Why Do We Need an Alternative Code of Ethics for Tourism?

T T Sreekumar*

The member countries of World Tourism Organization(WTO) at its 13th General Assembly in Santiago, Chileadopted the new Global Code of Ethics for Tourism on1 October 1999. Acclaimed for its lofty goals andcoverage, the Code soon became the reference point fordebates on a wide spectrum of issues relating to tourismsuch as sustainable development, equity and protectionof local cultures. The formulation of the Code was theculmination of a process of debates and deliberationswithin the global civil society as well as tourism indus-try on the negative impacts of tourism on environmentand on cultural heritage and growing doubts on theclaims that tourism benefits the residents of tourismdestinations.

According to the Secretary General of WTO, "the Glo-bal Code of Ethic for Tourism sets a frame of referencefor the responsible and sustainable development of worldtourism at the dawn of the new mil lennium. It drawsinspiration from many similar declarations and indus-try codes that have come before and il adds new think-ing that reflects our changing society at the end of the20th century". He also describes the process of formu-lating the guidelines. The code was first called for in aresolution of the WTO General Assembly meeting inIstanbul in 1997. Subsequently, a special committee forthe preparation of the Global Code of Ethics wasconstituted. The Secretary-General and the legal adviserto WTO in consultation with WTO Business Council,WTO's Regional Commissions, and the WTO Execu-tive Council prepared a draft document. The UnitedNations Commission on Sustainable Development meet-ing in New York in April 1999 approved the concept ofthe Code. WTO was also asked to seek further inputsfrom the private sector, civil society organizations andlabour organizations. The Secretary-General remembers,"Written comments on the code were received from morethan 70 WTO Member States and other entities. Theresulting 10 point Global Code of Ethics for Tourism -the culmination of an extensive consultative process-was approved unanimously by the WTO General As-sembly meeting in Santiago in October 1999."

A close look at the process of formulation of the Code,however reveal that the role of the civil society has beenmarginal. It was initially drafted by entities known tosafeguard the interests of the industry and at the instanceof CSD, a notional participation was elicited from mem-ber states and civil society organizations. This is notsurprising given the fact that the structure and processesof international consensus building often undermine theessential principles of democratic debate.

Nevertheless, if we consider the fact that the overwhelm-ing demand for restructuring tourism practices had inthe past and present emerged from individuals and or-ganizations of the global the civil society, it is remark-able how hard it is to find their imprint in the text of theCode. WTO has in its turn tried to project that the Codeis a comprehensive document capable of addressing thecomplex web of tourism issues both in the developedand in the underdeveloped world. According to them,the formidable challenge is in the implementation of theCode and they refuse see any whiff of tensions or con-tradictions within the Code that could come in the wayof its easy acceptance and implementation. Hence, it issuggested by the secretary General of WTO that it "isintended to be a living document. Read it. Circulate itwidely. Participate in its implementation. Only with yourcooperation can we safeguard the future of the tourismindustry and expand the sector's contribution to eco-nomic prosperity, peace and understanding among allthe nations of the world".

The civil society organizations at the local and globallevels have been upholding an unequivocal oppositionto the processes and practices of mass tourism in thepast decades which had resulted in the massive destruc-tion of local cultures, livelihood of Indigenous People,deterioration in environmental quality and depletion ofnatural resources, uneven economic gains, growth ofexploitative commercial sex, child abuse, trafficking andan overall escalation of resource drain from the thirdworld through under pricing as well as surplus extraction.The need for a code of Ethics in Tourism emanated from

Vol. 13 No. 115

the urgency of combating these maladies as well as set-ting new rules of the game for the industry practitioners.Nonetheless, it is surprisingly clear that the text of theCode does not reflect the wide set of concerns and is-sues that triggered the demand by the civil society orga-nizations to set new rules.

It appears that the Code was formulated simply to pro-vide legitimacy and to shore up the ailing travel indus-try whose global operations still smack of the very samenefarious practices condemned by the civil society. Theacceptance of the Code by 106 member countries havenot, according to reports from various local and globalorganizat ions work ing the area of sus ta inabledevelopment, equitable tourism, trafficking and childabuse, resulted in any mitigation of the exploitative char-acter of tourism industry particularly in the developingworld. When confronted by this contradiction, the offi-cial response is profoundly indifferent to the conflict-ing and contradictory' nature of the text of the Code itself.Instead these problems are often counted as emanatingfrom floppy implementation of the Code of Ethics. Thefailure of the respective national, regional or even localgovernments in sincerely adhering to and implement-ing the Code of ethics is highlighted as the major reasonfor the continued ill effects of tourism in the third world.However in this discourse, the most important fact thatis overlooked is the failure of the Code to reflect theaspirations and concerns of the marginalized communi-ties and political and economic questions raised by thecivil society. As a consequence of this official indiffer-ence to the larger questions of development, redistribu-tion and ethics in the process of formulation of the Code,there are at least two important aspects of the Code thatcalls for a critical reassessment of its usefulness. Onepertains to the limitations of the assumptions and prin-ciples of the code. Second pertains to the tension be-tween the assumptions and principles of the code. Weshall here discuss these two points. These conflicts arerooted in the gross negligence of the issues raised by thecivi l society as incorporated in the "Position Paper forfurther discussion on the issue of a Global Code of Eth-ics for Tourism" submitted to WTO by Equations, Tour-ism European Ecumenical Network (TEN) and Ecumeni-cal Coalition on Third World Tourism (ECTWT).

