GEOG  3930   Nicaragua:  Development  Dilemmas  2012  Instructor:  Dr.  Matthew  Taylor:  m.j.taylor@du.edu    Course  Description  This  class  takes  you  to  post-­‐revolutionary  Nicaragua  to  examine  the  consequences  of  recent  land  grabs  by  foreigners  and  transnational  companies.  Students  will  learn  to  operate  in  a  country  with  minimal  “western”  infrastructure.  You  learn  to  “look”  at  developing  landscapes  (that  is  resorts  and  tourism  infrastructure)  with  new  eyes  and  from  the  perspective  of  locals  who  have  been  left  out  of  the  development  loop.  This  site  is  important  because  Prof.  Taylor  has  been  conducting  research  there  for  five  years.  This  accumulated  knowledge  will  allow  maximum  exposure  and  learning  for  students.  By  the  end  of  the  class  you  will  begin  to  (1)  understand  the  “development  game,”  begin  to  (2)  question  the  role  of  tourism  in  developing  economies,  begin  to  (3)  know  how  to  interact  with  other  cultures,  and  finally  (4)  learn  to  question  the  landscapes  we  “see”  and  begin  to  peel  back  the  layers  to  understand  the  social  and  physical  evolution  of  the  landscape  before  our  eyes.          

         

  2  

FLYING  TO  MANAGUA,  NICARAGUA    You  must  book  the  following  flights.    Do  so  directly  through  Continental/United  to  avoid  changes  by  third  party  agents  like  Orbitz  and  Travelocity.      The  cost  right  now  is  at  about  $640.    Prices  will  increase,  so  book  early.    October  6:    Flight  UA  848  from  Denver  to  Houston  (leaves  12:50  pm,  arrive  4:18  pm).    Flight  UA  1421  from  Houston  to  Managua  (leaves  6:45  pm,  arrives  9:06  pm).    October  16.    Flight  UA  1423  from  Managua  to  Houston  (leaves  at  7:15  am,  arrive  11:38  am)  Flight  UA737  from  Houston  to  Denver  (leaves  12:50  pm,  arrives  2:19  pm).        You  must  buy  and  read  the  following  book:    Gordon,  Robert.    2010.    Going  Abroad:    Traveling  Like  an  Anthropologist.    Paradigm  Publisjers,  Boulder,  CO.    Also,  you  must  read  the  content  of  the  reading  packet  (see  below).    Both  of  these  readings  MUST  be  completed  before  the  end  of  the  summer.    See  the  evaluation  section  below  for  ways  in  which  you  can  convey  proof  of  that  reading  to  me  before  the  end  of  the  summer.    Reading  Packet  Contents  

1. Blood  of  Brothers  (chapters  1-­‐8  of  full  text  by  Stephen  Kinzer)  Widely considered the best-connected journalist in Central America, Kinzer personally met and interviewed people at every level of the Somoza, Sandinistas and contra hierarchies, as well as dissidents, heads of state, and countless ordinary citizens throughout the region. Blood of Brothers is Kinzer's dramatic story of the centuries-old power struggle that burst into the headlines in 1979 with the overthrow of the Somoza

 2. Quick  facts  handbook    (Moon  Handbooks-­‐Nicaragua)  

a. History  b. Government  &  Politics  c. Economy  d. The  People  e. Culture,  Conduct,  &  Customs  f. The  Arts  

3. Tourism  in  Nicaragua  (Florence  Babb,  The  Tourism  Encounter)  a. Recycled  Sandalistas  b. Sex  &  Sentiment  in  Cuban  and  Nicaraguan  Tourism  c. Several  papers  by  Hunt  and  Hunt  and  Stronza  (2011)  

 4.      Chapters  from  Martha  Honey’s  2008  book,    Ecotourism  and  Sustainable  Development:    Who  Owns  Paradise?    Island  Press,  Washington  D.C.      

 

  3  

5.    In  Nicaragua,  Chasing  the  Unsurfed  Wave  (New  York  Times  article)    From  Tony  Butt’s  Surf  Science:    

6.  Surf  Science:  An  Introduction  to  the  Waves  of  Surfing  7.    The  Growth  of  Waves  in  the  Ocean  8.  Coastal  Geomorphology  9.  Wave  Breaking  10.  How  Waves  Move  Sediment  11.  Propagation  of  Free  Travelling  Swell  12.  Refraction  13.  The  Tides  

   Tentative Syllabus

Westerners often escape to beach locations around the world, but what do we really know about the impact of a growing tourism industry on local lives in the developing world? This class will explore these and many other questions related to waves, beaches, tourism, and development. Since original economies (e.g., fishing) and newer economies like tourism and second home ownership emerge from human activities in the natural environment, this topic provides a natural vehicle to explore topics in spatial social science, physical processes, and their joint interaction.

This class gives you first-hand exposure to a country in the “developing” world. We will address question of development (including ecotourism as a road to development). In this class we will explore the fundamental relationships between environment and development. We will take a critical approach right from the start of the class and question traditional thinking about terms like “development.” Development for whom and by whom? This class will provide you with a solid background about development and environmental issues when you are out in the workforce in “developing” and “developed” parts of the world. More importantly, this class will force you to think critically about the billions of development dollars spent around the world every year. We will also explore tourism! What is it? What role does it play within the local economy? Is there any regulation? How is the term appropriated by whom and for what purposes? Who owns and benefits from ecotourism operations? Or like Martha Honey asks, “who owns paradise?” What are the impacts on local cultures and environments? What do visitors think about ecotourism sites? This class also provides you with a nuanced set of tools by which to think about ecotourism and environmental issues that you can employ when you are out in the workforce.

Evaluation We will evaluate you based on the following items:

1. Proof that you have read the books/readings. This may take the form of a formal book review for each section or simply a long list of questions related to your readings (25%). This proof must be turned into me before the beginning of the first field quarter class (see below one example of the form your comments can take)

2. Participation in all discussion (25%)

  4  

3. Incorporation of your readings of the texts into discussions with me while we are in the field. In other words, we will have many conversations with each one of you during the class of the class where we expect you to contextualize what you are seeing with your previous “book learning” (25%)

4. A final photographic essay on a topic of your choice. The essay must bring together the elements of the class, reading prior to the class, discussions during class. Your will consult with me on this essay (25%).

What you MUST bring, and what you need not bring 1. A good attitude. We will be in remote rural areas of Nicaragua at times. So you must

expect to get our vehicle stuck, stop at a moments notice to observe natural process or interact with locals, eat “foreign food,” and be willing to get on with a group of your fellows in tight quarters. Flexibility to go down an unmarked road is also key. YOU WILL NOT SLEEP DURING VEHICLE TRIPS - -THERE IS SIMPLY TOO MUCH TO LEARN AND OBSERVE.

2. The usual items like sun block, insect repellent, sunglasses, clothes appropriate for warm weather and sand, water bottle, beach towel, soap, shampoo.

3. FIELD NOTE BOOK AND PENS! 4. Raincoat and/or umbrella. This is the peak of the rainy season in Nicaragua! 5. Some goggles (for the ocean), and some small fins to help you in the waves: do not get

big fins, but rather small fins for waves: http://www.ebodyboarding.com/Swimfins These will make your time in the ocean much more productive. Big fins will be ripped off in the waves.

6. Passport! 7. Spending money for gifts and what you consume outside of meals. 8. As much Spanish as you can. The more you know, the more you will get out of this

class. Be brave and practice on your comrades before we leave. 9. Only bring luggage that you can carry on the aeroplane. This keeps us mobile and

provides us with more people space in our vehicle. A soft backpack along with some type of day bag is a perfect combination. You will not need many clothing items. We can do laundry on the way. Also, it will be warm!

10. Leave all of your fancy electronics at home. We will not need them and you do not need to worry about them. We will have local cell phones with us at all times.

Very Tentative Itinerary Oct 6. Arrive Managua. Spend the night in Granada. Hotel Terrasol. 7. Maybe spend the morning in Managua then get out to the Pacific and the Camino del Gigante (505 8743 5699). Getting to know Gigante. Speak with locals. Speak with foreign owners of businesses. 8. More of getting our bearings. Speak with Fisher folk. Speak with a large developers in the region? 9. Gigante. Work with various NGOs on different projects. 11. Gigante. Learn about local agricultural lives 12. Travel up to Popoyo. Stay at Club del Surf (505 8456 6068)

  5  

13 Day in Popoyo. Visit a school built by PRE (DU alum Espen Haugen) 14. Leave Early in the am to San Jorge to get ferry to Ometepe 15. The last supper. 16. Drive to Managua and fly out. An example of comments on readings for the field quarter Ross  Parsons  Field  Quarter    Guatemala  

Filled  with  a  long  history  of  injustice,  terror,  and  repression,  Guatemala  has—to  the  knowledge  of  only  a  few  who  seek  the  truth—become  a  country  which  foundations’  were  built  militarily.    Throughout  much  of  the  twentieth  century,  Guatemala  saw  countless  military  juntas  and  coup  d'état’s.    The  more  I  indulge  myself  into  the  history  of  this  central-­‐american  country,  I  contantly  ask  whether  the  direction  of  Guatemala’s  government  went  in  the  direction  of  the  peoples’  hopes.    Time  again,  I  find  the  same  answer;  no.  Silence  on  the  Mountain:  Stories  of  Terror,  Betrayal,  and  Forgetting  in  Guatemala,  written  by  Daniel  Wilkinson  (refered  to  as  Don  Daniel  in  his  stories)  offeres  a  wonderful  insight  to,  as  the  title  suggests,  personal  stories  of  those  who  have  had  to  live  with  some  of  the  most  terrorfying  truths  ever  heard.    Wilkinson,  with  his  fellowship  that  allowed  him  to  conduct  research  in  Guatemala,  is  able  to  rediscover  the  truth  about  what  happened  in  Guatemala  during  the  second  half  of  the  twentith  century.  

Wilkinson  starts  his  journey  by  investigating  why  a  plantation  home  was  burned  down  in  La  Patria.    The  owner  of  the  plantation,  Sara  Endler,  was  the  daughter  of  Franz  Endler.    After  the  plantation’s  house  fell  a  victim  to  arson  in  the  early  1980’s,  Franz  had  abandoned  it,  only  to  be  rebuilt  by  his  daughter.    I  found  it  ironic  that  it  was  not  until  the  end  of  the  book  did  Wilkinson  decide  to  reviel  the  truth  to  the  arson.    On  one  fateful  day,  he  had  crossed  paths  with  an  ex-­‐combatant  named  Silverio,  who  claimed  responsibility  for  the  fire.    The  reason  the  house  was  burned  gives  light  to  a  constant  reoccuring  theme  throughout  Wilkinson’s  writings.    The  campesinos,  or  poorer  citizens  of  Guatemala,  lived  in  constant  fear  of  the  army,  and  sometimes  even  the  guerrilla  fighters.    As  Sara  Endler  would  later  tell,  “…everybody  who  gave  the  guerrillas  anything  did  so  because  they  were  forced  to  by  the  guerrillas.”    Although  some  campesinos  were  indeed  supportive  of  the  guerrilla  movement,  the  question  arises—how  much  did  fear  play  a  role  in  the  decision  of  whom  to  support?    For  on  the  other  hand,  if  the  army  or  an  army-­‐faithful  were  to  see  or  hear  of  anyone  talking  to,  giving  aid  to,  or  even  speeking  of  guerilla  movements  in  the  area,  there  was  a  possibility  of  waking  up  to  the  dreadful  feeling  of  being  carried  away  in  a  military  truck,  never  to  be  seen,  or  even  heard  of  again.    Wilkinson  writes  graphically,  so  the  reader  can  fully  understand  the  brutality  that  some  campesinos  endured.    Perhaps  the  most  graphic  and  shocking  was  that  of  a  young  man  chose  not  to  share  his  knowledge  with  the  Gautemalan  military  that  guerrillas  had  esablished  a  presence  in  his  neighborhood.    His  punishment  was  a  gun  shot  to  the  head,  only  after  having  his  eyeballs  and  tougue  removed.      Because  of  Wilkinson’s  time  of  hands-­‐on  investigation  in  Guatemala,  he  is  able  to  slowly  obtain  the  people  of  La  Igualdad’s  trust  and  most  importantly—their  friendship.    He  recounts  of  how  they  even  invited  him  over  to  eat  and  sleep.    Bartolo  Reyes,  who,  with  the  help  of  Wilkinson,  orgainized  a  meeting  with  the  people  La  Igualdad  and  the  newly  formed  Truth  Commission,  helped  Wilkinson  extract  the  answers  he  needed,  and  the  answers  we  

  6  

need  to  understand  Guatemala’s  cruel  history.    The  many  contacts  Wilkinson  comes  to  meet  allow  us  to  see  all  sides  of  history—from  the  guerrillas  (such  as  Silverio  and  Javier)  ,  the  patrónes  of  the  plantations  (such  as  the  Endler  Family),  the  military  leaders  (such  as  Cándido  Juárez  and  General  Héctor  Gramajo),  the  politicians  of  local  government  (Ismael  Juárez  and  Bartolo  Reyes).    Wilkinson  even  digs  up  quotations  by  the  Carter,  Regan,  and  Clinton  administrations  to  demonstrate  the  United  States’  involvment  (or  lack  there  of)  with  Guatemalan  military  operations.      

For  me,  the  most  underlying  event  written  was  of  the  single  event  that  took  place  on  January  1,  1982.    According  to  CEsar  SAnchez,  a  close  contact  to  Wilkinson  who  had  grown  up  on  a  Guatemalan  plantation,  and  his  close  Jorge  Fuengtes,  nearly  all  plantation  workers  had  supported  the  guerrillas.    This  was  of  course  until  what  happened  in  Sacuchum.    On  that  fateful  day,  the  military  stormed  the  mountain  town  by  supprise,  and  ordered  them  all  to  leave  their  houses  and  meet  in  the  town  square.    After  looting  the  homes  and  raping  the  women,  the  soldiers  asked  a  hooded-­‐man  who  were  aiding  the  guerrilla  insergency.    Later  that  day,  it  was  discovered  that  fourty-­‐four  people  had  been  brutally  killed.    This  was  the  military’s  way  of  showing  that  if  campesinos  were  to  aid  any  members  of  the  guerrilla  orgainization  URNG,  their  life  was  in  great  danger.    Only  later  on  does  Wilkison  share  his  interviews  with  ex-­‐guerrilla  combatants  that  explain  Sacuchum’s  knowledge  of  secret  camps  being  used  by  the  URNG  in  nearby  mountains.      

I  have  always  believed  that  for  one  to  truly  learn,  he  or  she  must  travel  to  the  origin  of  relevance.    Although  I  feel  I  have  read  an  adequate  amount,  I  still  feel  I  need  to  see,  listen,  and  feel  my  way  through  the  events  that  took  place  after  the  fall  Arbenz’  Agrarian  Reform.    While  riding  in  a  Land  Rover  belonging  to  a  wealthy  plantation  owner  east  of  La  Igualdad,  the  owner  tells  Wilkinson  that  what  really  angered  him  was  “the  way  these  foreigners  (come)  criticizing  this  country  that  they  don’t  really  know.”    I  couldn’t  agree  more.    Before  I  finalize  any  of  my  opinions  regarding  the  Guatemalan  civil  war,  I  first  want  to  visit  the  people,  places,  and  landscapes  of  Guatemala.        

