Category: Environment

Tourism in many developing countries is one of the most reliable and sustainable economic development options and in some countries the main source of foreign exchange earnings. Part of this income trickles down to different groups of society and it is easy for this revenue to leak away from the poor benefitting the more educated and well-off segments of society. However, if tourism is managed with a strong focus on poverty alleviation it can directly benefit the underprivileged, empowering them with the ability to take care of their basic needs such as access to clean water, food, proper sanitation. With this in mind, it is my thesis that poorer countries should develop their tourist industry with poverty alleviation and sustainability as the central aims that are built into strategies and action plans. 

Developing the tourist industry will generate a tremendous amount of revenue which can be used to elevate the standard of living of the people. Hence it would be sensible for poorer countries to expand the tourist industry. Constituting the second most important source of foreign exchange revenues, the growth of the tourism industry can result in a significant change in the economy of a developing nation. On top of that since the industry is conventionally made up of microenterprises and many of the jobs demand little skills and investment, developing the tourist industry can potentially be the most valuable and sustainable way for economic development. At the same time, tourism is largely based on the rich cultural heritage, unique landscape and biodiversities of the country which do not require heavy funding for infrastructure and yet creates high turnover. For example in the case of Nepal tourists often embark on mountaineering and trekking expeditions, and religious pilgrimages contributing to 4.6 % of Nepal’s GDP. Moreover, in the process of developing the tourism industry, infrastructure for basic necessities such as clean water, proper sanitation and power supply will be developed. One such example is the millennium villages project, Mayang, Rwanda,  like most developing countries, experiences high infant mortality rate, limited health care, no electricity and no paved roads. However, after developing the tourism industry Mayang’s plight has been steadily improving – there is abundant food, booming businesses, increased number of schools and a decline and mortality rate. This reasserts that promoting tourism development can, in turn, benefit the locals through the provision of capital which can be used in meeting the basic needs of the poverty-stricken. 

However, a paradox is that the rise in tourism can also be detrimental to the poor. Hence it may not be advisable for underprivileged countries to develop the tourist industry. The concentration of resources to the tourism industry may possibly result in the negligence of tourism’s welfare. As a consequence, people’s needs will be compromised. Brazil, for instance, had vital services such as transportation, education and health care that were inefficiently run and woefully underfunded. Yet it spent a ridiculously huge sum of 11 billion dollars on hosting the world cup alone. Should the interest of its very own citizens not remain the top priority? It is utterly unacceptable for a country to channel its already limited funds to accommodate the foreigners when the basic needs of its people are still not well taken care of. Having been bogged down by cost overruns, delays in the infrastructure projects and deadly accidents the world cup had also innovatively resulted in an inflation spike in Brazil. The influx of tourists increases the demand for basic services and goods causing prices to accelerate which negatively affect the local residents whose income does not increase proportionately. This impoverishes the poor to an even greater extent, depriving them of their essential needs all the more. Furthermore, in reality, most of the profit generated from tourism goes to the richer strata of society resulting in leakage. Take Thailand for instance, it is estimated that 70% of all the money spent by tourists ended up leaving Thailand via foreign-owned tour operators, airlines and hotels. Evidently, tourism gives the largest piece of the pie to large foreign companies and little earnings remain within the country. Moreover, the running of tourist facilities such as resorts and Recreation parks require a tremendous amount of water and energy. In developing countries, these resources are often scarce and used at the expense of the local population robbing the locals of their meagre essentials. Hence, the suggestion that tourism will alleviate poverty in developing countries may be a misguided one. It may be unwise for poorer countries to expand the tourist industry.