Let me begin by taking a close look at some of the ma-jor the assumptions of the Code. These assumptions aredetailed in the preamble of the code. In its eagerness topaint an exceedingly rosy picture of tourism practices

the code at the outset itself argues a case for understand-ing tourism as an instrument for peace. The preamble ofthe Code asserts, "Through the direct, spontaneous andnon-mediated contacts it engenders between men andwomen of different cultures and lifestyles, tourism rep-resents a vital force for peace and a factor of friendshipand understanding among the peoples of the world".While we have reports from the grassroots about theconflicts over resources and cultural practices conse-quent on the increased flow of tourists into relativelyquiescent regions of the world, the case for tourism as atool for peace or conflict resolution has been very weeklyargued. Its role in mediating for increased internationalunderstanding has never been worth considering. Thegeo-politics of the evolution of many of the tourism des-tinations is intertwined with economic aggression,occupation, colonization and war. As Eredric Jamesonpoints out in his Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logicof Late Capitalism, "the underside of culture is blood,torture, death and horror".

Another major assumption of the Code of ethics is re-garding the free market economy and its benefits. Thecode looks at the issue of marketization from the per-spective of the industry and ignores the diverse viewsof local communities and the pangs of their integrationinto its fold. Hence it is argued, "World tourism indus-try has much to gain by operating in a market economyand environment of free trade". The Code is callouslyinsensitive to the enormous problems created as a resultof the incorporation of local communities into the mar-ket economy.

As a corollary to this, and in gross violation of the posi-tion held by the representatives of the civil society, theCode asserts that tourism is compatible with the liberal-ization of the conditions governing trade in services. Inone stroke it disowns the concerns of the local commu-nities and takes a pro-GATS approach while it is de-nounced by majority of the developing countries andthe global civil society for its exploitative character. TheCode hence argues that 'responsible and sustainable tour-ism' is "by no means incompatible with the growingliberalization of the conditions governing trade in ser-vices and under whose aegis the enterprises of this sec-tor operate and that it is possible to reconcile in thissector economy and ecology, environment anddevelopment, openness to international trade and pro-tection of social and cultural identities". The worldwidepractice of mass tourism has in fact been a telling ex-

16 Jan - Apr 2003

ample of the failure of the modern sectors of the economyto achieve this blissful state of harmony so easily claimedby the Code.

The major Principles outlined in the code also fail to dojustice to the set of issues that the civil society had beencareful enough to take up with WTO. The Code at itsbest is trying to translate an ideal average of imaginedbenefits of tourism into its Principles. Thus it is vary-ingly presented as providing a platform for mutual un-derstanding and respect between peoples and societies,a vehicle for individual and collective fulfillment andan important factor of sustainable development. Thesegoals are never met and the likelihood of such harmonyand peace are increasingly challenged in the new con-text of globalization and market liberalization that WTOuncritically embraces.

Some of the Principles of the Code such tourism oughtto be a contributor to the enhancement of culturalheritage, it should be a beneficial activity for host coun-tries and communities; stakeholders have obligations intourism development etc., do emphasize the need forupholding an equitable approach and perspective in tour-ism promotion activities as well as tourism practices. Inthis sense, the Code has been successful in appealing tothe various actors in the field to mitigate the negativeeffects and strive to maximize the benefits. Nevertheless,the Code openly legitimize the excessive urge of theglobal capital to explore and exploit the quiescent areasand integrate them fully into market economy when itargues, "the planet's resources are equally open to allthe world's inhabitants". Moreover, this line of reason-ing also undermines the right of autonomy and self-de-termination of local communities. In the name of a vagueand inept concept of "Tourism Rights", the Code strikesat the very core of the demand of the marginalized andunderprivileged communities for the rights to exercisetheir control over their own land and resources. Anotherprinciple, which runs as a corollary to this position, isthe demand for liberty of tourist movements that states,"visitors should benefit from the same rights as the citi-zens of the country visited". Redistributive policies suchas differential pricing for tourists from developed coun-tries etc., which forms the core of the resource manage-ment and sustainable strategies of many of the thirdworld destinations, are threatened by this principle.

The Code is very eloquent about the rights of perma-nent workers and entrepreneurs of the tourism industry.

It appeals to the Multinational Corporations that they"should not exploit the dominant positions they some-times occupy; they should avoid becoming the vehiclesof cultural and social models artificially imposed on thehost communities; in exchange for their freedom to in-vest and trade which should be fully recognized, theyshould involve themselves in local development,avoiding, by the excessive repatriation of their profitsor their induced imports, a reduction of their contribu-tion to the economies in which they are established".The Code, which thus carefully details the rights of per-manent workers, small entrepreneurs and MNCs,however, silent about the informal sector and informalsector workers, who are mostly women and children inthe third world. This is a painful neglect when we con-sider that the informal sector jobs are, more often thannot, taken up by workers displaced from their traditionaloccupations that disappear consequent on the aggres-sive incursion of the tourism industry. Histories of manyof the third world tourism destinations are littered withthe stories of displacement and inadequate rehabilita-tion of marginalized communities. The Code of Ethicsoffers no perspective on this important question.

The failure of the Code of Ethics to address satisfacto-rily the issues and concerns raised by the civil societyappears to be ignored in the contemporary discussionson the topic. The mistaken emphasis is often on the'implementation issues'. The inherent limitations, ten-sions and contradictions of the text are invariablyoverlooked. The Code in its present form is essentiallya document that serves the interests of the industry whileignoring the rights of the marginalized and the oppressed.It attempts to legitimize the economic exploitation per-petuated by market-oriented policies of liberalization andglobalization. In this context, I strongly feel that it isnecessary to formulate an alternative Code of Ethics forTourism, which would incorporate the ideals and aspi-rations upheld in the position paper of the civil societyorganizations.

* Division of social science, Hong Kong University ofScience and Technology, Hong Kong. Also member,Equations, Bangalore, India.

Vol. 13 No. 117