Nicaraguan Leader Elicits Disgust and Support, Often From the Same People New York Times

Esteban Felix/Associated Press

A mural of President Daniel Ortega in Masaya, Nicaragua. He is praised for the economy and accused of skirting the Constitution. By JAVIER C. HERNÁNDEZ Published: November 3, 2011

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

!"#$%&'()#&*&+(,*-*./&%*(0&1*2'3%&4#5#%.&67.&*&8*29#2&(:&:32-;#2:&<(=*2*>?*&@;3&%*(0&;#&;*0&

2#=#(A#0&-@3&=3@%&*:0&*&-2?=)'3*0&38&8#2-('(B#2&8239&-;#&>3A#2:9#:-C&!D;#&93:#5&)##+%&

=39(:>C/&

&

E2C&F2-#>*&;*%&*'%3&@3:&*''(#%&(:&-;#&+2(A*-#&%#=-32.&*&=3:%-(-?#:=5&-;*-&;*%&'3:>&G##:&

%?%+(=(3?%&38&H*:0(:(%-*&=*:0(0*-#%&*:0&38&E2C&F2-#>*&(:&+*2-(=?'*2C&I?2(:>&;(%&+2#A(3?%&

%-(:-&*%&+2#%(0#:-.&8239&JKL6&-3&JKKM.&E2C&F2-#>*$%&+3'(=(#%&;#'+#0&?%;#2&(:&*&+#2(30&38&

2*9+*:-&(:8'*-(3:&*:0&#=3:39(=&*:N(#-5C&

&

D@3&0#=*0#%&'*-#2.&-3&-;#&%?2+2(%#&38&#A#:&%39#&(:&;(%&3@:&+*2-5.&;#&;*%&*G*:03:#0&

%3=(*'(%-&#=3:39(=&03=-2(:#&832&*&930#2*-#.&82##O9*2)#-&*++23*=;C&P:0#2&;(%&'#*0#2%;(+.&

-3?2(%9&*:0&#N+32-%&;*A#&G339#0.&*:0&'*G32&2#'*-(3:%&*2#&-2*:Q?('C&

&

R:&*&%(>:&38&E2C&F2-#>*$%&='3%#&2#'*-(3:%;(+&@(-;&G?%(:#%%.&-;#&H?+#2(32&13?:=('&38&S2(A*-#&

T:-#2+2(%#.&*&:*-(3:*'&=3*'(-(3:&38&G?%(:#%%&=;*9G#2%.&0(0&:3-&#:032%#&*&+2#%(0#:-(*'&

=3:-#:0#2&-;(%&5#*2C&R:&+2#A(3?%&#'#=-(3:%.&(-&38-#:&%(0#0&@(-;&:3:OH*:0(:(%-*&=*:0(0*-#%C&

&

D;3?>;&-;#&#=3:395&@(''&G#&823:-&*:0&=#:-#2&3:&H?:0*5.&E2C&F2-#>*$%&;(%-325&38&(>:32(:>&

=39+'*(:-%&*G3?-&-;#&#'#=-32*'&+23=#%%.&+*2-(=?'*2'5&*8-#2&:*-(3:*'&*:0&(:-#2:*-(3:*'&

@*-=;03>%&*''#>#0&@(0#%+2#*0&82*?0&G5&-;#&H*:0(:(%-*%&(:&-;#&UMML&9?:(=(+*'&#'#=-(3:%.&

;*%&'#8-&;(%&=2(-(=%&3:&*&;*(2&-2(>>#2C&

&

V'2#*05.&-;#&R:0#+#:0#:-&W(G#2*'&S*2-5&;*%&*==?%#0&E2C&F2-#>*$%&+*2-5&38&%=;#9(:>&-3&+(=)&

?+&A3-#%&G5&0#:5(:>&(0#:-(8(=*-(3:&=*20%&-3&=2(-(=%&38&-;#&>3A#2:9#:-.&@;('#&>2*:-(:>&-;#9&

-3&"3:0?2*:&=(-(B#:%&@32)(:>&*'3:>&-;#&G320#2C&XD;#&>3A#2:9#:-&0(%+?-#%&-;#&*''#>*-(3:%CY&

&

V:0&9*:5&%-(''&2#%#:-&E2C&F2-#>*$%&+3'(-(=*'&9*:#?A#2(:>&-3&+#29(-&;(%&2#O#'#=-(3:C&D;#&

<(=*2*>?*:&13:%-(-?-(3:&G*2%&'#*0#2%&8239&%#2A(:>&=3:%#=?-(A#&-#29%&*:0&'(9(-%&-;#(2&-3-*'&

%#2A(=#&-3&-@3&-#29%C&Z?-&<(=*2*>?*$%&H?+2#9#&13?2-.&@;(=;&E2C&F2-#>*&=3:-23'%.&2?'#0&(:&

UMMK&-;*-&-;#&'(9(-%&A(3'*-#0&;?9*:&2(>;-%C&

!R8&-;#&=*:0(0*-#&(%&(:&-;#&+#3+'#$%&(:-#2#%-.&-;#5&@(''&#'#=-&;(9.&*:0&(8&-;#&=*:0(0*-#&03#%&:3-&

2#+2#%#:-&-;#(2&@(%;#%.&-;#5&@(''&:3-&#'#=-&;(9./&E2C&F2-#>*&%*(0&(:&*&2*2#&-#'#A(%(3:&

(:-#2A(#@&-;*-&5#*2C&!FG%-*='#%&%;3?'0&:3-&G#&%#-&?+&-3&0#:5&-;#9&-;*-&2(>;-C/&

!

D;#&P:(-#0&H-*-#%&=?-&*G3?-&[\U&9(''(3:&(:&*(0&3A#2&=3:=#2:%&*G3?-&-;#&UMML&#'#=-(3:%&G?-&

;*%&3-;#2@(%#&'*2>#'5&'#-&E2C&F2-#>*&G#.&@*25&38&+23A3)(:>&*:-(OV9#2(=*:&%#:-(9#:-C&

!

"#$!%&$'!(&!()$!*+$,-*-,$.!/0(!)$!1&$'23(!405*!&66.7!$8*9:-2$1!;&/$+(!<=!>:99:):2.!?)&!

'($**$1!1&?2!:'!()$!@5$+-,:2!:5/:'':1&+!(&!A-,:+:%0:!-2!<09B=!"#$!1&$'!40'(!$2&0%)!(&!

:99&?!()$!,&5502-(B!&6!1$5&,+:,-$'!(&!40'(-6B!'(:B-2%!:21!:(($5*(-2%!(&!?&+C!?-()!)-5=7!

!

D+=!>:99:):2!':-1!():(!-6!()$+$!?:'!$E-1$2,$!&6!?-1$'*+$:1!6+:01!-2!()$!$9$,(-&2'.!()$!F2-($1!

G(:($'!')&091!,0(!&66!60(0+$!$,&2&5-,!:-1!(&!()$!,&02(+B.!+$60'$!(&!2:5$!:!2$?!:5/:'':1&+!

:21!6&+,$6099B!,&21$52!D+=!H+($%:=!I2!:!'(:($5$2(.!()$!G(:($!J$*:+(5$2(!':-1!-(!+$5:-2$1!

,&2,$+2$1!:/&0(!()$!*&($2(-:9!6&+!E&(-2%!-++$%09:+-(-$'=!

!

G&5$!A-,:+:%0:2'.!$E$2!()&'$!?)&!'0**&+(!D+=!H+($%:.!':-1!)-'!/:+/$1!9:2%0:%$!):1!

-'&9:($1!()$!,&02(+B=!"#$!):'!?&+'$2$1!()$!+$9:(-&2')-*!022$,$'':+-9B.7!':-1!K9E:+&!

D:+:1-:%:.!LM.!:2!:+,)-($,(0+$!'(01$2(!6+&5!D:2:%0:!?)&!)&*$'!(&!'*$21!(-5$!-2!()$!

F2-($1!G(:($'=!A$E$+()$9$''.!D+=!D:+:1-:%:!':-1!)$!?&091!E&($!:9&2%!*:+(B!9-2$'!6&+!D+=!

H+($%:=!

!

D+=!H+($%:3'!+-E:9'!-2!()$!*+$'-1$2(-:9!+:,$!):E$!'$-N$1!&2!)-'!02-9:($+:9-'(!:**+&:,).!

?:+2-2%!():(!)$!5:B!5&E$!(&!:2!$8(+$5$!-6!)$!-'!+$O$9$,($1!:21!%:-2'!:!5:4&+-(B!-2!()$!

A:(-&2:9!@''$5/9B=!

!

P0(!-2!:!,+&?1$1!6-$91.!)-'!&**&2$2('!):E$!'(+0%%9$1!(&!?-2!:!'-%2-6-,:2(!/9&,C!&6!E&($+'.!

:21!5:2B!9:,C!'($:1B!6-2:2,-2%=!Q)$B!):E$!6&,0'$1!()$-+!$2$+%B!&2!+$,+0-(-2%!B&02%!

*$&*9$.!%-E$2!():(!5&+$!():2!):96!&6!A-,:+:%0:3'!*&*09:(-&2!-'!021$+!RM=!

!

D+=!S:1$:.!()$!+:1-&!*$+'&2:9-(B.!?)&!0'$1!)-'!*9:(6&+5!(&!/:,C!()$!,&2(+:!+$/$99-&2!:%:-2'(!

()$!G:21-2-'(:'!-2!()$!TUVM'.!):'!/0-9(!()$!5&'(!6$+E$2(!6&99&?-2%=!J0+-2%!:!+$,$2(!

,:5*:-%2!'(&*!-2!D:(:%:9*:.!:!)-99B!:%+-,09(0+:9!,&5502-(B!-2!()$!2&+().!()&0':21'!&6!)-'!

'0**&+($+'!5:+,)$1!()+&0%)!()$!'(+$$('!1&?2(&?2.!'&5$!'(&**-2%!(&!($:+!1&?2!G:21-2-'(:!

69:%'=!H2!:!'-1$?:9C.!',)&&9,)-91+$2!&6!&**&'-2%!*:+(-$'!'*-(!:(!$:,)!&()$+!:21!69:')$1!*:+(B!

'-%2'!W!(?&!6-2%$+'!6&+!D+=!H+($%:.!()+$$!6&+!()&'$!'0**&+(-2%!D+=!S:1$:=!

!

"X$!:+$!%&-2%!(&!$9$,(!:2!)&2&+:/9$!*+$'-1$2(.!:2!)&2&+:/9$!%&E$+25$2(.!'&!():(!()-'!

,&02(+B!%$('!+-1!&6!()$!',:+!&6!,&++0*(-&2.7!D+=!S:1$:!(&91!()$!,+&?1=!"X$!:+$23(!%&-2%!(&!

:'C!B&0!-6!B&0!:+$!9-/$+:9!&+!,&2'$+E:(-E$=!X$!?-99!/0-91!:!%&E$+25$2(!6&+!:99=7!

!

!"#$%&'($)*+&#&,-&'./$012$3#"452%.$#2%&*'$012$.&%26$7"82#0($*.$#&%3&'0$9$%-+1$":$012$3"3-5&0*"'$5*82.$"'$;-.0$&$:2<$="55&#.$2&+1$=&(/$&++"#=*',$0"$#2+2'0$2.0*%&02.$9$&'=$-'2%35"(%2'0$#2%&*'.$1*,16$>=-+&0*"'$52825.$&#2$&'2%*+/$&'=$8*"52'+2$:#"%$012$#2,*"'<*=2$=#-,$<&#$*.$42,*''*',$0"$02&#$&0$012$+"-'0#(?.$2=,2.6$$@-0$%&'($.&($01&0$*'$A#6$B#02,&/$012($1&82$:"-'=$."%2$.0&4*5*0(/$282'$*:$12$*.$'"0$32#:2+06$CA($:&%*5($+&'$.5223$32&+2:-55($&0$'*,10/D$.&*=$A#6$E"%2#"/$012$<&*02#6$CF1&0$25.2$*.$012#2$0"$<"##($&4"-0GD$$$

Passport to Development? LocalPerceptions of the Outcomes of Post-Socialist Tourism Policy and Growth inNicaragua

CARTER HUNTDepartment of Anthropology, Stanford University, California, USA

ABSTRACT Enduring decades of dictatorship under the Somoza dynasty, several highly destructivenatural disasters, a major “unnatural” disaster in the form of revolutionary conflict, and asubsequent civil war have all taken a serious toll on Nicaraguan society. Today overall poverty issecond highest in the hemisphere, with 80% of the population surviving on less than US $2 a day.Crippling debt contributes to a desperate need for foreign exchange, and with an attractive taxincentive package promoting external investment, the government is turning to tourism as itspassport to development. After a virtual absence in the 1980s, tourism quickly skyrocketed to thetop of Nicaragua’s export list in less than a decade and has remained there since 2000. Yet aftermore than a decade of open-door policy to foreign investors, the wealth distribution remained thesecond most unequal on the planet. This paper briefly describes Nicaragua’s history of dictators,disasters, and delayed development, and how this relates to the nature of tourism developmenttaking place there. Through exhaustive review of development research, government agencydocuments, personal work experience as an assistant ecolodge administrator, and ethnographicresearch with rural residents involved in the tourism industry just north of the Costa Ricanborder, it is concluded that tourism is not delivering on the assumed promise of economicdevelopment. By placing well-heeled travelers in a carefully controlled idyllic setting where theyare presented with bargain real estate speculation and investment opportunities along thecountry’s Pacific coast, tourism as it is currently developing in southwestern Nicaragua appearsto be exacerbating inequalities by allowing greater accumulation of capital among both wealthyNicaraguan elites and a growing number of foreign/ex-patriot investors, while furtheringimpoverishment of rural residents through increasing costs of living, land displacement, and legalmarginalization.

Introduction

Latin America is a region currently undergoing a “globalization crisis”. Despite the related

imperatives such as privatization, deregulation, neoliberalism, and free trade that attempt to

reverse decades of squandered development opportunities (Keeling, 2004), mass poverty

persists and is even increasing in terms of percentage and absolute numbers (Loker,

Tourism Planning & Development

Vol. 8, No. 3, 265–279, August 2011

Correspondence Address: Carter A. Hunt, Department of Anthropology, Stanford University, 450 Serra Mall,

Main Quadrangle, Stanford, CA 94305-2034. Email: cahunt@stanford.edu

ISSN 2156-8316 Print; ISSN 2156-8324 Online/11/030265–15 # 2011 Taylor & Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2011.591155

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

enve

r] a

t 14:

16 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

1996; Gasparini et al., 2005; IFPRI, 2009). Tourism has been promoted as an economic

driver in underdeveloped countries for decades (deKadt, 1979; Carbone, 2005; Hawkins

and Maun, 2007). To the extent that it confronts the issues of poverty, inequality, and the

related exhaustion of natural resources, tourism may serve as a significant force for devel-

opment. Through its linkage with ideologies of free trade, economic globalization and the

spread of capitalist relations of production (Mowforth and Munt, 2008), tourism has grown

into the world’s largest industry (UNWTO, 2010), is a top-five export for 83% of countries,

and is the number one export for 38% of those (Christ et al., 2003).

The cultural richness of the Latin American region, typified by the remnants of Aztec,

Mayan, Incan and other indigenous civilization, has made it a popular destination for cul-

tural tourism for decades, with spectacular ruins including Machu Picchu, Chichen Itza,

and Tikal serving as the focal points. Yet given the region’s high endemic biodiversity

(Myers et al., 2000), the popularity of Latin America as a tourism destination was

greatly enhanced with the explosion of ecotourism, the fastest growing sector of the

tourism industry (Weinburg et al., 2002). It is in this region where ecotourism activities

continue to be arguably largest in scale and diversity (Stronza, 2008).

The Central American country of Nicaragua, one of the poorest and most wealth-dispa-

rate in the western hemisphere, endured over a decade of armed conflict from 1979–1990

which brought the already light visitation to Nicaragua to a screeching halt. Now, due to a

debt-driven need for foreign exchange, even former Sandinista isolationists are embracing

tourism as a driver of development (Carroll, 2007). The change in attitude coupled with

neoliberal policy shifts and tax incentives encouraging foreign investment resulted in

tourism skyrocketing to the top of the export list (INTUR, 2009a).

