José Antonio Segrelles
Universidad de Alicante (España)

 Even when practiced under new, and allegedly sustainable modalities (as with the case of Ecotourism), touristic activities in the rural and natural spaces of developing countries always suppose the introduction of capitalistic socio-economic relationships, and never the overcoming of these countries’ poverty or the abandonment of their traditional dependency on the dominant countries. Currently, capitalism follows two basic strategic lines with regard to the touristic exploitation of natural resources in developing countries, according to whether, or not, it includes the participation of the peasantry. In the first of these cases, termed Ecotourism, the peasants are driven from their land, but included in a shared management of the landscape’s resources. The second is based on the theory of conservationism and on the concept of deep ecology (landscapes without human beings) and consists of the control of the natural areas by capital, without the intervention of peasants, or even of human beings at all. Recently, the ideology of sustainable development, applied to tourism and other economic activities, has been widely promoted by the mass media. Indeed, it can be said that most people easily assume that ecotourism is a beneficial activity that can help local economies in impoverished countries overcome underdevelopment. In ecotourist projects, nature is exploited, sold and consumed, as part of the usual practice for competitive market economies which have, as a fundamental feature, the mistaking of price for value. In this kind of project, it is pretended that certain environments (forests, lakes, beaches, mountains) or their fauna and flora are protected, but in practice these are merely preserved for the rich. Hence, it becomes normal to pay, and pay high prices, for the right to enjoy preserved nature. Through ecotourism, nature becomes a consumer good. Places of leisure are sold and consumed as exchange values, as with other merchandise. The true emancipation of the peasantry, and of the indigenous peoples of these areas of the developing countries does not lie in ecotourism. Instead, it lies in struggles for the land and its fair distribution. There also exist projects which do not include the presence of peasants or any other local people. In these, capital fosters deep ecology and conservationism to control and exploit the resources of natural areas without human intervention. A vision of the human being as necessarily destructive of nature is the ideological foundation of such projects. The environmental services industry generates millions of dollars around the world. Economic, strategic and geopolitical interests linked to this activity proliferate. The major beneficiaries are the big international banks and the most powerful transnational corporations of this sector. Be it conventional, or allegedly sustainable, tourism will never bring modernization to the dependent countries. The origin of the problems and oppression of the peasantry lie in an unjust distribution of landed property. As long as authentic agrarian reform is avoided, peasants in the peripheral countries will continue to be impoverished. Tourism provides capital and states with arguments that hide the true and essential problems of rural areas. Emphasizing the necessity to diversify rural economies by means of the introduction of touristic activities, capital and the state hide the true and essential problems of rural areas. Tourism, be it conventional or not, will never bring modernization to the dependent countries. The origin of the problems and oppression of the peasantry lie in an unjust distribution of landed property. As long as authentic agrarian reform is avoided, peasants in the peripheral countries will continue to be impoverished.  

   Purchase Access to the Full Article