"Good tourism is the type that helps a country's poorest progress"

The philosophy of our organisation, the Retour Foundation, is based on a concept of tourism that differs from the one we have in the West. Here we have three weeks of holidays and then work for 11 months. In the South, people never go on holiday - they don't even have days off. They are always working and don't know why tourists visit their countries. They don't understand why we would want to take a stroll in the sun or drive through the jungle in a convertible jeep all day long because they're trying to escape these conditions. They would like to have air conditioning, not have to work, take a daily shower, and we travel to their countries to do the exact opposite. For them, tourism is a strange phenomenon. For me the problem isn't that people go there to do these things. That's fine and they can do whatever they want. The important thing is what the people living in the destination countries get out of all this. Tourism represents work for them and if they could earn a living from agriculture they may prefer it to tourism. What we must do is to ensure that the tourism phenomenon helps communities progress, and not in the way we want it to but rather how they want it to. We must participate in this tourism process and I think anything that helps the locals to progress in the development they really want is good tourism. It may be an all-inclusive resort in the Dominican Republic or a group of young people on a guided bike tour - it's not about what is done, but rather how it affects the interest of the local population. One of the main problems is that tourism is a sector that generates a lot of money and it is the largest provider of jobs in the world. In other words, it is guided by a great deal of interests, and the interest of the people in the destination countries is often neglected. This is a process that has exploded over the past 40 years. Many powerful chains and groups have emerged and in the end the interest of the local people is put on the back burner. We are fighting to bring these interests back into the picture. That's true. Development processes will never again go from North to South. India now also has Indian-owned hotels. Local communities are not a single entity because they have differing interests. Our organisation acts in the interest of the people who are left out of the political process and financial markets. We believe that the concept of sustainable development and tourism should be measured in terms of how the interest of a society's weaker groups is served. Our aim is to help the poor. For me, this is the main issue. We must speak with the community's leaders and businesses, and convince them that European tourists are increasingly aware of sustainable development, that the EU is passing laws for human rights to be respected everywhere, and that companies also have a responsibility. The idea is that if a company has a problem in the country where it is located, then it can also have a problem in Europe. And then there is the concept of corporate social responsibility. A concept that says that companies should bear responsibility for social issues even when a government does not respect them. We can even go a step further: companies must respect human rights, especially when a government does not. Businesses must work according to the principles of the UN. Sex tourism in Thailand is a violation of human rights. It may be an issue that doesn't concern the country's government, but European tour operators have their own responsibility and should insist that hotels defend human rights. It's complicated. We've been told that the economic crisis provides opportunities to move towards a more sustainable future, but the first thing the Dutch government did was to abolish the kerosene tax when air traffic is one of the main causes of pollution. For me this was proof that what they say about the sustainable economy is a trap. Furthermore, I think destination countries have better options to weather the crisis because they don't pay bank fees. In the informal economy, people lend each other money. Over the course of history, the informal economy has been stronger and more sustainable during a crisis. We have destroyed our economy through the financial system. Meanwhile, the informal economy adapts to the needs of the people, whereas our economy doesn't. Indeed it does. It doesn't create an egalitarian society but it is a system that can survive. If my plastic credit card stops working, then I'll have a major problem because I won't have access to my money. They don't have this problem. I've just returned from Africa and Asia and there is positive energy there - you see young people negotiating and forging ahead. My cousin studies entrepreneurship here in Europe, but then these young people go straight from university into the real world and have no real knowledge of business. They are very powerful. They are very good at doing whatever is going to benefit them. A lot of money is invested in this field to sway our political and economic system. They talk about the free market but they then influence the market through politics. Yes, because officials are interested in the well-being of companies. I believe a government should protect its citizens from the bad aspects of the financial market, by regulating it and preserving the human aspect. But today, if you talk to officials they only think about the welfare of companies, and governments do what companies want them to do and fail to understand what the markets and companies are or how they work. Their positions are very defensive and it's like talking to a brick wall. Businesspeople, on the other hand, talk about their own interests and how your interests might match theirs. It's much more efficient to talk with them than it is to talk with a government.