This paper tackles the question of whether or not tourism is making meaningful contri-

butions to poverty alleviation, reduction of inequalities, or conservation of biodiversity in

Nicaragua. More specifically, it is argued here that the production of tourism, and in particu-

lar conventional resort as well as newly popular forms of residential tourism development,

are 1) exacerbating regional processes of capital accumulation and land accumulation

among Nicaraguan elites and wealthy resident ex-patriots; 2) furthering the relative impov-

erishment and displacement of rural Nicaraguan residents through uncompensated loss of

subsistence access; and thus 3) contributing to increased environmental degradation in

the regions of tourism development.

Research Methods

This paper draws first on the author’s experience as an assistant ecolodge administrator in

the Matagalpa highlands in 2005 to speak to the broader tourism context in Nicaragua; ten

months of archival research from 2007–2009 to speak to large-scale trends of capital

accumulation; and five months of field research in 2008 to speak to on-the-ground

impacts on poverty in the Department of Rivas. This exploratory fieldwork was conducted

as part of a NSF-sponsored cross-cultural analysis of community participation in ecotour-

ism. It yielded qualitative information from participant observation of tourism enterprises;

60 structured interviews with rural residents, tree plantation workers, and tourism employ-

ees; and 17 additional ethnographic interviews with tourism developers, real estate agents,

private landowners, and ex-patriot foreigners in the municipality of San Juan del Sur in

2008. Coupled with archival data, the voices of those most directly affected by tourism

development in the region collectively indicate that the development of tourism is perpe-

tuating the same mechanisms described in political ecology research on the outcomes of

agriculturally oriented development programs in numerous regions of Latin America

(Painter and Durham, 1995).

266 C. Hunt

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

enve

r] a

t 14:

16 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

Disasters, Dictators, and Delayed Development

Nicaragua has been in a state of near constant crisis for four decades. An earthquake in

1972 leveled the colonial center of the capital Managua, resulting in a loss of life

around 20,000 individuals (EM-DAT, 2010). The aid money that flowed into Nicaragua

following the earthquake was pilfered by then dictator Anastasio Somoza Debayle.

Such abuses of power contributed to a popular uprising in 1978–1979, incited by the

left-leaning Frente Sandinista de Liberacion Nacional (FSLN) which later assumed gov-

ernmental control during the 1980s. The subsequent counter-revolution undermined

popular support for the Sandinistas, though not before another 70,000 people perished

in a country whose population at the time was a mere three million (EM-DAT, 2010).

The country remained ravaged in the 1990s and struggled to recover from civil war.

Abject poverty left the population vulnerable to natural disasters (Pielke et al., 2003),

and within the decade this was perfectly demonstrated by category 5 Hurricane Mitch

which made a direct hit in 1998. Mitch blew out hydroelectric dams, buried entire villages

in mudslides, washed out roads, killed 11,000 people in Nicaragua, and left three million

homeless in the region (EM-DAT, 2010). International aid flowed in and again it was pil-

fered by unscrupulous head of state Arnoldo Aleman. Frustrated by lack of progress during

three terms of liberal rule, Nicaraguans re-elected former Sandinista ruler Daniel Ortega to

the presidency in 2006.

As a result of these events, Nicaragua stands as the poorest country in the western hemi-

sphere behind Haiti. With one of the highest foreign debt ratios, Nicaragua desperately

needs foreign exchange. Implementation of structural adjustments in the 1990s did little

to address wealth disparities. These policies favored small group of elites (Dijkstra,

1999), led to increased deforestation (Hawkesworth and Garcıa-Perez, 2003), caused a

decline in earnings (Pisani, 2003), and led to post-socialist re-stratification via “distress”

land sales by beneficiaries of agrarian reform (Jonakin, 1996).

Recent years of relative political stability have led the country to gamble on tourism’s

ability to contribute to pressing development needs such as poverty alleviation, wealth

redistribution, and reduced environmental deterioration. Along with the colonial town

of Granada and the island of Ometepe, the white sand beaches surrounding the picturesque

seaside community of San Juan del Sur in the department of Rivas serve as the nexus for

tourism development in this region (INTUR, 2009a). With the second decade since its re-

establishment in 1990 coming to a close, tourism’s contribution to these outcomes should

now be readily apparent.

Power, Poverty and Tourism

In order to guide this discussion of tourism development in Nicaragua, this section

describes the theoretical framework of the political ecology which is then adopted in

the subsequent analysis of the Nicaragua situation. As an “approach to research that

attempts to understand cultural adaptation by taking into account other societies as part

of the environment” (Townsend, 2009, p. 44), political ecology “necessarily involves a

clarification of the impact of unequal power relations on the nature and direction of

human-environment interactions in the Third World” (Bryant, 1997, p. 8). Incorporating

elements of human ecology and political economy, political ecology originates in the

writing of Wolf (1972) and came of age with the publication of Blaikie and Brookfield’s

1987 book Land Degradation and Society. These authors demonstrate how the persistence

of poverty can be traced to exhaustion of natural resources or to underdeveloped econom-

ies (1987), conclusions later echoed by Bebbington (1999). While developing nations are

Passport to Development? 267

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

enve

r] a

t 14:

16 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

often blamed for resource exploitation, political ecologists assert that environmental pro-

blems in the Third World are not a result of policy failures in those countries, “but rather

are a manifestation of broader political and economic forces associated notably with the

spread of capitalism (Bryant, 1997, p. 8).

Peet and Watts (1996) illustrate how the spread of capitalism through the development

of non-traditional agricultural exports aimed at increasing foreign exchange earnings con-

tributed to deforestation and land degradation. Painter and Durham (1995) present the

complex mechanisms responsible for these outcomes in a remarkably concise conceptual

model composed of two feedback loops (Figure 1). The first cycle relates to processes of

capital accumulation. Driven by foreign and domestic market demand, the commercial

production of ranching, logging, export crops, or any combination of these, expands

into forest areas causing land degradation. Increased revenue from this expansion

allows for reinvestment into the means of production and the acquisition of new lands,

further concentrating land ownership among wealthy elites. Inevitably economies of

scale facilitate increases in production. Eventually the cycle is repeated as higher

returns from increasing deforestation perpetuate forest loss. The accumulation of land

Figure 1 Diagram of the Social Causes of Environmental Destruction in Latin America

Source: Durham, in Painter and Durham, 1995.

268 C. Hunt

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

enve

r] a

t 14:

16 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

in the hands of powerful interests, and the degradation caused from increasing production

lead to land scarcity and forced displacement of local populations into increasingly mar-

ginal areas (Durham, 1995).

Through this concentration of land and displacement of the poor, a link is created

from the first cycle of capital accumulation to a second pathway of impoverishment.

Forced into less productive areas, the displaced poor must place greater demands on

the household and their surroundings in an effort to maintain subsistence production,

elevating the economic value of children as a form of household labor. Attempts to

expand, intensify, and diversify household activities ultimately place unsustainable

demands on already marginal soils. With no means to acquire new productive lands,

even increasing household efforts result in a vicious cycle of decreasing yields. As sub-

sistence agriculture activities are abandoned, a new pool of wage seekers emerges, and

when these are coupled with the population growth created from the increased labor

value of children, an overabundance of cheap labor develops. Many wage laborers

are forced to migrate elsewhere for work, while others take low-level employment

from those with increasing control of the growing means of commercial production.

The competition for the wage positions effectively subsidizes the labor expenses of

wealthier producers, thereby feeding back directly into the previous cycle of commer-

cial production.

The unequal power relations and associated environmental destruction exposed by the

political ecology perspective have been documented in a number of development sectors

including agriculture (Stonich, 1995), forestry (Hecht and Cockburn, 1989; Moran et al.,

1998; Trejo and Dirzo, 2000), and disease ecology (Pedersen, 1996) to name but a few. Yet

since tourism is also an industry strongly linked to the spread of capitalism (Mowforth and

Munt, 2008), a few scholars have recognized the utility of the political ecology approach

for examining tourism. Stonich (1998) and Campbell (1999) looked at tourism develop-

ment in rural Central America and found that locals have little influence on decisions

related to the nature of tourism development in their own communities, and that little

improvement in quality of life results from participation in tourism except among pre-

viously wealthy elites. Logan and Moseley (2002) likewise demonstrated how existing

power structures greatly diminish the ability of certain participants in Zimbabwe’s Com-

munal Areas Management Program for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) to achieve

the goals of poverty alleviation. Young (1999) and Belsky (1999) demonstrated how

pre-existing tensions over access to resources are perpetuated through ecotourism in

Mexico and Belize. Place (1998), Kent (2003), and Duffy (2002) reveal that conflicts

over rights to resources related to ecotourism and environmental preservation usually

favored power-advantaged external interests and came at the expense of locals’ loss of

access to resources.

Being the “largest scale movement of goods, services, and people that humanity has

ever perhaps ever seen” (Greenwood, 1989, p. 171), tourism by its very nature involves

unequal power relations and, for better and for worse, directly influences human-environ-

ment interactions. While political ecologists have often addressed “impoverishment of

poor agricultural workers due to the extractions of elites and the commodification of

‘Third World’ peoples and environments at the behest of international capitalists”

(Gwynne, 2004, p. 808), the approach is well-suited to research on tourism. The fact

that tourism appears as an export on balance sheets coupled with the virtual absence of

tourism in the country in the 1980s, it is best characterized as a non-traditional export

in Nicaragua. The use of a political ecology perspective here is thus consistent with its

use elsewhere in research on other non-traditional exports in the agricultural sector

(Stonich, 1995; Painter and Durham, 1995).

Passport to Development? 269

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

enve

r] a

t 14:

16 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

A Political Ecology of Tourism in Nicaragua: Tourism and Capital Accumulation

Located in the middle of an isthmus book-ended by two of the world’s most recognized

ecotourism destinations (Costa Rica and Belize), Nicaragua’s natural resource base posi-

tioned it well to take advantage of the worldwide growth in market demand for tourism

(UNWTO, 2010). It is the largest and least densely populated country in Central

America (INIDE, 2007) and is blessed with the world’s tenth largest freshwater lake, a

string of landscape-dominating volcanoes, virgin white sand beaches, cool mountainous

forests, and large tracts of rainforest along the southeastern border with Costa Rica

which form the largest lowland rainforests outside of the Amazon (Barany et al., 2001).

Yet through the 1980s tourism remained virtually non-existent in Nicaragua due to the

ongoing civil war between the Sandinistas and the Contras.

With the end of the conflict and the Sandinista loss in the 1990 election, the tourism

outlook changed dramatically in the 1990s. The Nicaraguan government is now actively

seeking to tap the market demand for tourism through a package of substantial economic

incentives and tax breaks in the 1999 Ley de Incentivo para la Industria Turıstica (Law

306), and later in the 2004 Ley General de Turismo (Law 495) (INTUR, 2009b).

Among the incentives for developers and operators are complete exoneration from impor-

tation, sales, materials, equipment, vehicle and property taxes for both foreign and Nicar-

aguan individuals and businesses involved in tourism-related activities.

As a result of these policy shifts, between 1997 and 2009 the commercial production of

tourism began in earnest. Between these years, tourist arrivals to Nicaragua increased

more than 250% from 358,439 to 931,904, and revenues from those arrivals more than

quadrupled from $74.4 million to $345.9 million (INTUR, 2009a). Tourism soared to

the top of the export list in 1997 where it has remained 12 of the last 13 years (2009a).

Though comprehensive tourism statistics for individual departments and municipalities

are lacking, one indication of the concentration of tourism development is the number

of lodging establishments and rooms available in each of the country’s departments.

Despite having the fewest residents of any of the five Pacific coast departments, Rivas

is second only to the capital department of Managua with respect to quantity of overnight

accommodations (INTUR, 2009a).

The tax vacations offered by Laws 306 and 495 are particularly attractive for specu-

lators interested in vacation home and rental properties, resulting in large-scale construc-

tion of multi-plot residential tourism complexes in the municipality of San Juan del Sur.

With 70-plus developments along approximately 40 km of coastline, the supposedly

public beachfront in this municipality is largely accounted for (Figure 2). The march of

tourism development, and the related deforestation and land concentration, continues

northward into neighboring municipality Tola and adjacent department Carazo. These

regions were at one time predominantly dry tropical forest, one of the most endangered

ecosystems (Janzen, 1988; Trejo and Dirzo, 2000). Elaborate constructions involving

dozens or even hundreds of home plots and a Jack Nicklaus-designed golf-course (Nick-

laus, 2009) strongly favor the remaining green, idyllic dry tropical forest over degraded

agricultural landscapes.

Nicaragua was one of few countries that experienced increased production of tourism,

that is, positive growth in an economically turbulent 2008 (WTTC, 2008). It currently

ranks second in Latin America in terms of forecasted tourism growth, and has the

region’s highest 10-year annual real growth in Travel and Tourism GDP and employment

(WTTC, 2010). Cruise ship visits have been arriving in increasing numbers to San Juan del

Sur, with 34,184 tourists disembarking from 42 cruise ships there in 2009 (INTUR,

2009a). Infrastructure being developed in San Juan del Sur includes a boardwalk-style

270 C. Hunt

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

enve

r] a

t 14:

16 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

Figure 2. Tourism Development on the San Juan del Sur Coastline

Source: Water’s Edge Realty, reproduced with permission.

Pa

sspo

rtto

Develo

pm

ent?

27

1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

enve

r] a

t 14:

16 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

welcoming area with street lamps and sidewalks, all in the interests of mass tourism and

cruise ship arrivals. Meanwhile, a large portion of the population living in the vicinity of

San Juan del Sur, including most interviewee households located a mere 5 km away, lack

necessities such as potable water and electricity.

As recently as 2002, the richest 10% of the population continued to control 48.8% of Nicar-

agua’s wealth, while the poorest 10% accounted for a mere 0.7%, representing one of the most

extreme disparities in the world at the time (World Bank, 2002). Furthermore, 45.1% of the

population survives on less than US$1 per day and a staggering 79.9% live on less than $2

per day (UNDP, 2005). Increasing foreign exchange leads the government to aggressively

court investors. By favoring aesthetic enhancements over community-identified needs,

tourism restricts the capital accumulation to those already involved its production, namely

the wealthy. With opportunities for local residents restricted to either the initial construction

efforts, or later worked in security and vigilance, the nature of tourism development only

exacerbates the extreme wealth divide in this country. Economies of scale favor increased pro-

duction, and with many of the large developments in Figure 2 awaiting investment for further

constructions, a self-perpetuating cycle of tourism production is ensured.

A Political Ecology of Tourism in Nicaragua: Displacement and Land Scarcity

Land speculation has become highly visible in San Juan del Sur, with realty marketing

encouraging investors to “get in before it’s too late.” The offices of US-based realtors Cald-

well Banker, Century 21, and REMAX, as well as their Nicaraguan counterparts, line the

streets of San Juan del Sur. In relation to the international market for tropical, white-sand

coastline, the prices in Nicaragua are considered highly under-valued. Land is parceled

for development as individual home or condominium lots, as one beachfront hotel employee

describes, “they are buying all the properties. There are no virgin beaches anymore. Lobster

and stuff like that is already gone. They are eating everything. This place is going to turn out

like the US!” Likewise a fishing boat operator notes, “There are investors. They are like

cigarettes—one isn’t bad, but a lot of them can harm your health! They keep taking away

access.” Along the coast of Nicaragua few property owners from 20 years ago remain.

