"YOUR HEART IS CLEAN
DO NOT CONTAMINATE IT WITH TRASH.
TAKE IT OUT OF THE PARK"
Friedman´s
theory is well reflected in the current situation of Tayrona National Natural
Park (PNNT) The park was granted to a big touristic company, which set a
touristic monopoly. This almost eliminated the free touristic market among
locals. Some had to decide between working for the company or perish.
I visited
the park in 2000, before the grant and this year after 9 years of grant, and I
have to admit that the natural resources are evidently better preserved. The
place looks cleaner and better organized. At the entrance all visitors must sit
for half hour and listen to instructions to follow inside the park. There are
many pathways above ground level from which I could see a whole variety of
fauna, not afraid of observers. During high season the charge capacity is
respected, which means there is a limit of 400 visitors at any time.
The grant
is supposed to finish in a years, but there are already rumors of an extension.
Locals complain and the public point of view is that the park is being
privatized. Indigenous tribes are regaining decision power over this land. But
in conclusion the management done by the grant has proved the locals aren´t
capable of self-organizing and that a profitable company has done a better job
at preserving this complex SES. The original purpose was looking for this
change but it seems that the company hasn’t organized to leave the business to
previous managers, which means there isn´t a guarantee that after they leave,
situation will maintain or even improve.
References:
Ojeda, Diana. 2011. Whose Paradise? Conservation,
tourism and land grabbing in Tayrona Natural Park, Colombia. LDPI International
Conference on Global Land Grabbing. University of Sussex, Brighton, UK.
The word “grant” you use in the second and third paragraph are confusing and I am not really certain that it is the correct word to use in such a way. You mean from when the park was granted right? So are you saying the principle advocated by Friedman is a better incentive for the park than the locals would? If this is what you mean, than it would be good to specifically mention this in the text. In the last paragraph, from ‘But in conclusion…….even improve’, there are some grammar mistakes and I do not really understand what you want to say with it.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad to know that this private tour agency is doing a great job here, making the park better. This for-profit company is capable with managing this park, the locals are maybe not so capable. However, I hoped to see more arguments over this.
ReplyDeleteWhy is Friedman's proposition working in this case? This private company is helping the sustainability of the park, but is it because that they are for-profit?
The assignment topic is 'Argue how the principle advocated by Friedman might be put to constructive use in the sustainable management of this SES', hence for example I would expect analysis like 'because this company wants more profit, they limit number of tourists but charging each person a elite price, hence they increased revenue and reduced variable cost'. Of course you know this case better, maybe you can consider giving arguments to debate how will / did Friedman's proposition assist sustainable management here.