Nonetheless, tourism development should be actuated as long as it is done in a sustainable fashion. This will guarantee that the depletion of resources is minimised and the interests of the locals are not jeopardized. It is imperative that sustainability is taken into account as failing to do so will result in tourism being destructive to the economy which exacerbates the people’s inability to sustain themselves. In order to do so, these poorer countries need to develop their tourism industry whilst having poverty alleviation as the main principle. Part of the revenue needs to be directed towards the building of infrastructure for basic necessities and the government will have to ensure connectivity and accessibility of the industry to the poor. With this in place, more of the poor will be able to earn at least a living wage and thus be able to pay for their basic necessities. Developing nations should model the development of the tourism industry after South Africa’s so as to ensure this economic pursuit will not undermine the ability of the poor to meet their basic needs.  In South Africa, ecotourism accounts for a large portion of employment in rural areas, the places where poverty is most rampant. The World Wide Fund also estimates that more than 80% of their revenue is invested in building water filtration facilities in villages. Such a sustainable approach to the development of tourism industry ensures that people are able to take care of the basic needs and also end their poverty cycle. 

Tourism being susceptible to political unrest, natural disasters and shift in international demand is a very volatile industry. As such, it would be prudent for poorer countries to develop the tourist industry sustainably and with caution. Its development should also be done with people’s welfare as the main principle. Feeling to do so may result in tourism being a destructive industry, intensifying the people’s suffering and minimising their ability to meet their basic needs.

The world has enough for everyone’s needs, but not enough for everyone’s greed.” In light of the fact that nations are increasingly pursuing wealth by compromising the environment’s health, Gandhi’s quote reflects how an endless desire for economic development is simply unsustainable. With the rising number of natural disasters and environmental catastrophes in recent years, there has been a growing debate on whether choosing greater economic development to improve standards of living over environmental conservation is a choice that is still justifiable. Proponents of prioritising environmental conservation argue that reckless economic development unfairly places vulnerable nations at risk of environmental disasters and that urgent action needs to be taken to reduce the future impact of environmental catastrophes such as global warming. However, others believe that economic growth is necessary to raise the standard of living in developing nations, even at the expense of the environment, and that the environment can only be protected with revenue from economic progress. Hence, although the immediate benefits of economic growth may seem to outweigh its long-term harms, it should not be prioritised over environmental conservation due to the undue harm of reckless economic development and the urgency to solve environmental issues before they cause irreversible damage.

Despite the pressing need to take steps to curb environmental devastation, proponents of economic development believe that the economy takes precedence over the environment due to the immediate need of developing nations to raise their citizens’ standard of living. Although developing countries may initially damage the environment when obtaining natural resources for economic growth, the revenue gained from doing so allows them to invest in the economy and reduces reliance on natural resources in the long run. Developing nations have a wealth of untapped resources, such as minerals and wood, which can generate income to provide their citizens with an adequate standard of living. Unfortunately, these resources are often locked away in forests and mountains, making it impossible to obtain them without causing damage to the environment. Hence, in order to extract these resources for the sake of economic development, developing nations cut down forests and excavate mines for goods to export. Although this may come at some cost to the environment, the immediate benefits of increased revenue, which improves the lives of impoverished citizens, outweighs the harm done. With more income, governments of developing countries can invest in sectors that help to improve their citizens’ lives, such as healthcare and education. Better living standards and education equip citizens with the ability to acquire better-paying employment, lifting themselves out of poor living conditions. This improves the economy, reducing developing nations’ reliance on extracting natural resources for economic growth. In today’s world, economic progress is important as it is the key to ensuring a nation’s continued success in the global economy. The falling prices of commodities and growing tertiary sectors mean that countries must move away from relying on raw materials as their key source of income. Causing some damage to the environment to lift millions out of poverty is an acceptable sacrifice, especially for a less developed nation whose citizens are struggling to make a living. This is seen in the case of Botswana, which focused on diamond mining to gain revenue, despite the harm it caused to the environment. The income was invested heavily in education and healthcare, lifting 40% of its population out of poverty. Thus, economic growth takes precedence over environmental protection as it alleviates the immediate problem of poverty in developing nations.