The intense poverty in Nicaragua is used to leverage land sales from the poor at under-

market values. Disputed land claims and an ineffective legal system have led to even more

unfortunate situations. One rural San Juan del Sur residents recalls how his family was for-

cibly dislodged by wealthy ex-patriots developing a hotel nearby, “before that farm used to

be my father’s. I worked there, from 1978–1988. The family lived there during the Agrar-

ian Reform. It was 720 manzanas (approximately 495 hectares). When we would not

vacate the property, 200 men showed up with AK-47s, shotguns, machetes, and made

us leave.” Under pressure, residents move inland and away from coastal and forest

resources, as another rural San Juan del Sur resident explains: “There are more buildings.

Before, it used to be populated with fishermen’s houses or tradesmen. Now there are build-

ings up to the hills. The people have sold their homes only to end up far away where there

are no jobs. . .they didn’t know anything about it. If they had realized what it was all about,

they wouldn’t have sold their land.” When displacement onto marginal, less productive

lands is coupled with scarce access to other important marine and forest resources, the

yield of traditional subsistence activities plummets.

A Political Ecology of Tourism in Nicaragua: Pathways of Impoverishment

Impoverishment has long been institutionalized in Nicaragua. Per person income, which

reached a peak of U$814 in 1977, tanked during the Sandinista revolution and US-

272 C. Hunt

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

enve

r] a

t 14:

16 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

sponsored counter-revolution of the 1980s, falling as low as $453 by the end of the decade

(UNSTAT, 2008, in Gapminder, 2010). A resort worker remembers that “after the war

there was total poverty. There was nothing to eat, to take home to the family. Hunger

was the only thing that mattered at that time.” While incomes have risen in the years fol-

lowing the counter-revolution, reviewing purchasing power parities reveals that the 2007

gross national income per person of U$1707 still only represents half of the purchasing

power of the 1977 peak at U$3349 and little improvement over the 1950 levels of

U$1616 (Gapminder, 2010). The cause is clear for this rural resident of San Juan del

Sur, “nowadays all the things have gone up in price—a bag of cement costs way too

much. The gringos have bought up everything and that is jeopardizing us. People no

longer talk in cordobas here, they talk in dollars.” Among a subset of 20 impoverished

households surveyed along the road leading to Majagual Beach, a route which serves as

primary transportation artery for popular surfing beaches and numerous luxury tourism

developments, 95% reported unemployed family members. Even in the heart of tourism

development, the situation is increasingly difficult, as one neighboring woman succinctly

describes, “we are even poorer, but there is more work.”

Impoverished households, many experiencing displacement pressure due to nearby

hotel developments, are put under strain to increase household production via expansion,

intensification, and diversification of subsistence activities. Yet the land scarcity result-

ing from its accumulation among wealthy interests leaves residents little option but to

seek wage labor outside of the household to augment diminishing returns on subsistence

activities. In the words of a hotel employee, “the biggest threat is the poor people have to

leave the place. The tourists buy, and keep buying, and afterward the only thing there is,

is tourism. In San Juan del Sur they even want to do away with fishing!” Other unem-

ployed households survive on family contributions or credit with local stores. This

weighs heavily on one rural single mother, “we take things out of the store—they

give us an account but since we are not working, we don’t have any money to pay

with. We are depressed. It’s already been several months without work. The account

is only for 15 days.”

While most residents were reluctant to report their involvement in hunting, few people

fault subsistence hunters for acting on necessity as one resident here explains, “look, the

people here in Nicaragua lack many things. When they see an animal walk by and they

are hungry, they take them.” A neighbor points out how the conservation policies aimed

at providing wildlife viewing opportunities for tourists are depriving rural poor of their sub-

sistence needs, “taking care of animals is one thing, but mistreating people is another.” Resi-

dents recognize the disappearance of not just the wildlife populations but also marketable

tropical hardwoods outside of private reserves and formal tree plantations. There is consen-

sus among them about the destination of this wood, “the people deforest in order to sell wood

to the gringos.” As a result, “the animals have to go some other place. Nowadays hardly

anyone knows the animals.” The lack of trees contributes to other negative effects. As a resi-

dent living adjacent to a high-end “ecolodge” explained, “there are many forests that have

been cut down. The rivers and wells dry up. There is no shade.” Recognizing the hydrolo-

gical disruption, some are concerned that “if there are no trees there is no rainy season.”

Displacement, deforestation, and reduction in subsistence hunting resources, along with

new policies unjustly applied to the poor, contribute to decreased production of rural house-

holds. Indiscriminate deforestation has led to a permitting process for legally cut timber in

Nicaragua. Even when for personal use on private property, the expenses incurred by filing

of paperwork and traveling to agency offices to obtain these permits are prohibitively high

for rural poor, thus these policies effectively criminalize them for cutting trees for home

repair or for selling wood cut on their own land. For affluent hotel and resort investors

Passport to Development? 273

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

enve

r] a

t 14:

16 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

obtaining such permits, legally or otherwise, presents a negligible economic obstacle to

clearing extensive tracts of tropical forest. An employee of one such hotel explains “the

only place the law is applied is to the most humble people—those that don’t have the

resources to pay. They impose a fine on them. On the great exporters of wood there is no

penalty. That is the great corruption here.” A similar class-based double-standard exists

for hunting which is allowed only for members of exclusive hunting clubs but is prohibited

for those relying on it for subsistence.

Efforts to seek wage labor elsewhere leads to abandonment of subsistence agriculture as well,

leaving no cultivation to fall back on when work is scarce. Nationally, the cost of the canasta

basica a calculation of the costs of a collection of basic living expenses required to feed a

family for a month, “is more expensive than ever,” rising by 12% in the first ten months of

2008 due to the worldwide food crisis (INIDE, 2008). Several hotel employees confirm that

the increases are even higher in areas of tourism development, “the exact same thing, like a

plate of food or some property, are much more expensive around here than in other parts (of

the country).” Another worker illustrates the double-edged sword of tourism in the area,

“they come here to invest and that is fine. But the prices go up. They can pay but we can’t.”

Feedback Mechanisms

Economic difficulties have long motivated Nicaraguans to seek better incomes via

migration to neighboring Costa Rica, where they currently comprise 8% of the Costa

Rican labor force (Gindling, 2008). Despite their employment at an ecolodge, several indi-

viduals expressed their intentions to return to Costa Rica for work because the hotel “is

almost the same thing as going to Costa Rica to work. You only see the family every

three months.” Ironically, the paucity of jobs in other areas of Nicaragua stimulates in-

migration to this corner of the country. As one tree plantation worker phrased it, “they

come to sit down at the table that is already prepared.” Migrant workers swell the

ranks, devalue local labor, and bring an unrecognized presence to the area. Locally they

are cited as responsible for increased aggravated crime against tourists in recent years,

including a violent attack and kidnapping of an ex-patriot family in San Juan del Sur,

leading to an elevated travel advisory for Nicaragua.

Population increase in San Juan del Sur has been dramatic. In 1971 it was a small fishing

village of 6,891 residents. Due to the tumultuous situation in the country, the next census

was not conducted until 1995, by which time the town had grown to 13,125 residents, and

then to 16,694 in 2004 (INIDE, 2008). Yet this census data fail to capture the large foreign

resident population, the transient vacation home owners that collectively account for both

a notable increase in the population and much higher per capita resource consumption, or

the influx of construction workers. More competition among local resident for fewer

jobs makes it all too easy for large producers to take advantage, thus linking this

poverty feedback loop to that of commercial production and capital accumulation

(Figure 3).

Discussion and Conclusions

Despite its attractiveness as a foreign exchange earner and “Passport to Development”

(deKadt, 1979), the tourism industry has long been dominated by wealthy countries

(Turner, 1976). The UN World Tourism Organization has been accused of data manipu-

lation that “hoodwinks people about the supposed benefits of tourism” (Pleumarom,

2001, p. 7). By giving the nod to foreign investors, Nicaragua is hoodwinking its rural

poor. The government incentivizes tourism but leaves the planning up to investors. This

274 C. Hunt

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

enve

r] a

t 14:

16 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

is consistent with the view that few governments in developing countries devote the time or

effort required to ensure proper tourism planning for risk of driving off highly desired

foreign investment (Tosun and Jenkins, 1998; Tosun, 2005). While Jafari’s (1990)

statement that all forms of development come with desirable changes as well unwanted

consequences holds here, the extent to which tourism provides more of the former and

less of the latter has not been conclusively demonstrated in Nicaragua. The need for

additional tourism research to guide the planning process in this burgeoning destination

persists. More detailed documentation of the socioeconomic and environmental impacts

of increasing ex-patriot and immigrant populations would be an important first step.

It is in rural areas where tourism planning is most lacking (Campbell, 1999), often leaving

host communities little choice in becoming a destination (Stronza, 2001; West and Carrier,

2004; Cater, 2006). Devastated by war, natural and unnatural disasters, and a debt-driven

need for foreign exchange, Nicaragua is aggressively promoting tourism in rural areas.

Twenty years after re-entering the global marketplace and initiating tourism development,

economic growth in that sector has been notable. The zone surrounding San Juan del Sur

serves as the vanguard for coastal tourism development in other parts of the country, yet

little systematic research is taking place. Though revenues from tourism have more than

Figure 3. Conceptual Model Elaborated to Nicaraguan Conditions.

Passport to Development? 275

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

enve

r] a

t 14:

16 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

quadrupled in the past decade, economic gains to date are more likely a reflection of the low

baselines provided by the staggering poverty than of any specific efforts to address institu-

tionalized poverty, inequality, or environmental degradation. As it serves as a test-ground for

tourism elsewhere in the country, further research on tourism development in this region,

and in particular comparative analysis of impacts in rural areas and urban centers, is critical

to the future on tourism in Nicaragua.

Rather than banking on the eco-friendly tourism success enjoyed by its neighbor during

the 1990s, Nicaragua is instead taking its cue from the latest trend of residential tourism

and sand, sun and sex model being adopted along Costa Rica’s northern Pacific province of

Guanacaste in recent years, as documented by Honey et al. (2010). This form of large-

scale development presents a dangerous threat to that country’s green image. Yet as

tourism zoning, restrictions, and awareness of the negative consequences of over-

development increase in Costa Rica, a balloon effect makes Nicaragua an increasingly

attractive option for large-scale investors, already highly incentivized to develop there

by Laws 306 and 495. Thus the large-scale residential resort concept could come to dom-

inate the tourist imagination of Nicaragua as well.

Just as it has in other sectors (Blaikie and Brookfield, 1987; Peet and Watts, 1996; Painter

and Durham, 1995), the work presented here demonstrates the utility of a political ecology

approach for revealing discrepancies between aggregate macro-economic indicators of

growth and the on-the-ground environmental and social consequences for those most

directly affected by development. Since tourism has developed so recently in Nicaragua,

continuing research is needed to verify the claims put forth here. Furthermore, aspects of

the conceptual model not overwhelmingly supported by qualitative information here, such

as the economic value of children, could be more closely examined in the context of

tourism. Since the framework was originally developed to describe agricultural development

programs, it is natural that children contribute economically, in the form of labor, to house-

hold production. In a service-oriented industry such as tourism there may be fewer oppor-

tunities for children and therefore their contributions, in the form of labor or income, may

not offset their additional economic burden. Clarifying the impacts of tourism on younger

generations certainly warrants additional research.

In closing, the rapid nature of tourism development in Nicaragua, coupled with institu-

tionalized inequality and lack of prior planning or research, yields many concerns. Follow-

ing in the footsteps of previous development paradigms, the exportation of non-traditional

commodities with high market value including tourism, despite offering early gains for

small producers, eventually leads domination by larger producers who harness economies

of scale to consolidate the means of commercial production (Painter and Durham, 1995).

Although additional empirical evidence gathered over time is needed to substantiate this

initial effort, tourism’s current place at the top of the export list, and the continued growth

of tourism in Nicaragua despite the worldwide economic downturn, provide little indi-

cation that these processes will change any time soon.

Acknowledgements

Funding for the field research for this paper was provided by the NSF Cultural Anthropology

Program (Award number 0724347; PI Amanda Stronza), and the writing was supported by

both the Roger and Cynthia Lang and the Peter S. Bing Fund for Environmental Anthropol-

ogy at Stanford University as well as the Center for Responsible Travel. Thank you to

Henkel Smith from Water’s Edge Realty for permission to reproduce the map in

Figure 3. Lastly, thank you to the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on

earlier versions of this manuscript.

276 C. Hunt

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

enve

r] a

t 14:

16 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

References

Barany, M.E., Hammett, A.L., Shillington, L.J. and Murphy, B.R. (2001) The Role of Private Wildlife Reserves

in Nicaragua’s Emerging Ecotourism Industry, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 9(2), pp. 95–110.

Bebbington, A. (1999) Capitals and Capabilities: A Framework for Analyzing Peasant Viability, Rural Liveli-

hoods and Poverty, World Development, 27(12), pp. 2021–44.

Belsky, J.M. (1999) Misrepresenting Communities: The Politics of Community-Based Rural Tourism in Gales

Point Manatee, Belize, Rural Sociology, 64(4), pp. 641–66.

Blaikie, P. and Brookfield, H. (1987) Land Degradation and Society (London: Methuen).

Bryant, R.L. (1997) Beyond the Impasse: The Power of Political Ecology in Third World Environmental

Research, Area, 29(1), pp. 5–19.

Campbell, L. (1999) Ecotourism in Rural Developing Communities, Annals of Tourism Research, 26(3),

pp. 534–53.

Carbone, M. (2005) Sustainable Tourism in Developing Countries: Poverty Alleviation, Participatory Planning,

and Ethical Issues, European Journal of Development Research, 17(3), pp. 559–65.

Carroll, R. (2007) Ortega Banks on Tourism to Beat Poverty, The Guardian. Available at: http://www.guardian.

co.uk/world/2007/jan/07/rorycarroll.theobserver (accessed 13April 2009).

Cater, E. (2006) Ecotourism as Western Construct, Journal of Ecotourism, 5(1–2), pp. 23–39.

Christ, C., Hillel, O., Matus, S. and Sweeting, J. (2003) Tourism and Biodiversity: Mapping Tourism’s Global

Footprint (Washington, DC: UNEP and Conservation International).

Dijkstra, E. (1979) Tourism: Passport to Development? (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Djikstra, A.G. (1999) Technocracy Questioned: Assessing Economic Stabilisation in Nicaragua, Bulletin of Latin

America Research, 18(3), pp. 295–310.

Duffy, R. (2002) A Trip too Far: Ecotourism, Politics, and Exploitation (London: Earthscan).

Durham, W. (1995) Political ecology and environmental destruction in Latin America, in: M. Painter and W.

Durham (Eds) The Social Causes of Environmental Destruction in Latin America, pp. 249–64 (Ann Arbor:

University of Michigan Press).

Gapminder (2010) Gapminder World. Gapminder Foundation. Available at: http://www.gapminder.org/

(accessed 13August 2010).

Gasparini, L., Gutierrez, F. and Tornarolli, L. (2005) Growth and Income Poverty in Latin America and the Car-

ibbean: Evidence from Household Surveys. Centro de Estudios Distributivos, Laborales, y Sociales: Docu-

mento de Trabajo Nro. 30 (Buenos Aires: Universidad Nacional de La Plata).

Gindling, T.H. (2008) South-South Migration: The Impact of Nicaraguan Immigrants on Earnings, Inequality,

and Poverty in Costa Rica, World Development, 37(1), pp. 116–26.

Greenwood, D.J. (1989) Culture by the pound: An anthropological perspective on tourism as cultural commodi-

fication, in: V.L. Smith (Ed.) Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism, pp. 171–86. (Philadelphia: Uni-

versity of Pennsylvania Press).

Gwynne, R.N. (2004) Editor’s Introduction: Political Economy, Resource Use and Latin American Environ-

ments, Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 25(3), pp. 247–60.

Hawkesworth, S. and Garcıa Perez, J.D. (2003) Potentials and Constraints of the Farmer-to Farmer Programme

for Environmental Protection in Nicaragua, Land Degradation and Development, 14, pp. 175–88.

