From kvriksh@VSNL.COM Sun Jul 4 14:43:49 2004
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 13:33:54 +0530
From: kvriksh
To: nathistory-india@Princeton.EDU
Subject: The CBD guidelines on tourism
[ Part 1, Text/PLAIN (charset: ISO-8859-1 "Latin 1") 263 lines. ]
[ Unable to print this part. ]
[ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Team
To: timteam02@yahoo.com
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 2:57 PM
Subject: tim-team Clearinghouse: WAKE UP CALL: The CBD guidelines on
tourism
Dear colleagues and friends,
In relation to the debate surrounding the controversial
“sustainable tourism” guidelines at the 7th meeting of the
Conference of Parties (COP7) to the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD) in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, in February 2004, we presented several
reports and statements on biodiversity and tourism in this Clearinghouse.
Today, we are following up on this theme by sharing a “Wake Up
Call” by Alison Johnston, the director of the Canada-based
International Support Centre for Sustainable Tourism (ISCST). This
article is published in the June 2004 issue of ECO, the newsletter of the
international NGOs coalition covering CBD-related issues.
At the bottom of the following article, I have added a few notes,
including information on the “International Indigenous Leadership
Gathering on Sustainable Tourism” which will be hosted by an
indigenous community in Canada in September 2005. For more details,
please contact the ISCST at .
Yours truly,
Anita Pleumarom
Tourism Investigation & Monitoring Team (tim-team)
--------------------------------------------
WAKE UP CALL: THE CBD GUIDELINES ON TOURISM
By Alison Johnston, Director of the International Support Centre for
Sustainable Tourism, published June 2004 in ECO, newsletter of the
international NGOs issued by the Environmental Liaison Centre
International (available at www.itdg.org)
At COP7 in Kuala Lumpur the subject of tourism generated high controversy
once more. The CBD draft guidelines on tourism, flagged as a liability
and danger by Indigenous Peoples and southern NGOs, were passed. This
was a breach of ethics within the CBD process. The CBD’s
precautionary principle and ecosystem approach both were abandoned. Yet
no government stepped in to salvage the process.
Why the controversy? Indigenous Peoples, supported by NGOs, had
requested that adoption of the CBD draft guidelines on tourism be
deferred to COP8 in 2006. This would have accommodated recommendations
from the International Indigenous Leadership Gathering on Sustainable
Tourism in 2005, supported by UNEP (1). It was a step necessary to
safeguard cultural sustainability. Nonetheless, the Guidelines Team
rejected and lobbied against the proposal.
Following COP7, it was suggested Indigenous Peoples and NGOs present in
Kuala Lumpur missed the chance to strengthen the CBD tourism guidelines
(2). This suggestion came from an observer unfamiliar with Indigenous
rights and the foundations of cultural sustainability. It was based on
the logic that fragmented ‘eleventh hour’ input to the
process is better than none. However, Indigenous Peoples leadership sent
a message, saying no to standing in the beggar’s line.
The lesson from this ‘Fiasco of the CBD Tourism Guidelines’
is that rights and responsibilities are poorly understood. Just how far
we are willing to play with our destiny for the sake of economic growth?
In Kuala Lumpur Indigenous Peoples’ and NGOs’ appeal for
governmental and institutional due diligence on tourism hit a nerve.
Controversy on tourism deemed healthy by the WCPA chair at the 2003 World
Parks Congress was suppressed by the CBD Secretariat.
It is time to openly reflect on and redress the serious indiscretions
that emerged vis a vis tourism at COP7. A number of hushed factors led
to premature passing of the CBD tourism guidelines. These include:
* The Guidelines Team being more invested in a project
‘output’ than credible and integral process inputs
* Involved NGOs and NGO representatives having undisclosed roles and
undisclosed conflicts of interest in guidelines development and
promotion
* The so called ‘implementation’ case study lacking proper
cultural protocol and appropriate political endorsement with the Kuna
People (3)
* Misrepresentation of opportunities and provisions for Indigenous
Peoples involvement
What was accomplished by passing the CBD guidelines on tourism at COP7?
Infringement of the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Implications must
therefore be viewed in the context of wider coordinated efforts to
extinguish Indigenous rights. The immediate backdrop is the U.K.
government’s recent rejection of collective rights for tribal
peoples. In Kuala Lumpur, Canada made a similar submission, requesting
that prior informed consent for tourism development be subject to
national legislation. This kind of neutralizing tactic is old and has
been rejected in the U.N. Study on Treaties.
