When I was asked me to take part in a debate 'Independent travel is more damaging to the host country than package tourism', I had to consider which side I was on, being professionally involved in both independent travel and package tourism.
I chose to speak up for organised travel which, I believe, is now mostly beneficial in the developing world, and against the independent traveller.
Let us begin by considering the badges of honour of an experienced independent traveller:
- Get by on £10 a day.
- Use local transport.
- Carry all your belongings on your back.
- Bargain successfully for all goods and services. Be constantly on your guard against rip-offs and hassle. Get away from the crowds and find new places.
Now look at these points from the host country's point of view:
- Get by on £10 a day. That eliminates all services such as taxis or guides, chambermaids, washerwoman, or waiters. It eliminates the opportunity for a local person to earn some money.
- Use local transport. On the desperately crowded buses and trains of the developing world, that means competing for the limited numbers of seats or standing room; a local person may have to wait for the next bus.
- Carry all your belongings on your back. On a trek, porters and pack animals are not needed - so one of the few ways open to rural people to earn money is denied them.
- Bargain successfully for all goods and services. It is a matter of pride for all 'real travellers' to walk away from the market having bargained the vendor to half the asking price. We tell ourselves this is the way of the country, that the people will not respect us if we don't bargain. How many people do you know who are upset at receiving more money than they expected? Is it really fair to pay £5 or £10 for an article which will have taken days to produce? Is it reasonable to shout abuse at a taxi driver because he is hoping to get a 'tourist' fare out of you?
- Be constantly on your guard against rip-offs and hassle. This means being constantly on guard against the local people, particularly if they are trying to sell you something. Is this good for the host country? It also means complaining if the tourist admission price for a museum or national park is higher than that charged to the locals. Shouldn't we be pleased that local people can see their heritage at an affordable price and that tourist revenue will go towards the upkeep of the museum or reserve?
Some countries discourage independent travellers. Bhutan has taken this a step further by banning independent travellers altogether, and only groups of four or more can enter. The country now earns more money per head and minimises damage by controlling visitors and where they go. For example, religious sites are out of bounds to tourists.
Contrast Bhutan with Nepal, where the number of independent trekkers has brought a proliferation of lodges in areas on popular routes. Pasture has been destroyed for new buildings, trees used for firewood, and rubbish not properly disposed of. Most trekking groups and their tour operators are more aware of their cultural and environmental impact. They sleep in tents, cook on kerosene stoves, and carry rubbish away with them. They also provide jobs for local people as porters and cooks.
The world is out there and many of us will continue to explore it as independent travellers, but we need to recognise that we are beneficiaries, not benefactors.
Previous / Next / Table of Contents