Hawkins, D.E. and Maun, S. (2007) The World Bank’s Role in Tourism Development, Annals of Tourism

Research, 34(2), pp. 348–63.

Hecht, S. and Cockburn, A. (1989) The Fate of the Forest (New York: Harper Collins).

Honey, M., Vargas, E. and Durham, W. (2010) Impact of Tourism Related Development on the Pacific Coast of

Costa Rica: Summary Report (Stanford and Washington, DC: Center for Responsible Travel).

IFPRI (2009) Global Hunger Index: The Challenge of Hunger: Focus on Financial Crisis and Gender Inequality

(Bonn, Washington, DC: Dublin: International Food Policy Research Institute).

INIDE (2007) Estimaciones y Proyecciones de Poblacion Nacional, Departamental, y Municipal: Revision 2007.

[Estimations and Projections of the National, Departmental, and Municipal Population: 2007 Revision].

(Managua, Nicaragua: Instituto Nacional de Informacion de Desarrollo).

INIDE (2008) Compendio Estadıstico. [Statistical Compendium]. (Managua, Nicaragua: Instituto Nacional de

Informacion de Desarrollo).

INTUR (2009a) Boletın de Estadısticas de Turismo. [Bulletin of Tourism Statistics]. (Managua, Nicaragua: Insti-

tuto Nacional de Turismo).

INTUR (2009b) Marco Juridico—Ley No. 306. [Legal Framework-Law No. 306]. Instituto Nacional de Turismo.

Available at http://www.intur.gob.ni/ley306.html (accessed 13August 2010).

Jafari, J. (1990) Research and Scholarship: The Basis of Tourism Education, The Journal of Tourism Studies,

1(1), pp. 33–41.

Passport to Development? 277

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

enve

r] a

t 14:

16 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

Janzen, D.H. (1988) Tropical dry forests: The most endangered major tropical ecosystem, in: E.O. Wilson (Ed.)

Biodiversity, pp. 130–37 (Washington, DC: National Academy Press).

Jonakin, J. (1996) The Impact of Structural Adjustment and Property Rights Conflicts on Nicaragua Agrarian

Reform Beneficiaries, World Development, 24(7), pp. 1179–91.

Keeling, D.J. (2004) Latin American Development and the Globalization Imperative: New Directions, Familiar

Crises, Journal of Latin American Geography, 3(1), pp. 1–21.

Kent, M. (2003) Ecotourism, Environmental Preservation and Conflicts Over Natural Resources, Horizontes

Antropologicos, 9(20), pp. 185–203.

Logan, B.I. and Moseley, W.G. (2002) The Political Ecology of Poverty Alleviation in Zimbabwe’s Communal

Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE), Geoforum, 33(1), pp. 1–14.

Loker, W.M. (1996) “Campesinos” and the Crisis of Modernization in Latin America, Journal of Political

Ecology, 3, pp. 69–88.

Moran, E., Ostrom, E. and Randolph, J.C. (1998) A Multilevel Approach to Studying Global Environmental

Change in Forest Ecosystems (unpublished) (Bloomington, IN: Center for the Study of Institutions, Population,

and Environmental Change).

Mowforth, M. and Munt, I. (2008) Tourism and Sustainability: Development, Globalization, and New Tourism in

the Third World (London and New York: Routledge).

Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., da Fonseca, G.A.B. and Kent, J. (2000) Biodiversity hotspots

for conservation priorities, Nature, 403, pp. 853–58.

Nicklaus, J. (2009) Available at: http://www.nicklaus.com/design/nngc/index7.php (13 August 2010)

Painter, M. and Durham, W.H. (1995) The Social Causes of Environmental Destruction in Latin America (Ann

Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press).

Pedersen, D. (1996) Disease Ecology at a Crossroads: Man-Made Environments, Human Rights and Perpetual

Development Utopias, Social Science and Medicine, 43(5), pp. 745–58.

Peet, R. and Watts, M. (1996) Liberation Ecologies: Environment, Development, Social Movements (London:

Routledge).

Pielke, R.A., Rubiera, J., Landsea, C., Fernandez, M.L. and Klein, R. (2003) Hurricane Vulnerability in Latin

America and the Caribbean: Normalized Damage and Loss Potentials, Natural Hazards Review, 3, pp. 101–14.

Pisani, M.J. (2003) The Negative Impact of Structural Adjustment on Sectoral Earnings in Nicaragua, Review of

Radical Political Economics, 35(2), pp. 107–25.

Place, S. (1998) How sustainable is ecotourism in Costa Rica? in: C. Hall and A. Lew (Eds) Sustainable Tourism:

A Geographical Perspective, pp. 107–18 (New York: Addison-Wesley-Longman).

Pleumarom, A. (2001) Campaign on Corporate Power in Tourism (COCPIT). Clearinghouse for Reviewing Eco-

tourism, no 1. (Bangkok: TIM-Team).

Stonich, S. (1995) Development, rural impoverishment, and environmental destruction in Honduras, in: M.

Painter and W. Durham (Eds) The Social Causes of Environmental Destruction in Latin America, pp. 63–99

(Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press).

Stonich, S.C. (1998) Political Ecology of Tourism, Annals of Tourism Research, 25(1), pp. 25–54.

Stronza, A. (2001) The Anthropology of Tourism: Forging New Ground for Ecotourism and Other Alternatives,

Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, pp. 261–83.

Stronza, A. (2008) The bold agenda of ecotourism, in: A. Stronza and W. Durham (Eds) Ecotourism and Con-

servation in the Americas, pp. 3–17 (Waltingford, UK: CABI).

Tosun, C. (2005) Stages in the Emergence of a Participatory Tourism Development Approach in the Developing

World, Geoforum, 36, pp. 333–52.

Tosun, C. and Jenkins, C.L. (1998) The Evolution of Tourism Planning in Third World Countries: A Critique,

Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, 4, pp. 101–14.

Townsend, P.K. (2009) Environmental Anthropology: From Pigs to Policies, 2nd edn (Long Grove, IL: Wave-

land Press).

Trejo, I. and Dirzo, R. (2000) Deforestation of Seasonally Dry Tropical Forest: A National and Local Analysis in

Mexico, Biological Conservation, 94, pp. 133–42.

Turner, L. (1976) The International Division of Leisure: Tourism and the Third World, World Development, 4(3),

pp. 253–60.

UNDP (2005) Human Development Report: International Cooperation at a Crossroads: Aid, Trade and Security

in an Unequal World (York: ted Nations Development Programme).

UNWTO (2010) Tourism—An Economic and Social Phenomenon. (Madrid: United Nations World Tourism

Organization). Available at: http://www.unwto.org/aboutwto/why/en/why.php?op=1 (accessed 13 August

2010).

Weinburg, A., Bellows, S. and Ekster, D. (2002) Sustaining Ecotourism: Insights and Implications from Two Suc-

cessful Case Studies, Society and Natural Resources, 15, pp. 371–80.

278 C. Hunt

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

enve

r] a

t 14:

16 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

West, P. and Carrier, J. (2004) Ecotourism and Authenticity: Getting Away from It All? Current Anthropology,

45(4), pp. 483–91.

Wolf, E. (1972) Ownership and Political Ecology, Anthropological Quarterly, 45(3), pp. 201–5.

World Bank (2002) World Development Indicators (New York: World Bank).

WTTC (2008) The 2008 Travel & Tourism Economic Research: Nicaragua. Travel & Tourism—The Winds of

Change (London: World Travel and Tourism Council).

WTTC (2010) Travel & Tourism Economic Impact: Nicaragua (London: World Travel and Tourism Council).

Young, E.H. (1999) Balancing Conservation with Development in Small-Scale Fisheries: Is Ecotourism an

Empty Promise?, Human Ecology, 27(4), pp. 581–620.

Passport to Development? 279

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f D

enve

r] a

t 14:

16 1

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

012

376 HUMAN ORGANIZATION

Human Organization, Vol. 70, No. 4, 2011Copyright © 2011 by the Society for Applied Anthropology0018-7259/11/040376-11$.60/1

Introduction

For more than two decades, ecotourism has been a global and collective experiment in sustainable development. Since publication of Our Common Future (Brundtland

1987), development agencies, foundations, and environmen-tal organizations have promoted ecotourism as a potential strategy for conserving biodiversity while also meeting the needs of people. The United Nations declared 2002 the “Inter-national Year of Ecotourism,” and in 2003, over 160 nations attending the World Parks Congress endorsed ecotourism as an appropriate vehicle for supporting biodiversity in all

Carter A. Hunt is a Postdoctoral Fellow in Environmental Anthropol-ogy at Stanford University and the Woods Institute for the Environ-ment. Amanda Stronza is an Environmental Anthropologist; Associate Professor in Recreation, Park, and Tourism Sciences; and co-Director of the NSF-IGERT Program in Applied Biodiversity Science at Texas A&M University. Funding for the field research for this paper was pro-vided by the NSF Cultural Anthropology Program (PI: Stronza, Award #0724347). The preparation of this manuscript was further supported by the Roger and Cynthia Lang and the Peter S. Bing Postdoctoral Fellowships in Environmental Anthropology, and the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University. The authors are grateful to several anonymous reviewers who supplied very helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

Missing the Forest for the Trees?: Incongruous Local Perspectives on Ecotourism in Nicaragua

Converge on Ethical IssuesCarter A. Hunt and Amanda L. Stronza

Recent writings on ethics in tourism do little to represent local hosts’ perceptions of the ethical nature of tourism and instead focus primarily on the role of industry and tour operators. In this paper, we bring local perceptions to the fore in comparing the ideal and the real in ecotourism. Using ethnographic observations and interviews, we describe how local residents near an ecotourism lodge along the Pacific Coast of Nicaragua first perceive and assess the ideals and sustainability of ecotourism in locally-grounded, realistic ways, often taking into account the broader social, economic, and environmental context of Nicaragua. Though people tend to be highly critical of the operation, they also acknowledge many relative merits of the ecotourism project’s work. We then focus on narratives related to the ethical performance of this project. Here, people were less generous in their remarks and found little about the ecotourism project to support. This analysis demonstrates how failing to capture critical local evaluations of ethical aspects of project performance allows greenwashing abuses to persist unchecked and, thereby, nullifies those elements which distinguish ecotourism from other forms of tourism. Future research and certification efforts must make a greater effort to assess local perceptions of ethical performance.

Key words: ecotourism, ethnography, sustainability, conservation, Nicaragua, ethics

protected areas. In the realm of commerce, ecotourism is the fastest growing sector in tourism, the world’s largest industry (UNWTO 2007).

With many researchers seeking to evaluate results of the experiment in sustainability, scholarly attention to ecotour-ism has likewise increased. Evidence for this is indicated by Social Science Citation Index searches for ecotourism in each of the previous three decades (1980-1989; 1990-1999; 2000-2009) which reveal 1, 108, and 300 studies produced in these respective time periods (and 139, 7,190, and 16,000, respectively, for similar timeframes in Google Scholar). In their excellent review of ecotourism scholarship over the past 20 years, Weaver and Lawton (2007) characterize this body of literature as having three primary foci: market segmentation, ecological impacts of wildlife viewing, and community-based ecotourism.

The growing scholarship on ecotourism is replete with competing and conflicting ideas on the merits of ecotourism for conservation and development (Higham 2007). On-the-ground examinations of ecotourism tend to reveal a gap between the principled, scholarly idealizations of what ecotourism should be and the pragmatics of what it ultimately becomes (Medina 2005; Ross and Wall 1999). This gap raises both empirical and philosophical questions, which many scholars have pursued. Is ecotourism a true alternative to conventional tourism (Cater and Lowman 1994; Kontogeorgopoulos 2004; Weaver 2001)?

377VOL. 70, NO. 4, WINTER 2011

Does it have the power to change how the tourism industry affects the communities and environments of destinations, or is it simply an old idea repackaged in green (Cater 2006)? Can ecotourism reliably serve the development needs of local communities while also protecting the environment (Durham 2008; Stonich 2000)? What are the empirical benefits and costs of ecotourism (Kiss 2004), and how do they change over time (Stronza 2010)? How and by whose criteria should we measure and monitor impacts (Mathieson and Wall 1987)?

At the heart of these questions lies a concern for discerning greenwashing, or the practice of falsely claiming to be sustain-able (Honey 2008), from genuine efforts to use tourism as a tool for conservation and development. This divide is reflected in the gap between the practice and theory of ecotourism. On one end, projects have provided outcomes consistent with what ecotour-ism is theoretically promoted to achieve, such as income and employment opportunities (Campbell 1999; Langholz 1999; Stronza 2007), an improved environmental ethic (Stronza and Pegas 2008; Wunder 2000), and an enhanced sense of well-being (Scheyvens 1999; Stronza and Gordillo 2008). On the other end of the spectrum, operators and promoters may comply with accepted standards only to the extent necessary to maintain the contentment of tourists during visits or use eco-rhetoric to carry ecotourism to broader markets. Such hijacked versions of ecotourism stray substantially from the International Ecotour-ism Society’s definition as “responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves the well-being of local people” (TIES 1990).

Though it may be a simple task to characterize projects lying at one end or the other of a spectrum between re-sponsible ecotourism and greenwashing, most projects will likely fall into gray areas between these two extremes. Such a broad range of outcomes has led to a suggestion that “two ecotourisms” exist (Wight 1993); however, it is likely that the use of different evaluation criteria can result in a given project being characterized in multiple ways. This reality is further complicated by significant variation in meanings of terms like participation, community, benefits, and ecotourism, which depend on who is being asked (Medina 2005; Stronza and Gordillo 2008) and the level at which they are analyzed (Hunt and Stronza 2009).

Greenwashing is inextricably linked to the issue of ethics. Increasingly, scholars are calling attention to tourism’s ethical aspects (Fennell 2006; Wight 2007). Despite the concern for a more ethical implementation of tourism, Fennell (2001) has shown that 80 percent of the definitions of ecotourism do not even address ethical considerations. The recent writings on ethics in tourism do little to represent local hosts’ perceptions of the ethical nature of tourism and instead focus primarily on the role of industry and tour operators (Fennell 2006; Fennell and Malloy 2007; Fleckenstein and Huebsch 1999; Malloy and Fennell 1998; Smith and Duffy 2003). Mechanisms pro-posed to deal with these aspects include ethical frameworks (Fennell and Malloy 1995, 1999), codes of ethics (Malloy and Fennell 1998, Fennell and Malloy 2007) , codes of con-duct (Genot 1995), corporate social responsibility programs

(Wight 2007), and the certification programs (Font and Harris 2004; Honey 2002; Honey and Rome 2001). Yet often these programs are created and implemented by dominant corporate interests that subordinate environmental interests to concern for profit (Sasidharan and Font 2001).

In this paper, we bring local perceptions to the fore in comparing the ideal and the real in ecotourism in order to contribute a much needed local host perspective of ethics in tourism. How are local peoples involved in such develop-ment, if at all? What do people perceive as benefits and costs of such development? Do their perspectives match or collide with broader and idealistic discourses on ecotourism? We shed light on the gray area between Wight’s (1993) two eco-tourisms by comparing the theoretical notions of ecotourism promoted by international actors (i.e., scholars, consultants, marketers, and NGOs) and the views of locals who experience the practice of ecotourism firsthand (Zeppell 2007).

Using ethnographic observations and interviews, we de-scribe how local residents near Morgan’s Rock Hacienda and Ecolodge along the Pacific Coast of Nicaragua perceive and assess the ideals and sustainability of ecotourism in locally grounded, realistic ways, often taking into account the broader social, economic, and environmental context of Nicaragua. Though people tend to be highly critical of the operation, they also acknowledge certain favorable outcomes. We then focus on specific comments related to the ethical performance of this project. Here, people were less generous in their remarks and found little about Morgan’s Rock to support. We will argue how such comments about ethics provide a key marker for distinguishing responsible ecotourism from its greenwashed counterpart and are thus essential for enhancing the sustain-ability of tourism as well as the effectiveness of sustainable tourism certification programs.