The systematic bias against Indigenous Peoples in the CBD dialogue on
tourism should concern us all. There is no victory when our collective
welfare is jeopardized: only defeats. Indigenous Peoples’
ancestral title embodies not just their own cultural connection to the
land, but also our inextricable connection to each other within life
systems.
The manufactured ‘success’ of the CBD guidelines on tourism
threatens biological and cultural diversity. Programming on
‘sustainable’ tourism in the public, private, non profit and
development sectors is on a dangerous course. Industry partners are
pushing certification models that tokenize Indigenous Peoples. Many NGOs
and their affiliates promote ‘fair trade’ schemes with just
as serious a blind spot to Indigenous rights.
These initiatives open ecologically and culturally sensitive areas and
vulnerable ecosystems to conventional tourism.
We are all accountable for the impending mess in the tourism sector (4).
Who you say? Who among us must answer, even if only to conscience?
* Agencies promising biodiversity conservation or poverty relief, whose
real mandate is a bailout strategy for economic growth
* NGOs partaking in the profits (ie funding priorities) of current
‘sustainable’ tourism programming
* Consultants repackaging old commentaries on ‘sustainable’
tourism, minimizing cultural sustainability
* Sponsored Indigenous ‘representatives’ caving into nation
state pressures, rather than alerting the world’s recognized
Indigenous leaders
It is incumbent on us all to look in the mirror. We need to speak
frankly to ourselves and to our colleagues about waking up. It is not
too much to ask for a better process within the CBD or for balanced,
respectful economies. It’s no longer about our grandchildren.
Now, even our own generations critically need it.
Let’s welcome and heed the recommendations from International
Indigenous Leadership Gathering on Sustainable Tourism, hosted by the
St’at’imc People in 2005.
-----------------
Notes added by the Clearinghouse editor:
(1) The INTERNATIONAL INDIGENOUS LEADERSHIP GATHERING ON SUSTAINABLE
TOURISM, supported by UNEP, has been announced as global follow-up
meeting on the UN-initiated International Year of Ecotourism (IYE 2002).
The rationale for this meeting is that tourism is increasingly
endangering Indigenous cultures and ancestral lands and that immediate
action is needed to distinguish “sustainable tourism” from
destructive practices. Hosted by the St”at”imc People at
T’it’q’et – Lillooet B.C., Canada, in September
2005, this unique event will be attended by recognized Indigenous Leaders
from all continents. It aims to evaluate and provide guidance on
sustainable tourism to the United Nations, world governments, affiliated
agencies, NGOs and the tourism sector, including:
PRINCIPLES for tourism that supports cultural diversity and biodiversity
conservation;
INDICATORS for culturally sustainable policies, programmes and
activities;
FRAMEWORK for respectful and mutually beneficial capacity building;
PROTOCOLS for meaningful relationship building and partnerships (e.g.
consultation, negotiation, collaboration.
It is hoped that the discussions will result in concrete recommendations
for tourism development in the four key areas:
PRECAUTIONARY APPROACH: impact assessment and other safeguards for
sustainable tourism, including tourism to sacred sites and protected
areas;
ECOSYSTEM APPROACH: Accommodation of Indigenous knowledge systems;
RELATIONSHIP BUILDING: Clarity on poorly understood issues such as land
rights, prior informed consent and the spiritual aspects of sustainable
use;
EXPERT ANALYSIS: Codes of Conduct for experts, consultants, development
agencies, and NGOs providing advisory services on sustainable tourism.
(2) See, for example, Francois Meienberg, “Neue
Tourismus-Richtlinien der Biodiversitätskonvention: Eine verpasste
Chance” (New tourism guidelines by the Biodiversity Convention: A
missed chance), Kurznachrichten: April 2004, www.akte.ch
(3) This relates to the publication by the German Federal Ministry for
the Environment, Nature Protection and Nuclear Safety (BMU); Sigrid
Hockamp-Mack, (ed.), “Biodiversity and Tourism: The Case for
Sustainable Use of the Marine Resources of Kuna Yala, Panama”,
Bonn, December 2003.
(4) See also the comprehensive briefing paper authored by Alison
Johnston, “Tourism: No Holidays from Accountability”
(distributed at COP7, Feb.2004), which explains as to why the CBD
negotiations on tourism have become a flashpoint issue particularly for
Indigenous Peoples. The paper can be requested at the ISCST,
sustour@axionet.com.
tourism investigation & monitoring team (tim-team)
P.O. Box 51 Chorakhebua
Bangkok 10230, Thailand
Email: timteam02@yahoo.com
Webpage: http://www.twnside.org.sg/tour.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!