Linking Culture and the Environment

262 Tourism and Indigenous Peoples
contribute to increased tolerance and respect for diversity of all sorts –
biological, cultural, religious and political. Well-planned ethical tourism
development can provide incentives to support indigenous people’s traditional
customs and values; protect and respect sacred sites; and, enhance the
legitimacy of traditional knowledge. (McNeely, 2004; Olsder et al., 2006) The
tourism industry is therefore a critical component in fostering global support
for natural and cultural heritage conservation, poverty alleviation and
indigenous community well-being.
On the other hand, if poorly planned and managed, or if exploitative
models of development prevail, the ecological, social and cultural consequences
of tourism can be devastating. (Olsder et al., 2006). Tourism development
that does not aspire to the goals of sustainable development has been
shown to contribute to the deterioration of cultural landscapes, threaten biodiversity,
contribute to pollution and degradation of ecosystems, displace
agricultural land and open spaces, diminish water and energy resources and
drive poverty deeper into local communities (Fisher et al., 2005; McNeely,
2005).
Sadly, indigenous people also continue to be marginalized and have
many barriers to becoming active participants in tourism development
(Manyara et al., 2006; Hall, 2007a). Central to their disadvantage is that the
cycle of poverty that excludes them from so much opportunity – education,
health, economic growth and hence their survival and that of their rich cultural
heritages (Ashley et al., 2000; Mowforth and Munt, 2003; Hall and
Brown, 2006). Internationally, the use of tourism as a tool for poverty alleviation
has substantively grown in recent years, which has led to a proliferation
of theoretical and practical action. Pro-Poor Tourism (PPT) and Sustainable
Tourism – Eliminating Poverty (ST-EP) are two leading international strategies
spearheading such action, designed to enable people in poverty to
achieve their livelihood outcomes through tourism activities. Conceptually
very similar, PPT is however much more developed and has grown from
pro-poor development strategies, and has in turn given rise to specific programmes
like ST-EP. At the heart of the approach, PPT unlocks opportunities
for the poor, encourages their participation and tilts tourism development in
their favour, therefore fuelling an accumulation of livelihood benefits, and
generating ‘net benefits for the poor within tourism’ (Ashley et al., 2000;
Ashley et al., 2001a,b; Roe and Urquhart, 2001; UNWTO, 2002).
In a slight deviation of focus to the more common triple bottom-line-based
approaches to sustainable tourism development and ecotourism, PPT
places the poor at the epicenter: ‘the environment in which the poor live is
just one part of the picture’ (Ashley et al., 2001b). While local community
involvement and benefits accrual is fundamental to all forms and shapes of
sustainable tourism, PPT heightens these objectives and uncompromisingly
targets the poor on every level and scale of development. It is not a
specific product or sector of the tourism industry but a well-directed mechanism
for poverty alleviation driven by industry-related activities and operations
(Bennett et al., 1999). In particular, the PPT is highly relevant to indigenous
tourism, given indigenous peoples frequently live in developing nations,