Study Methods

This paper is based on six months of ethnographic re-search in the Department of Rivas, Nicaragua, located along the country’s southwestern coast. Morgan’s Rock was chosen as the focus of our study on local perceptions of ecotourism—the ideal and the real—for several reasons. First, it gave the primary author an opportunity to build on previous experience and knowledge of in-country tourism acquired during work on an ecotourism project and organic coffee farm in another region of Nicaragua. Second, the operation is self-described as “a project of nature conservation, community development, and reforestation offering Agro- and Ecotourism at its best” (Morgan’s Rock 2009) and was the only project garnering extensive praise in travel magazines, websites including Trip Advisor, and other popular media at the time of the fieldwork.

Third, the owners modeled themselves after the acclaimed Lapa Ríos Ecolodge in Costa Rica, with initial operations sup-ported by Cayuga Sustainable Hospitality. Furthermore, their promotional materials also included convincing and elaborate descriptions of social and environmental accomplishments. Lastly, the study region in Rivas, Nicaragua lies just north of

378 HUMAN ORGANIZATION

the Costa Rican border and is the current nexus of tourism development in the country. As goes Rivas, and the munici-pality of San Juan del Sur more specifically, so goes much of Nicaragua’s Pacific Coast. The location is breathtaking, the facilities stunningly designed, and the service quite impec-cable. From the initial visits to the “front of house,” all praise appeared well-deserved.

We gathered local views of Morgan’s Rock through structured and semi-structured interviews, participant obser-vation, informal discussions, and site visits to tourism projects around the San Juan del Sur area. We also culled secondary data from the National Institute of Tourism (INTUR), the National Institute of Development Information (INIDE), the National Institute of the Census and Statistics, the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MARENA), the World Bank, USAID, NGO documents, and previous research (Babb 2004; Barany et al. 2001; Ham and Whipple 1998; Hernán-dez and Schwartz 1998; Weaver, Lombardo, and Martínez Sánchez 2003). Between January and June of 2008, the first author lived in San Juan del Sur. In February and March, under full research disclosure he was granted permission to stay in Morgan’s Rock Hacienda and Ecolodge employee dormitories by the lodge administrator in exchange for as-sistance with English instruction for the staff. This allowed total access to hotel staff, several work areas (reception, guiding, restaurant wait/bar/kitchen, gardening, maintenance, cleaning, security, driving), and tourist activities (dry tropical forest and riverbed walks, artisanal fishing, estuary kayaking, night walks, and excursions to Volcano Mombacho and the Isletas of Granada). This work also entailed recording basic demographic information from 45 individuals employed at the hotel at the time.

To accompany the participant observation data, the primary author conducted structured interviews with 60 in-dividuals. These included 20 employees indirectly involved in ecotourism at Morgan’s Rock Hacienda at the pre-existing farm and tree plantation (la finca), 20 employees directly involved in ecotourism at Morgan’s Rock Ecolodge (hotel), and the 20 heads of rural households residing adjacent to the Morgan’s Rock the property. Finca and Hotel employees were purposively sampled to cover the range of occupations represented at Morgan’s Rock. For the hotel, these included maintenance, cleaning, gardening, cooks, waiters/bartenders, and drivers; and for the finca, macheteros (unskilled laborers whose primary tool is the machete), trash collectors, tractor drivers, boat drivers, night watchmen, a mechanic, and an assistant administrator. Interviews took place while the first author was present on the Morgan’s Rock property, either in the administrative areas in the case of employees from the tree plantation or in the staff dormitories for the hotel employees. Local residents were interviewed in their homes, purposively sampled as the 20 households in closest proximity to the Morgan’s Rock.

The structured interviews focused on participation in the tourism economy, opportunities for involvement in manage-ment, perspectives on tourism in the region and Morgan’s

Rock specifically, environmental concerns, and perceptions of overall quality of life. In addition to structured interviews, semi-structured and ad hoc interviews were conducted with key informants: the son of the hotel’s formal owners who is the project’s brainchild and oversees the reservation office operating out of San Jose, Costa Rica; the finca administra-tor; naturalist guides; former employees; a tourism consultant from Costa Rica; ex-patriot homeowners; employees of the realty office affiliated with Morgan’s Rock who sell nearby vacation properties; former owners of the agricultural coop-erative where Morgan’s Rock is currently located; and numer-ous other tourists and foreign developers in San Juan del Sur. The first administrator of Morgan’s Rock shared dated journal entries of experiences during the initial years of operation.

The Study Region

The passing of Nicaraguan Laws 306 and 495, which ex-onerate tourism investors from importation, sales, materials, equipment, and vehicle and property taxes (INTUR 2009), has increased the development of tourist infrastructure dramati-cally in recent years. Coupled with relative political stabil-ity and a tourism-friendly attitude of the current Sandinista administration (Carroll 2007), tourist arrivals to Nicaragua have risen over 250 percent, and tourism revenues have nearly quadrupled between 1997 and 2009 (INTUR 2009). The De-partment of Rivas has the smallest and least dense population of all coastal departments, yet only the capital department of Managua has a greater number of lodging establishments (INTUR 2007). Although tourism is developing throughout Nicaragua, much of the focus is on the area between Managua and the coastal region of Rivas.

Located near the Costa Rican border, Rivas consists of a narrow isthmus flanked by Lake Nicaragua and the Pacific Ocean. National statistics estimate the 2008 population of the Department of Rivas at 167,139 out of the Nicaraguan total of 5.1 million (INIDE 2007). The fifth most populous municipality of Rivas is San Juan del Sur, home to 15,347 inhabitants (in 2007). A sleepy fishing village a few de-cades ago, San Juan del Sur is a longtime favorite among the international surf crowd. Cruise ships are arriving in increasing numbers, and foreign dollars continue to pour into hotel, vacation rentals, and all-inclusive vacation home and resort communities, including a Jack Nicklaus (2009) designed golf course community. In total, approximately 70 resort, vacation home, and residential tourist develop-ments have been established along the 20 km to the north and south of San Juan del Sur. Century 21, REMAX, and Caldwell Banker maintain offices there, and foreign capital is having a visible impact on the Nicaraguan geographic and cultural landscape.

Morgan’s Rock Hacienda and Ecolodge

Morgan’s Rock was created on the site of a former co-operative of peasant farmers who acquired the land through

379VOL. 70, NO. 4, WINTER 2011

agrarian reforms of the 1980s. The wealthy Ponçon family of French descent began purchasing the degraded pasture land piecemeal from these local residents beginning in the early 1990s. The first years at Morgan’s Rock were dedicated to the planting of commercially viable tropical hardwoods, an activity that employed many surrounding residents. Later, the Ponçon family developed an ecotourism operation inspired by the conservation and sustainable development philosophies of the acclaimed Lapa Ríos Ecolodge in Costa Rica. The fam-ily followed in the footsteps of Lapa Ríos by employing the specialty management group, Cayuga Sustainable Hospital-ity, to conduct feasibility studies, share in design and layout, perform start-up training, and install the first administrator. This firm manages several boutique ecolodges certified with four and five green leaves under the Costa Rican Certificate for Sustainability in Tourism (CST) Program.

The amenities read like an ecotourism wish list. The 15 luxury cabins sit on forested bluffs with optimized views of the secluded, private white sand beach. A spacious open-air lobby and poolside dining area are all framed in volcanic rock adorned with artisan-crafted wood. Additional build-ings include a massage bungalow, beachside yoga platform, and shoreside thatched roof huts complete with hammocks and lounge chairs. Black-mantled howler monkeys, two-toed sloth, green iguanas, black ctenosaurs, and a plethora of tropical bird species are highly visible on the property. Traditional artisan fishing, rum tasting at the sugar mill, farm visits, horseback riding, mountain biking, and excursions to nearby sites of interest are also offered, with rates per night per person exceeding $350 in the high season. Though not high by international ecotourism standards, this price point made it the most expensive place to spend the night in Ni-caragua in 2008.

While the remainder of this paper will focus on local perceptions of the ecotourism project, it is useful to fore-front our analysis with a few revealing comments from the perspective of the owning family. During the single inter-view the family granted to the primary researcher, the son of the owners explained the motives for the development of Morgan’s Rock. First, the family acquired the land in order to develop a forestry project—the Hacienda. In exploring further development options for the property, it was in their other business interest (e.g., hardwoods, furniture, residential vacation properties, future resort development), to do something that would “improve Nicaragua’s image and draw attention to what it had to offer.” An extension of this motive was to provide a place where “they can come in 30 years with their kids and families to enjoy.” Indeed, a larger full-sized cabin exclusively for family use is located right on Ocotal Beach, at a short distance from the main tourist cabins. Interestingly, at no point was biodiversity conservation nor community development mentioned, though I was informed that if I intended to speak with lo-cal residents, I was likely to encounter animosity towards the project. To the perspectives of these local residents and project employees we now turn.

An Ethnographic Analysis of Ecotourism in Nicaragua

Daily life among the employees at Morgan’s Rock offered a view of ecotourism distinct from that available to the tourist or short-term visitor, and here our resulting as-sessment weighs local outcomes next to the larger realities of Nicaragua. In light of the country’s harsh socioeconomic history of rural life, and the rapid, unchecked nature of tour-ism development taking place in the Department of Rivas, we aim to answer the question: what are the local perceptions of Morgan’s Rock Hacienda and Ecolodge? The following three sections elaborate on local descriptions of project per-formance and reflect largely conflicted views of the project’s economic, environmental, and social outcomes. Despite a lack of consensus on these issues, the final section reveals wide agreement among locals’ evaluations of the project’s ethical performance.

Economic Issues: Income, Employment, and Opportunity Costs

“The greatest problem in Nicaragua is the lack of work,” stated a hotel restaurant server when interviewed in employee dormitories after returning from a breakfast/lunch shift. Ni-caragua’s economy has historically been based on agriculture and labor-intensive crops such as coffee and sugar cane. Jobs were often seasonal, as a young female member of the kitchen staff noted, “Before, I worked during the season in a sugar processing plant. The job only lasted four or five months.” Along with agriculture, free trade zones dominated by textile factories have been built in several clusters around Managua since the 1990s. Some interviewees have prior experience in these factories, including the hotel maintenance chief who explained, “Where the work is back there, the treatment is not the same—it is bad. There are lots of bad habits, vices. You have to work with vagrants.” These forms of work involve leaving the family and working long hours in overcrowded, difficult conditions, with minimal wages and leads many local residents to perceive tourism as an easier source of livelihood.

According to the Morgan’s Rock finca administrator, local residents were initially employed in the clearing of land, the making of roads, and the planting of saplings during the development of the tree plantation. Interviews with resi-dents in 20 adjacent households confirmed eight had at least one member who had previously worked at the Hacienda. However, the administrator claims the local residents were ultimately unable to abide by the rules and regulations of the job, including conservation policies that prohibit hunting or harvesting of flora and fauna. These employees were also distracted by the proximity of their homes and too often were tempted to visit their families and return to work late. Few of these neighboring residents were retained as employees.

As a result, Morgan’s Rock has recruited staff from other areas of Nicaragua. Of the 45 hotel employees sur-veyed, only four were residents of the municipality of San

380 HUMAN ORGANIZATION

Juan del Sur, while 26 came from not just other municipalities but from departments outside of Rivas. As one hotel worker noted, “Here there is no one from right around here work-ing at Morgan’s Rock. We are from León, other places. The locals do not see any benefits from Morgan’s Rock, only the dust that blows up when they go by with tourists.” A similar recruitment pattern occurs on the finca. Of the 20 employees interviewed there, only one was from the municipality of San Juan del Sur, and eight were from other departments.

While the owners of Morgan’s Rock seem to favor imported employees over local residents out of self-interest, there is no doubt the opportunity for a steady salary is pro-viding a strong incentive for individuals from other parts of the country to migrate to the region. As one finca worker originally from the Matagalpa highlands put it, “The sala-ries are bigger than in the fields. Back home we only earn a misery. Here in the tourist zone we earn triple. There we earn C$30/day ($1.60). Here we earn C$100/day ($5.25). It is a great source of work.” Another hotel cleaning staff member elaborated on the impact of steady work, “My job used to be more difficult…and it wasn’t permanent. It was six months at a time, and afterward I would be without a job. Here, I have gotten out from under that worry—the concern about money.” Still, given that rates exceed $350 per night per person, employee salaries are also surprisingly low. More than half of the 45 member hotel staff work in demanding manual labor positions like gardening, maintenance, cleaning, and kitchen. As quoted above, these positions offer salaries of approximately $150/month, or $5/day. English-speaking restaurant and bar staff, receptionists, drivers, and naturalist guides in particular, can earn two or three times more, espe-cially through tips.

For many employees, their four monthly vacation days involve long public bus rides to their homes in distant regions. After taking meals along the way, as much as 25 percent of their earnings are spent on these trips home. Monthly food expenses average another 59 percent of this salary, leaving ap-proximately 15 percent of income for all remaining expenses such as medicine, schooling, clothing, utilities, rent, etc. One member of the cleaning staff responded, “Unless my wages go beyond what they are now, I won’t have any income. I don’t have any money to buy anything else—just the food, it isn’t enough for anything else.” Another hotel employee stated, “There is no perspective (of the future). We have no hopes of improved salaries. Here we only break even.”

Nevertheless, the Hacienda and the Hotel together employ approximately 125 individuals at any given time, and among those interviewed, 70 percent say it is the most important source of income for their household. Even those earning at the low end of the pay ranges earn significantly above the national averages. With a staggering 80 percent of the country surviving on less than $2 per day (UNDP 2005), an income of $5 per day is significant. Employees’ acceptance of conditions of the work, including a 26-day monthly shift far from family, indicates that Morgan’s Rock is offering economic options people perceive as opportunities. Word of

mouth has resulted in several family members or hometown friends of existing employees acquiring jobs at Morgan’s Rock. Thus, despite the complaints about conditions, fines, lack of bonuses and overtime pay, and overall feelings of underappreciation, many employees are making their broth-ers and cousins aware of the employment opportunities at Morgan’s Rock.

Environmental Issues: Managing for the Trees or the Forest?

The Morgan’s Rock website describes how reforestation and tree farming are practiced at the Hacienda. The casual visitor is left to believe equal effort is invested in both en-deavors. Though they claim to have reforested more than 1.5 million trees in an effort to restore local ecosystems, a closer reading reveals that all but 100,000 of these trees have been planted with future harvests in mind. For every tree dedicated to reforestation, 15 are dedicated to tree farming. While pro-motional materials asserted that “endangered primary forest wilderness” is being protected, the naturalist guides confirm no primary forest exists. The property contains a governmen-tally decreed private protected area—a 300-hectare private forest reserve formally titled “El Aguacate”—located along the estuary emptying into the horseshoe bay of Ocotal Beach. Although marketed as an effort to protect ecologically signifi-cant wetlands, interviews with the staff revealed the estuary was given protected status because the salty, marshy land is otherwise unsuitable for the project’s primary land use—the planting of marketable exotic tropical hardwoods.

No fewer than 1,000 of the property’s 1,800 hectares are dedicated to single-species tree farming plots, a land use little different than agriculture in its intensity. The remaining 500 hectares are dedicated to agriculture, fruit trees, grazing, roads, administration areas, and the premises of the ecolodge. A priority placed on tree farming was communicated in the following employee commentary, “It is a lumber business. They don’t maintain the forest in a natural state. They plant only to export. There are 200 manzanas (approximately 141 hectares) of recently cut forest right now.” Indeed finca work-ers were regularly observed pruning and clearing underbrush in the tree plot areas, ensuring regular disturbance of wildlife habitat. One day while accompanying the plantation adminis-trator and a tourist guide to areas rarely visited by tourists, the first author observed workers felling regenerating secondary forest in order to plant marketable species. The accompanying naturalist guide noted that on the several occasions during his three years of leading tourists he had encountered such cutting. “I have tried explaining it different ways but there is just no way to make it look good.”