Furthermore, economic growth should take precedence over environmental conservation as environmental protection can only occur with economic advancement. Although economic growth may harm the environment, the increased revenue allows governments to purchase improved technology and to invest in research and development. Hence, economic growth provides nations with the funds needed to restore the environment. An improved economy gives governments more money to spend on environmental conservation, improving its ability to conserve the environment. Conversely, poorer nations have less funding, causing them to be less able to protect the environment. In today’s world, the field of research on environmental conservation is constantly growing, from new sustainable sources of energy to conserving endangered species. Economic growth provides developing nations with the funds to sponsor such research for their own country, acquiring technology to negate pollution. They also have the finances to invest in creating nature reserves for vulnerable species which may have lost their habitats due to economic development. An example of a nation that used economic growth to promote environmental conservation is Austria, where fund accumulated from economic development in the past allowed it to invest in the development of renewable sources of energy, such as nuclear plants, today. Hence, economic growth should be prioritised over environmental protection as it is a prerequisite for effective environmental conservation to occur.

However, although economic development may seem like a sustainable solution to all environmental issues, it should not be prioritised over environmental efforts as it unfairly places vulnerable nations at risk of environmental devastation. Not all nations are created equal, with some possessing much more economic clout than others. The beneficial effects of economic development are limited to a nation’s own populace, but its detrimental effects on the environment are often regional, affecting multiple nations around it. Pollution such as haze and industrial waste is able to transcend national borders, spreading to other nations through the air or shared waterways. A nation’s carbon footprint from industrialisation causes the Earth to grow warmer and sea levels to rise, placing vulnerable island nations at risk of sinking under the sea, despite the fact that they contribute to less than one percent of the world’s carbon output. It is not fair to these nations, which did not benefit from the economic development of the country producing pollution, to suffer from the ill effects of environmental devastation which they are powerless to stop. This is poignant in today’s increasingly interlinked world, where larger countries fail to be held to account for their actions even by international organisations like the United Nations. For instance, the US withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord despite its significant carbon footprint, making it unaccountable for the economic devastation its pollution causes. This responsibility allows more powerful nations to create pollution through economic growth without consequences. An example of pollution affecting other nations is the annual transboundary haze caused by Indonesia when it burns forests to create land for cash crops. The haze spreads to neighbouring nations such as Malaysia and Singapore, affecting the economies of these countries. Hence, economic growth should not be prioritised over environmental efforts as it unfairly places vulnerable nations at risk.

In addition, economic growth should not take precedence over environmental efforts as urgent action needs to be taken to curb the effects of environmental degradation. Economic development is a slow process which happens over years, even decades. However, environmental disasters plaguing the world currently pose an immediate threat, which will only be exacerbated in the future. Hence, there is a greater incentive to take steps to solve environmental issues now, than to wait decades for environmental progress before attempting to solve these snowballing problems. Nations cannot wait for their economies to grow and for their GDPs to increase when their citizens fall victim to natural disasters and environmental pollution. In today’s world, saving the environment is an action that needs to be taken immediately by countries, as waiting for economic growth before trying to solve these issues could lead to irreversible consequences. The extinction of endangered species and loss of entire nations to rising sea levels are devastating outcomes of environmental degradation which cannot be reversed, even with modern technology. One example of a country at risk of vanishing is Kiribati. With islands raised a few metres above sea level, the nation is predicted to become uninhabitable by 2050, when the ocean rises enough to completely submerge the tiny country. The president of Kiribati even made an appeal to the United Nations General Assembly to call for efforts to curb global warming, before island nations such as his vanish for good. Thus, economic development should not be prioritised over environmental efforts, as environmental degradation results in issues that must be solved as soon as possible.

In conclusion, although proponents argue that economic growth is essential to solve the immediate problem of poverty and that it places developing nations in a better position to conserve the environment, they have ultimately failed to recognise that environmental degradation is an issue that must be addressed now and that reckless economic growth unfairly harms vulnerable nations which do not benefit from it. Thus, economic development should not be prioritised over environmental efforts due to the excessive harms that arise from solely focusing on economic growth and neglecting environmental conservation. As Martin Luther King once said, “We may have all come on different ships, but we’re in the same boat now.” Economic development may benefit our own nation, but it is environmental conservation that truly protects the world that we all live in.