4. Science and Its Fallacies: Questioning Certainties
The misuse of science helps to entrench prejudices. We have the idea that “pure,” “untouched” nature is that which corresponds to the climax of an ecological succession: an ecosystem is in its “natural,” “balanced” state when we have a lot of vegetation, lots of trees, and a lot of fauna. The concepts of “balance” and “natural” do not correspond to the reality of the dynamics between man and the environment. There is nothing — and current science tells us this — but states of balance at particular points and temporary situations of stability.
One of the concepts that has earned considerable criticism is that of the so-called “load capacity.” The idea was reproduced from models for the management of pasture for domestic cattle in the United States. We now believe this concept was transferred to the ecosystems of the savannah without taking into account climate variation and the interrelationship between herbivores, soil and vegetation in African biomes.
Our scientists are profoundly contaminated by this destructive separation between “natural” and “anthropogenic” environments. The vast majority of our specialists are not equipped to understand the natural and social mechanisms at work in the savannah. We have hydraulic engineers to see to questions of irrigation, and we have hydrologists who know about artificial systems. We have few if any hydrologists working on natural systems. Our forestry experts look at a tree for its timber. Our veterinary experts work on dogs and oxen, but we have few who know how to handle wildlife. We have a shortage of ecologists, sociologists and anthropologists who know about the mechanisms and dynamics of our rural world.
We need economists to assess the monetary value of our resources, our trees and animals. Otherwise, how will we be able to compare the best options for our use of the land, among which features the option for tourism?
5. The Mirror and Its Misrepresentation: Overestimating Our Potential
There is a certain naïve optimism when we assess our potential in relation to tourism. I am in permanent contact with reports by Mozambican experts who very often point to the regions of the Mozambican interior as containing huge potential for tourism. They don’t ask themselves who will come, or where they will stay. .
This optimism stands in contrast to other more pessimistic attitudes. Chinua Achebe is possibly one of the most illustrious living African writers. He is a Nigerian, and has been a candidate for the Nobel Prize for Literature on a number of occasions. Speaking of his country in 1984, he didn’t mince words: “Nigeria is one the most disorderly nations in the world. It is one of the most corrupt, insensitive, inefficient places under the sun. It is one of the most expensive countries and one of those that give least value for money. It is dirty, callous, noisy, ostentatious, dishonest and vulgar.”
When asked about the possibilities of Nigeria developing its tourist industry, the same writer replied:
“It is a measure of our self-delusion that we can talk about developing tourism in Nigeria. Only a masochist with an exuberant taste for self-violence will pick Nigeria for a holiday; only a character out of Tutuola seeking to know punishment and poverty first-hand! No, Nigeria may be a paradise for adventurers and pirates, but not tourists.”
Our future may be that of Nigeria. But it could also be the opposite: that of Mauritius, Tunisia, Morocco.
We need to view our country’s potential in light of ecotourism’s intensely competitive market. In 1996, there were 30,361 parks and conservation areas in the whole world. These areas of conservation covered a total of 13,243,528 square kilometres (that is, 8 percent of the total area of the planet). A tourist can choose from a territory that is collectively about seventeen times larger than Mozambique. Our attractions have to compete with this vast range of choices.
Our ingenuousness in the appreciation of our potential isn’t in itself a bad thing — but it obscures the direction we need to take in order to transform potential into a proper tourist destination.
We live in a world characterized by contingency and unpredictability. Kenya and Tanzania were the most attractive tourist destinations in our region. The 1998 bomb attacks by Al-Qaeda had a profound effect on tourist numbers. Kenya lost $13.5 million, or 20 percent of its tourist revenue. Around 10,000 workers lost their jobs.
The case of Zimbabwe is even more revealing: until 1999, tourism was the fastest-growing industry in the country, contributing 8.3 percent to its GNP. After Robert Mugabe’s so-called “agrarian reform,” Zimbabwe lost $582 million in three years in the area of tourism alone. In the first two years, the movement of tourists decreased by 40 percent. But the damage wasn’t limited to this: the so-called “war veterans” occupied the parks and embarked on an indiscriminate massacre of the wildlife. In just one conservation area known as the Save Valley Conservation — an area covering 3,400 square kilometres — these “war vets” killed 1600 animals in only six months. 340 kilometres of electric fencing were transformed into tens of thousands of trip wires for traps.
The fluid character of the political reality has to be taken into account. Today, a huge percentage of tourists come from South Africa. If the same thing that happened in Zimbabwe happens in South Africa (even though this may only be a remote possibility), how will it affect our tourism and our economy?
6. The Misrepresentation of
Communities and of Noble Savages
We have already seen that misunderstandings are abundant in all areas. However, when people talk about communities, there is an endless collection of fallacies and naïve views. These much-discussed communities only become visible when viewed through an ethnic or anthropological prism. With a bit of luck, we shall see that they are no more than fictitious entities, blurred by a sum of stereotypes and preconceptions. I shall now talk about these myths:
Myth 1—Identity
No one knows exactly what a community is. No one knows who forms part of this collectivity, or what family or genealogical networks are included in each specific case. We are confronting a stereotype that doesn’t respect diversity, or the complex nature of social dynamics. We need to acknowledge this: communities are not homogeneous or egalitarian. They are marked by social conflicts, based on power, on gender. And more than anything, they are composed of segments that have varied and sometimes conflicting interests.
Most of the time, rather than communities, we see an army of NGOs, which presents itself as civil society, and which speaks in the name of a rural population that remains out of the picture and invisible.
Myth 2—Harmony With the Environment
The idea exists that communities only develop balanced, harmonious relationships with the environment. This is not true. For many centuries now, many so-called traditional practices have entered into conflict with the environment and have become sources of aggression and imbalance.