Yet on a positive note, the perception that wildlife is more abundant on the premises of Morgan’s Rock than outside the property is prevalent in the interviews among staff and neighbors. As a machetero and carpenter at the finca noted, “Animals are cared for—that doesn’t exist where I live. The children don’t know many of the animals for that reason.” A

381VOL. 70, NO. 4, WINTER 2011

neighboring resident likewise indicated, “They have all kinds of animals. They look for refuge there—all the animals from this zone.” Despite the intensive agriculture, tree farming, cutting of secondary forests, lack of reintroductions, and absence of primary forest, the above comments reflect the dominant perception of staff and neighbors that conservation is occurring. This is most likely due to the policy against all hunting or persecution of animals, which is confirmed rather ironically by the nightly intrusion of hunters at Morgan’s Rock. Higher density of animals is precisely what attracts these hunters, and thus hunting pressure serves as a perverse proxy indicator of the conservation success of the project.

In sum, the 300 hectares of estuarine habitat protected by Morgan’s Rock, combined with the 150,000 reforested trees, have created refuge for a concentration of wildlife. Employees generally characterize the area as having a fresher, cooler microclimate, something many of them miss in their own communities. One male member of the hotel cleaning staff commented, “The preservation of the forest, the plants, the animals…that which they call ecotourism avoids contaminat-ing the environment. Here in Morgan’s Rock, one sees the preservation of the plants and the animals—the pure air we are breathing.” Meanwhile a former Sandinista guerilla and current maintenance worker stated, “Even the climate has improved—it is cooler now because they are taking better care of the trees.” The pace of resort and vacation home de-velopment, coupled with the very small presence of formal biodiversity protection in this region of Nicaragua, makes these evaluations especially meaningful.

Social Issues: Behind the Façade of Local Involvement

When asked about efforts to incorporate social sustain-ability into Morgan’s Rock, the hotel administrator mentioned two initiatives. The first involves a patronal relationship estab-lished with five local primary schools where tourists distribute notebooks, pens and pencils, erasers, and backpacks brought along in suitcases. One mother explained the fate of many of these donated items: “When they come with donations, the teachers collect everything and the kids end up with nothing. The teachers take things and then say, ‘They were stolen.’ All the kids know the teachers take things.” Meanwhile, the requests for assistance to dig wells in order to provide drink-ing water to the schoolchildren fall on deaf ears. As another mother noted, “In the school, there is no well. They began to make one but never finished it. The people asked them once again for a well and they were told NO. They denied us that assistance.” Morgan’s Rock seems content with public rela-tions and photo opportunities provided by the distribution of school supplies during tourist visits.

A second initiative involves an annual roadside trash pickup coordinated by Morgan’s Rock staff with labor provided largely by volunteers from the surrounding com-munities. The primary author inadvertently found himself leading a group of “volunteers” from communities up and

down the rural dirt road between Rivas and San Juan del Sur known as La Chocolata. While post-cleanup compensation in the form of t-shirts and a field day celebration involving complimentary food, beverages, and a DJ was promised to those who participated, the author’s dirt-caked group arrived to the event after five hours and 80 bags of trash collection under intense tropical sun only to find the t-shirts already given away and the food and beverages being hoarded by Morgan’s Rock employees, all of whom still wore pristine white t-shirts indicating little evidence of any cleaning. When these volunteers later returned home, they found the favor had not been returned. The section of La Chocolata at the entrance to their communities was still blanketed in trash. Clearly, these two initiatives identified by management are doing little to enhance social sustainability.

Compounding the lack of meaningful engagement, local residents now experience restricted access to important wood-land and coastal food resources of what was formerly a shared peasant cooperative. Though inhibiting access or discouraging environmentally damaging behaviors is a frequent by-product of conservation projects, Morgan’s Rock made no effort to provide any compensation for this prohibition. One nearby resident echoed this frustration, “We cannot even cross to the next beach. They have shotguns in there everywhere at night. Supposedly, the beaches are public [property], but they don’t let us pass there…. I tried to go collect some crustaceans on the next beach over and they shot at me! I had to climb into the woods to hide from them. They have an enclosed river that is full of shellfish and a shrimp farm, but they don’t let us take anything, us poor people. What nerve!” Another resident described what these changes mean for locals, “A lot of people go around looking for something to survive on, like an armadillo, and they just can’t. Their guards are walk-ing around. Even just to feed themselves they cannot hunt.”

Because virtually no neighbors are employed in Morgan’s Rock, they have little incentive to abide by the company’s newly imposed rules. Hunters trespass nightly to access these important sources of subsistence that no longer exist outside of the Morgan’s Rock property, such as iguana, armadillo, and deer. In an effort to curb these activities, the Hacienda adminis-trator has asked local police to arrest trespassing hunters. This led to an unfortunate incident that has been well communicated among local residents. One interviewee explained, “There was a man looking for something to eat in the woods in there with his dog. They shot him, under [plantation administrator’s] orders,” and as a result, “that poor family lost their son, their husband.” A security guard working at the plantation corrobo-rated the incident, “We carried weapons, and we would set up ambushes just like we did during the war.”

Much like the economic benefits, positive social out-comes of Morgan’s Rock are thus reserved for those employed by the project. Though little influence is felt beyond the property, the changes among employees are notable. First, most employees of both the finca and the hotel, particularly those who did not have a steady income previously, noted an improved sense of well-being. A reliable salary allows for a

382 HUMAN ORGANIZATION

longer term outlook, budgeting for larger purchases on credit, and less worry about how the next income will arise, as noted in these comments of one hotel maintenance worker: “Before I used to work very little [there were no jobs]. I never had any money for anything. Now, I don’t feel good necessarily, but I don’t feel bad either. I feel better than before. The sal-ary is not very good, but it is fixed, it is certain. I never had that before…. With a fixed income, I can pay for the things.”

Employees also find a sense of cultural pride from their work in tourism, as explained by a member of the cleaning staff: “I am a peasant! It makes me proud that the guests value us, they make us feel good and we to them.” Staff seemed to take delight in explaining local customs, foods, and traditions to intrigued tourists. “In my case, the advantage is getting to know what tourism is, the culture of other countries, the way people are treated. I have tried to understand why there are differences, the history. We exchange culture. The Nicara-guans give their own culture. I have benefitted greatly from that.” The exchange is often two-way as one hotel employee reported: “[I have] gotten to know other people and cultures from other countries—a German, a Canadian, an Arab—here, I have seen and I have talked with them.”

While securing stable employment was usually cited as the reason for working at Morgan’s Rock, many staff members noted a greater appreciation for nature and the reduction of destructive activities. One hotel maintenance worker spoke to this issue, saying, “To keep up a forest, put in more plants, help the environment. Before, that didn’t matter to me at all. With my machete, I would cut any old thing. I thought protecting the environment was foolish. Now, I see that it is a reality. We are going to have a desert here in a few years…. Now, I try to raise other people’s consciousness.” Whether they have gained an awareness of the eco-rhetoric, which they now recite to outsiders, or have indeed acquired a new conservation ethic is not clear. What is clear is that by witness-ing the different values that tourists have for nature and by having adherence to the conservation practices imposed as a condition of employment, workers have at least been forced to reconsider their own attitudes and behaviors towards nature.

Lastly, while a detailed analysis of the three interviewed groups by their levels of involvement in tourism is beyond the scope of this paper and is being prepared for publication else-where, one very notable consistency is unwavering support for tourism development in Nicaragua across all interviewed groups. Interviewees showed reluctance to identify anything bad about tourism or to cite disadvantages of working in tourism versus other employment. This was equally true in hotel employees, tree plantation workers, and neighbor-ing residents. Even when interviewees perceived morally questionable practices, certain destructive behaviors, loss of subsistence access, or poor treatment of the staff at Morgan’s Rock, they did not generalize these negative outcomes to tourism in general. Finca workers are only indirectly involved in tourism and many of the local residents are currently un-employed, suggesting that direct income is not a necessary condition for expressing support for tourism development.

Finding the Forest Among the Trees: A Consensus on Ethical Issues

When considered on their own, the mixed economic, environmental, and social outcomes just described make a conclusive evaluation of Morgan’s Rock difficult. On this basis alone, the question of whether Morgan’s Rock repre-sents a successful example of ecotourism or a case of blatant greenwashing could remain open to debate. This seems to reinforce the notion that two ecotourisms exist (Wight 1993) and that measured outcomes will always depend on the level of analysis chosen (Hunt and Stronza 2009). Here, however, we show how examining an additional component of local resident and employee perceptions of Morgan’s Rock force a more decisive conclusion.

During the fieldwork, and especially the two months of on-site participant observation at Morgan’s Rock, it became clear the project was engaged in many highly unethical, deceptive practices. For starters, the sugar and rum mill highlighted on the website has been out of operation since the lodge’s first season. Although this is ostensibly explained by the difficulties encountered in cultivating sugar cane on the property, Rivas is located in the heart of one of the largest cane producing regions of Nicaragua. Likewise, the butterfly farm at Morgan’s Rock was out of service, with staff claiming that it is a seasonal operation only. Nevertheless, many other projects in other areas of Nicaragua and Costa Rica maintain live specimens year round, and charismatic blue morpho but-terflies are regularly seen darting along the creek bed walks.

The deception extended to description of food provision. The website stated, “Some of the products we use are organi-cally grown and raised at our Hacienda including a variety of fruits and vegetables, milk, cheese, eggs, lamb, and even our own brown sugar.” It also included an account of their irriga-tion system: “Rice, corn, and wheat are the most important grains harvested in the hacienda. These grains, as well as all the vegetables grown in the hacienda such as tomatoes, cucumbers, or zucchinis, are watered by this ingenious irriga-tion system.” Despite these claims, we found no vegetables or grains being cultivated on-site, organically, or otherwise. According to nature guides whose employment predates the construction of the hotel and who have extensively explored the property, there has never been organic produce or grains cultivated on-site.

On the contrary, nearly all vegetables are delivered in pickup trucks multiple times a week. More than once, the first author assisted with unloading of shipments from outside producers. On other occasions, he accompanied drivers to Morgan’s Rock head office on the outskirts of Managua, returning in a large king cab pickup loaded to the brim with sides of beef and numerous canned or jarred food items. Similarly, the shrimp farmed on-site, which Morgan’s Rock stated “will probably be the cleanest, freshest tasting shrimp you will ever savor,” do not meet claimed organic standards. The finca administrator indicated the shrimp are fed standardized commercial feed in order to meet export

383VOL. 70, NO. 4, WINTER 2011

standards. A restaurant employee summarized this deception noting, “They say the sugar is made in the finca, and it isn’t. They say the milk is from the finca, and it actually comes in a can. The shrimp that they supposedly farm here are very few, or many times, there are none, so they buy them. The fish are not always caught on-site.” Unfortunately, tourists seldom attempt to verify the claims of Morgan’s Rock, creating little incentive to change. The uncontested image that the majority of food served originates on the premises remains highly misleading.

Interviewees repeatedly revealed a perception that the owners of Morgan’s Rock are more vested in tree farming than in either ecotourism or biodiversity protection. The words of this local resident suggest that even those who have never set foot on the property are aware that “they cut the wood that has no value so they can plant the valuable species.” A hotel kitchen worker conveyed her puzzlement over this by stating, “They are cutting down trees to exploit the wood. If they are ecological, how can they cut down trees?” On one occasion while the first author was chat-ting with staff in the reception area, the finca administrator called the hotel over the radio and explained to a young receptionist that they would be burning in a certain area of the property that day, alerting the staff to be careful about planning any tourist activities in those areas. He went on to instruct the hotel employees to cover up the burnings by explaining to any inquisitive tourists that the smoke coming from these on-site burnings was actually originating on the property of unscrupulous neighboring residents preparing their lands for planting. Blushing, the man working reception shrugged, saying sarcastically, “Here, we are all ecological.” It remains to be seen how Morgan’s Rock will now reconcile the images of recently felled forests en route to their luxury ecolodge in the future.

When neighbors ask Morgan’s Rock to assist with development needs, requests are ignored. As one resident explained, “They have electricity, but they didn’t run the line through here next to the road, and for that reason we still don’t have electricity.” Rather than installing their power lines along the road where they would serve dozens of local households, Morgan’s Rock with the Nicaraguan Energy Institute’s complicity ran a private line away from inhabited areas, much to their neighbors’ chagrin. Another neighboring mother cited further needs, “The people don’t have wells, water, or electricity. There are so many of us women who are alone. We don’t have the skills to make latrines.” The owners attribute this lack of participation to low levels of education and preparation, yet no effort is made to train or equip local people for such work. The token social projects treat residents like passive beneficiaries with no say over how or why the project operates the way it does. Some find this influence morally objectionable, as one concerned mother noted in reference to the coercion of students and their parents to participate in the trash cleanup along La Chocolata road, “[Morgan’s Rock] trick [the schoolchildren] into collecting trash with a little cookie and a soda, but if my kids don’t col-lect trash, they don’t get good grades on their tests.”

Discussion and Conclusion

The need to maintain “authentic” images of ecotourism, as West and Carrier (2004) note, is a challenge for owners and operators of ecotourism projects and thus an underly-ing cause of greenwashing in this sector of tourism. Since no formal tourism certification program currently exists in Nicaragua, Morgan’s Rock negotiates this authentic imag-ery in creative though ethically suspect ways. Regrettably, tourists and tourism media representatives on brief visits to ecolodges have proven incapable of revealing deceptive and ethically objectionable practices. This is due both to the brevity of their visits and to the lack of reliable information beforehand about impacts that tourism purchases will have on employees and local residents. Thus, in terms of curbing these types of abuses of the ecotourism concept, the burden falls on scholars and certification bodies. If certifiers are to provide tourist consumers with meaningful information prior to making a purchase decision, then including these local voices is essential.

The owners of Morgan’s Rock modeled this project after the highly acclaimed Lapa Ríos lodge in Costa Rica by adopting a prescriptive “checklist approach” to identifying and then attempting to implement what are considered ideal ecotourism components. Lamentably, they were unable to carryout or sustain such “lofty” ideals over the long term (e.g., employ, train, or establish goodwill among local residents; provide organic vegetables and farmed shrimp to clients; and operate a butterfly farm or sugar mill). This highlights several intriguing questions. Do idealizations of ecotourism as dictated by certification lead tourism operators, owners, and managers to cut corners to fit the preconceptions, and thus in a way contribute indirectly to greenwashing? That is, does principled concern for making ecotourism truly revolutionary ultimately enable greenwashing (which ultimately makes it anything but revolutionary)? Comparative ethnographic research in multiple ecotourism contexts will be valuable for clarifying this complex relationship between the scholarly discourse and the greenwashing of ecotourism.

The data here indicate few neighboring residents or employees of this project have any previous exposure to ecotourism rhetoric or the lofty expectations of ecotourism as a conservation and development panacea. Therefore, they did not necessarily share in our critique of the outcomes of ecotourism in and around Morgan’s Rock. Yet, while locals may have little comparative perspective on ecotourism and other forms of tourism or how tourism development might and should be better for them, no such comparative perspec-tive is necessary to object to the sheer lack of ethics. While people can quickly and easily elaborate on both positive and negative economic, environmental, and social outcomes of the ecotourism project, their evaluations yield an overwhelming consensus on poor ethical performance at Morgan’s Rock.

