evolved with the development paradigms (Table 2.2.3) and alternative tourism was linked to alternative development, particularly in the areas of community empowerment and sustainability. One of the main reasons for the emergence of alternative tourism was opposition towards mass conventional tourism because of its undesirable consequences, outward-oriented benefits and the lack of concern about the environment. It was seen that for the most part, mass tourism did not promote empowerment and sustainability. As such, alternative tourism such as ecotourism, CBT, green tourism and indigenous tourism emerged by emphasising sustainability and the empowerment of women to participate in tourism activities (Telfer, 2009). These forms of alternative tourism promote small-scale, locally owned tourism projects with the effect that the benefits reached the poor and marginalised people in the community. The goal is to retain the benefits within the community yet minimising the environmental disadvantages of tourism. They also aimed to create a healthy host-guest relationship (Krippendorf, 1989 as cited in Scheyvens, 2008), to encourage community participation in decision making in any community development initiatives (Murphy, 1985), and to support the promotion of rational and evenly-spread tourism so that everyone in the community benefits (Scheyvens, 2002).

As previously discussed, tourism as a mechanism for development within the alternative paradigm is also associated with sustainability. In essence, sustainability is not only concern for the environment. It also includes the people and poverty alleviation. This is where pro-poor tourism is used as a development tool to diversify the livelihood choices for poor communities, which is also core to the concept of sustainable development. In addition, it is also attuned with the global fight for poverty eradication, which is demonstrated in the UN Millennium Development Goals (Scheyvens, 2008; Telfer, 2009).

The alternative paradigm focuses on grassroots development and stresses the importance of equity, participation, empowerment and gender-balance. This development strategy also encourages the establishment of alternative forms of tourism to assist the poor through meeting their basic needs. However, there is still some criticism about this development strategy. This includes: the challenge in community empowerment because of the heterogeneous nature of the local communities, and the challenge relating to the definition and execution of the concept of sustainable development (Telfer, 2009).

There have been questions as to whether using tourism as a sustainable concept was able to achieve the wider sustainable development goals and its social impacts or whether it was just empty rhetoric

19

used by developed countries to justify a policy because it claims to embrace the environment. It was also argued that the use of ‘sustainability’ by developed countries as a development strategy to achieve environmentally sound development is very touristy focused and tends to ignore the livelihoods of local communities. Local communities use their natural resources to sustain their livelihoods, and therefore promoting such environmental policies for tourism does attract tourists to these environmentally friendly destinations. However, it actually acts as a barrier to development of the local communities (Mbaiwa & Stronza, 2009). For example, sustainable tourism must be

culturally and environmentally attractive if it is to succeed, and as such if the communities want to encourage tourism for economic gain they must maintain their traditional cultures and protect the environment. However, in doing so they are hindered from advancing from traditional ways into modernisation, which opposes the goal of development.

Moreover, there is some criticism that these forms of alternative tourism are usually small and therefore the positive returns are also small compared to mass tourism. They are not always successful in reality because of the lack of entrepreneurial skills on the part of the community residents; and in many instances where outsiders become partners with the community the former usually become dominant, which leaves the latter to become victims (Scheyvens, 2008).

The discussion above highlighted the evolution of the development paradigm since World War II from an economic growth standpoint to promotion of sustainable development as supported by the alternative development paradigm. It also presented the role played by tourism as a tool for

development over these decades. How the view on mass tourism began with economic benefits and advanced over the years to become a developmental tool that took a more holistic view embracing sustainable development of the environment and the people. As we have seen, tourism has been promoted as a tool for development, in particular with its focus on rural communities who are the resource owners, yet often the marginalised groups. The next section will introduce tourism as a development tool, and will specifically look at why it has been promoted as a developmental strategy for local communities.