The second spot we visited was the East Bay development, which has a higher capacity (probably close to 200), is owned by a French Canadian, and is still pricey but offers a higher standard of accommodation for your buck. (On a side note, East Bay will serve as SFS's emergency hurricane shelter, should we need one. At least until it's actually in operation, which could be a while.)

We had an interesting discussion about the probable environmental impacts of the various developments here, and talked in particular about what the per capita impact of each of them will likely be once they are in full operation at maximum capacity. We also learned about some of the conservation efforts that have been suggested in conjunction with development, which a few of the owners seem amenable to. The future customers they hope to attract, after all, may very well be willing to pay extra to know that, in some small way, they're "going green".
So far, much of our discussions here at SFS have focused on the tension that exists between preserving the sanctity of the natural environment, and improving the quality of life for humans through development, growth, and industry. I've been a little disappointed though, that we have hardly talked at all about issues of inequity and social injustice. For example, it's a glaring fact in my mind that in South Caicos (as in so many other parts of the world), it is white, formally educated, well-to-do individuals from developed countries with more than their share of social capital, who come into the lands (or seas) of relatively poor, developing, non-white, underprivileged and underrepresented people to suggest to them how they should (or shouldn't) use their own natural resources. I do understand the argument that natural resources don't adhere to political borders, or even regional boundaries, as in the cases of air and water, and that we all have a stake in preserving what's left of our wild species and pristine areas. I just think that (we) environmentalists often have a hard time imagining how different our value systems and priorities might look if we didn't have the luxuries and freedoms that we do. Luxuries and freedoms, in fact, that development itself has provided us. More specifically, it is a luxury for many of us to have our basic needs so thoroughly met that we can choose to set aside certain resources, which exist in excess of our subsistence- and even leisure-use requirements, to remain untapped. The residents of South Caicos are not so fortunate, however, and so they're extremely excited about the idea of having a booming tourist industry here. They’re also considerable less worried than SFS is about how the ecosystems of the region may be altered in the long run as a result. I can't blame them.
here here! you raise just the right issues re. tourism. and it's just lovely to hear what's going on there! I can't wait to visit.
ReplyDelete