In terms of promoting community well-being, Morgan’s Rock is so uninvolved in the local community that even the disharmony often associated with unequal distribution

384 HUMAN ORGANIZATION

of benefits, such as documented by Belsky (1999), doesn’t occur for the simple reason that no one at all is benefitting. The locals who are affected by the project clearly exhibit the symptoms of exclusion that Scheyvens (1999:249) describes, such as feeling “confused, frustrated, disinterested, or disil-lusioned” with ecotourism. While a majority of ecotourism studies tend to focus on “impacts,” the problems of deception and exclusion we found in this case transcend such material evaluations and suggest the need for careful analysis of eth-ics as well.

In recent years, a number of scholars have produced com-mendable writings on ethics in tourism (Fennell 2006; Fleck-enstein and Huebsch 1999; Malloy and Fennell 1998; Fennell and Malloy 2007 ; Smith and Duffy 2003), though their writings generally address the role of industry operators. This body of work suggests only an indirect concern for local residents and the treatment of employees in the tourism sector. It does little to effectively represent local hosts’ perceptions or contribute new understanding to how to make tourism more sustainable, either economically, environmentally, or socially. Certification schemes suffer the same shortcomings (Honey 2008).

In this paper, we make an important contribution to this body of literature on ethics in tourism by foregrounding local resident evaluations of ethics. Ethnographic narratives high-light a number of morally and ethically objectionable aspects of Morgan’s Rock, thereby indicting what might otherwise be considered a relatively successful ecotourism initiative given Nicaragua’s socioeconomic realities. In characterizing these local perspectives and evaluations of this ecotourism project, we thus contribute new understanding to the ways that evaluations of the ethical performance of ecotourism go beyond, and may even override, more typical evaluations of economic, environmental, and social factors.

Furthermore, this analysis demonstrates how failing to capture these critical local evaluations of ethical aspects of project performance allows greenwashing abuses to persist unchecked and thereby nullifies those elements which dis-tinguish ecotourism from other forms of tourism. Improving ethical performance, as evaluated by local residents, will be critical for making tourism more sustainable and to devel-oping certification criteria which are more effective for ad-dressing greenwashing abuses. This case indicates how future tourism researchers and those developing tourism certification initiatives in Nicaragua and elsewhere must pay greater heed to local perceptions of ethical performance. Anthropology remains the discipline best equipped to make this contribution.

References Cited

Babb, Florence E. 2004 Recycled Sandalistas: From Revolution to Resorts in the New

Nicaragua. American Anthropologist 106(3):541-555.

Barany, M. E., A. L. Hammett, L. J. Shillington, and B. R. Murphy 2001 The Role of Private Wildlife Reserves in Nicaragua’s

Emerging Ecotourism Industry. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 9(2):95-110.

Belsky, Jill M. 1999 Misrepresenting Communities: The Politics of Community-

Based Rural Tourism in Gales Point Manatee, Belize. Rural Sociology 64(4): 641-666.

Brundtland, Gro Harlem 1987 Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on

Environment and Development. New York: United Nations.

Campbell, Lisa 1999 Ecotourism in Rural Developing Communities. Annals of

Tourism Research 26(3):534-553.

Carroll, Rory 2007 Ortega Banks on Tourism to Beat Poverty. The Guardian.

URL:<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jan/07/rorycarroll.theobserver> (April 13, 2009).

Cater, Erlet 2006 Ecotourism as Western Construct. Journal of Ecotourism

5(1-2):23-39.

Cater, Erlet, and Gwen Lowman 1994 Ecotourism: A Sustainable Option? London, United Kingdom:

John Wiley and Sons.

Durham, William H. 2008 Fishing for Solutions: Ecotourism and Conservation in

Galapagos National Park. In Ecotourism and Conservation in the Americas. Amanda Stronza and William H. Durham, eds. Pp. 66-90. Oxford, United Kingdom: CABI Publishing.

Fennell, David A. 2001 A Content Analysis of Ecotourism Definitions. Current Issues

in Tourism 4(5):403-421. 2006 Tourism Ethics. Clevedon, United Kingdom: Channel View.

Fennell, David A., and David C. Malloy 1995 Ethics and Ecotourism: A Comprehensive Ethical Model.

Journal of Applied Recreation Research 20(3):163-183. 1999 Measuring the Ethical Nature of Tourism Operators. Annals

of Tourism Research 26(4):928-943. 2007 Codes of Ethics in Tourism: Theory, Practice, Synthesis.

Clevedon, United Kingdom: Channel View Publications.

Fleckenstein, Marilynn, and Patricia Huebsch 1999 Ethics in Tourism: Reality or Hallucination. Journal of

Business Ethics 19(1):137-142.

Font, Xavier, and Catherine Harris 2004 Rethinking Standards from Green to Sustainable. Annals of

Tourism Research 31(4):986-1007.

Genot, Helene 1995 Voluntary Environmental Codes of Conduct in the Tourism

Sector. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 3(3):166-172.

Ham, Sam H., and Rob Whipple 1998 Volcán Masaya National Park Visitor Profile, Nicaragua: Final

Research Report. Washington, D.C.: GreenCOM Project.

Hernández, Orlando, and Reva Schwartz 1998 Participation in the Aprovechamiento Program and Turtle

Protection Behaviors in the Buffer Zone of the La Flor Refuge Nicaragua: Exploratory Qualitative Study. Washington, D.C.: GreenCOM Project.

385VOL. 70, NO. 4, WINTER 2011

Higham, James 2007 Ecotourism: Competing and Conflicting Schools of Thought.

In Critical Issues in Ecotourism: Understanding a Complex Tourist Phenomenon. James Higham, ed. Pp. 1-20. Oxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier Ltd.

Honey, Martha 2002 Ecotourism and Certification. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 2008 Setting Standards: Certification Programmes for Ecotourism

and Sustainable Tourism. In Ecotourism and Conservation in the Americas. Amanda Stronza and William H. Durham, eds. Pp. 234-262. Oxford, United Kingdom: CABI Publishing.

Honey, Martha, and Abigail Rome 2001 Protecting Paradise: Certification Programs for Sustainable

Tourism and Ecotourism. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Policy Studies.

Hunt, Carter, and Amanda Stronza 2009 Bringing Ecotourism Into Focus: Applying a Hierarchical

Perspective to Ecotourism Research. Journal of Ecotourism 8(1):1-17.

Instituto Nacional de Información de Desarrollo (INIDE) 2007 Estimaciones y Proyecciones de Población Nacional,

Departamental, y Municipal: Revisión 2007. Managua, Nicaragua: Instituto Nacional de Información de Desarrollo.

Instituto Nacional de Turismo (INTUR) 2007 Boletín de Estadísticas de Turismo. Managua, Nicaragua:

Instituto Nacional de Turismo. 2009 Marco Juridico—Ley No. 306. URL:<http://www.intur.gob.

ni/ley306.html> (April 13, 2009).

Kiss, Agnes 2004 Is Community-Based Ecotourism a Good Use of Biodiversity

Conservation Funds? TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 19(5):232-237.

Kontogeorgopoulos, Nick 2004 Conventional Tourism and Ecotourism in Phuket, Thailand:

Conflicting Paradigms or Symbiotic Partners. Journal of Ecotourism 3(2):87-108.

Langholz, Jeffrey 1999 Exploring the Effect of Alternative Income Opportunities

on Rainforest Use: Insights from Guatemala’s Maya Biosphere Reserve. Society and Natural Resources 12(2):139-149.

Malloy, David C., and David A. Fennell 1998 Codes of Ethics and Tourism: An Exploratory Content

Analysis. Tourism Management 19(5):453-461.

Mathieson, Alister, and Geoffrey Wall 1987 Tourism: Economic, Physical, and Social Impacts. London,

United Kingdom: Longman.

Medina, Laurie K. 2005 Ecotourism and Certification: Confronting the Principles

and Pragmatics of Socially Responsible Tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 13(3):281-295.

Morgan’s Rock 2009 Nicarague Ecotourism Morgan’s Rock Hacienda and

Ecolodge. URL:<http://www.morgansrock.com> (April 13, 2009).

Nicklaus, Jack 2009 Nicklaus Design. URL:<http://www.nicklaus.com/design/

nngc/index7.php> (April 13, 2009).

Ross, Sheryl, and Geoffrey Wall 1999 Ecotourism: Towards Congruence Between Theory and

Practice. Tourism Management 20(1):123-132.

Sasidharan, Vinod, and Xavier Font 2001 Pitfalls of Ecolabelling. In Tourism Ecolabelling: Certification

and Promotion of Sustainable Management. Xavier Font and Ralf C. Buckley, eds. Pp. 105-120. Wallingford, United Kingdom: Centre for Agricultural Bioscience International.

Scheyvens, Regina 1999 Ecotourism and the Empowerment of Local Communities.

Tourism Management 20(2):245-249.

Smith, Mick, and Rosaleen Duffy 2003 The Ethics of Tourism Development. New York:

Routledge.

Stonich, Susan 2000 The Other Side of Paradise: Tourism, Conservation,

and Development in the Bay Islands. New York: Cognizant Communications.

Stronza, Amanda L. 2007 The Economic Promise of Ecotourism for Conservation.

Journal of Ecotourism 6(3):170-190. 2010 Commons Management and Ecotourism: Ethnographic

Evidence from the Amazon. International Journal of the Commons 4(1):56-77.

Stronza, Amanda L., and Javier Gordillo 2008 Community Views of Ecotourism. Annals of Tourism

Research 35(2):448-468.

Stronza, Amanda L., and Fernanda Pegas 2008 Ecotourism and Conservation: Two Cases from Brazil and

Peru. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 13(4):263-279.

The International Ecotourism Society (TIES) 1990 Definitions and Principles: The International Ecotourism

Society, Washington, D.C. URL:<http://www.ecotourism.org/webmodules/webarticlesnet/templates/eco_template.aspx?articleid=95&zoneid=2> (March 2008).

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) 2005 Human Development Report: International Cooperation at a

Crossroads: Aid, Trade, and Security in an Unequal World. New York: United Nations Development Programme.

United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) 2007 Tourism—An Economic and Social Phenomenon.

URL:<http://www.unwto.org/aboutwto/why/en/why.php?op=1> (April 13, 2009).

Weaver, David 2001 Ecotourism as Mass Tourism: Contradiction or Reality?

Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 42(2):104-112.

Weaver, David, and Laura J. Lawton 2007 Twenty Years On: The State of Contemporary Ecotourism

Research. Tourism Management 28(5):1168-1179.

386 HUMAN ORGANIZATION

Weaver, Peter L., David M. Lombardo, and Juan Carlos Martínez Sánchez 2003 Biodiversity and Tropical Forest Conservation, Protection, and

Management in Nicaragua: Assessment and Recommendations. Managua: United States Agency for International Development/Nicaragua.

West, Paige, and James Carrier 2004 Ecotourism and Authenticity: Getting Away from It All?

Current Anthropology 45(4):483-491.

Wight, Pamela 1993 Ecotourism: Ethics or Ecosell? Journal of Travel Research

31(3):3-9. 2007 Ecotourism, CSR, and the Fourth Dimension of Sustainability.

In Critical Issues in Ecotourism: Understanding a Complex Tourist Phenomenon. James Higham, ed. Pp. 214-240. Oxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier Ltd.

Wunder, Sven 2000 Ecotourism and Economic Incentives—An Empirical

Approach. Ecological Economics 32(3):465-479.

Zeppell, Heather 2007 Indigenous Ecotourism: Conservation and Resource Rights. In

Critical Issues in Ecotourism: Understanding a Complex Tourist Phenomenon. James Higham, ed. Pp. 308-347. Oxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier Ltd.

!"#$%&'(')*'+#,-'.%")#/-0#1".*(203#4'50#!

!David Scull for The New York Times!

After a session at the surf break at Popoyo, surfers return to La Tica Surf Camp, which has doubled its capacity. !!"#$%&'#()*+,,*#!Published: May 15, 2005!!"#$%&$"!'()!*+,,)()-.!,(/0!/.1)(!.('2)3)(45!$'..3+-6!*/7-!'!*84.9!7'41:/'(*!(/'*!.1'.!;/--);.4!.1)!<+;'('68'-!./7-4!/,!$+2'4!'-*!='4!"'3+-'4!+-!'!()-.)*!0+;(/:84!;(/7*)*!7+.1!48(,:/'(*4!'-*!*8,,)3!:'64>!*/*6+-6!1)(*4!/,!6/'.4!'-*!/?@*('7-!:866+)4!3/'*)*!7+.1!:'-'-'4>!.1)!.1())!/,!84!7)()-A.!3//B+-6!,/(!;83.8('3!)-(+;10)-.>!:/8.+C8)!1/.)34!/(!,+-)!;8+4+-)!@!7)!D84.!7'-.)*!./!6).!4./B)*5!!E)!7)()!+-!<+;'('68'!+-!)'(39!FG(+3>!;'.;1+-6!.1)!.'+3!)-*!/,!.1)!*(9!4)'4/->!'-*!.1)!3'-*4;'G)!7'4!:3)'B>!'!:(/7-!4'2'--'!/,!*(+)*!6('44!'-*!3)',3)44!.())45!H1)!7+-*!7'4!1/73+-6!'-*!7)!;/83*!40)33!:(841!,+()4!:8(-+-6!+-!.1)!1+3345!I!7'4!7+.1!09!:(/.1)(>!$+;1>!'-*!09!,(+)-*!J/1-!K+0>!'!=/4!F-6)3)4!L/8-.9!3+,)68'(*!'-*!4;+)-;)!.)';1)(5!".'-*+-6!D84.!M!,//.!N>!J/1-!;/00'-*)*!'..)-.+/-!71)-!1)!3)'G)*!,(/0!.1)!0+;(/:84!./!6).!*+();.+/-4!@!'!41+(.3)44!K/()'-!7+.1!O'7'++'-!:/'(*!41/(.4!*'-63+-6!:)3/7!1+4!B-))4>!1'-*+-6!/8.!0/-)9!'-*!:'(B+-6!"G'-+41!;/00'-*4!3';)*!7+.1!P)?+;'-!43'-65!"0'33!;1+3*()-!(841)*!,(/0!'!41'-.9!./!6'7B!'.!.1)!)?/.+;!;()'.8()>!41/8.+-6>!QJ';B+)!L1'-R!J';B+)!L1'-RQ!J/1-!:(/B)!.1)!+;)!:9!+-.(/*8;+-6!1+04)3,!'4!Q)3!L1+-/!3/;/Q!'-*!7+.1+-!,+2)!0+-8.)4!()0/8-.)*!.1)!0+;(/:84!7+.1!6//*!+-4.(8;.+/-4!'-*!;/3*!:))(4!'33!'(/8-*5!!QH1'.A4!1/7!I!(/33>Q!1)!./3*!84>!G/GG+-6!.1)!;'G!/,,!'!:/..3)!'-*!.'B+-6!'!3/-6!*('75!E+.1!.1)!:)';1)4!/,!L'3+,/(-+'!'-*!O'7'++!/2)(;(/7*)*>!48(,)(4!'()!;/-4.'-.39!4))B+-6!-)7!,(/-.+)(45!P)?+;/!1'4!3/-6!4+-;)!:))-!*+4;/2)()*>!'-*!3'4.!*);'*)A4!4);().!4G/.4!+-!L/4.'!$+;'!-/7!6'.1)(!P'3+:8@4+S)!;(/7*45!"/!48(,)(4!'()!4G+33+-6!';(/44!.1)!L)-.('3!F0)(+;'-!+4.1084>!'!G3';)!71)()!*)'.1!4C8'*4>!-'(;/.(',,+;/4!'-*!9)'(4!/,!2'(+/84!;+2+3!7'(4!1'*>!-/.!.//!3/-6!'6/>!0'*)!+.!+-';;)44+:3)!./!'33!:8.!.1)!0/4.!*'(+-6!/,!.('2)3)(45!

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