1. Introduction: Tourism for whom? How?

During the last sixty years, tourism has become one of the economic sectors with the highest uninterrupted growth potential in the world, despite occasional crises (^{OMT, 2015}). Inbound tourism means an indispensable source of foreign currency income for many countries, associated with job creation and professional development opportunities. However, such expectations are not always translated in positive effects when a question of whom this sector has really benefited is performed. What kind of impacts is revealed in the social environment? These inquiries lead us to identify the transnational corporations domain in the sector, responsible for the expansion of some “exotic paradises” models, among which those from Spanish have been extended mainly to Latin America and Caribbean. According to ^{Buades (2012)}, the region concentrates about 9% of the world visitors, where 45% goes to Mexico and Central America. In this context, Sol Meliá controls almost 20% of the hotel offer in Cuba, expanding to approximately 11 countries, including Brazil, Mexico, and the Dominican Republic.

Other chains are Barceló with about 30 hotels; RIU with 11 in Mexico, and eight in the Dominican Republic, Iberostar with 29 destinations, as well as Fiesta Hotels with nine enterprise in the region. Considering the economic power of each chains, Buades (Ibidem) emphasizes its growth capacity and vertical expansion in the sector. Thus, despite the macroeconomic growth of destination countries, these incomes have given to the poorest countries the status of cheap labor and natural resources suppliers, where only a small part of it remains in the countries of destination, according to Gascon:

la mayor parte acaba en las arcas de empresas de los países ricos. Por contra, sus impactos en el nivel de vida de la mayoría de la población anfitriona y en su ecosistema suelen ser altamente perjudiciales: crecimiento del Índice de Precios al Consumo por encima de los ingresos; aumento de las diferencias socio-económicas; sobreexplotación y contaminación de recursos naturales; desvío de los usos tradicionales del agua para cubrir las necesidades de infraestructuras turísticas; incremento del precio de la tierra; deterioro de las condiciones laborales; sustitución de sectores productivos tradicionales; etc. (2012a, p. 28)

This situation has been very frequent in the last decades. For its operation, tourist activity needs natural heritage as water, land, and energy, labor, public and private capital, investment, among others. Gascón (2012b) reveals that agricultural activities decrease in places where this kind of tourism is applied, due to land monopoly, water, public investment priorities in favor of the activity, government development plans, the kind of required labor force, among other factors. Thus, it tends to favor speculative processes for the habitable soil use and to exclude local populations or creating difficulties for them.

As an alternative, the author stated that if populations could equally participate in tourism management, the problems would be minimized. However,

Lo que predomina es una escena en el que el control y gestión, y el acceso a los beneficios, de cada sector económico corresponde a sectores de población diferentes; incluso a sectores de población que no son locales. En esta situación, que un sector económico entre en crisis por perder acceso a recursos necesarios para su sostenibilidad comporta que la población que lo gestiona y vive de él se empobrezca. Cuando esto sucede, el turismo comporta importantes costos sociales: segmentación étnica, acentuación de la desigualdad social, erosión cultural, empobrecimiento del capital humano, etc. (Ibidem, p. 18)

Thus, the reflection suggested here is based on concrete experiences whose economic rationality (here understood in an integrated sense, incorporating political, social, and cultural dimensions, among others) contradicts the logic of concentration of these corporations, through collaborative mechanisms of control and management of tourist activity by the beneficiary communities. In this sense, community-based tourism (TBC) contradicts the corporate profit assumptions, the opacity in management forms, and the vertical control of natural and cultural heritage, allowing new protagonists.

However, in a globalized world dominated by capitalist logic, propitious for tourism activity to be controlled by corporate interests, what differentiated mechanisms of management and control are being developed by these communities? Sharing powers and knowledge stagnated by self-management and solidarity. What elements hold TBC experiences, allowing new people in scene from relational dynamics they supposedly stimulate?

This article deals with subjects based on elements observed in three experiments performed in East Timor, in Tutuala, Maubisi, and Maubara communities, in order to understand if the social transformation proposal is highlighted by the appearance of new protagonists in TBC process. Therefore, other economies, self-management, and social emancipation concepts were used as mediators of this reflection.

It is about an empirical study, whose analysis elements are obtained from field work performed by the researcher, through Mó de Vida Cooperativa, and resulting in a final external evaluation own authorship report, within the scope of “Ahimatan Ba Future – Poverty reduction in East Timor through community-based tourism” project³. This was an initiative of Amilcar Cabral Intervention Center for Development – Portugal (CIDAC), and Habura Foundations (East Timor).

The population low level of education and the isolation due to recent history of the country are the reasons for the lack of diversification in socioeconomic activities, with emphasis on subsistence agriculture. Thus, promoting entities, considered TBC as a possibility of complementary initiative, focusing on communities’ development for visit programs elaboration and self-management of infrastructures, in order to encourage the leadership and financial autonomy of them.

The project focused on three areas of community interaction: (1) Suco Tutuala – Valu Sere Cooperative – created on October 28, 2007 after a code of conduct adoption as the organization’s statute. The main activities consist in management of a restaurant and housing (eight rooms), a kiosk for basic commodities sale, and production and sale of traditional handicrafts; (2) Suco Maubisse, Lekitehi village – Hakmatek Cooperative – created on 2007, whose activities include horticultural production and mutual assistance of members for safeguarding of environmental heritage; (3) Suco Vatuvou (Maubara subdistrict), Lisalara and Siamanaru villages – Laloran Community Group, formally registered as Laloran Cooperative on May 29, 2010.

Data collection was performed from July 23 to August 3, 2014, in East Timor. Activities were developed in Dili, Tutuala, Maubissi, and Maubara Districts, involving: (1) five members of Valu Sere Cooperative, one collective coordinator, and one community host of Haburas Foundation; (2) seven members of Hakmatek Cooperative, one collective coordinator, and one community host of Haburas Foundation; (3) five members of Laloran Cooperative, one collective coordinator, and one community host of Haburas Foundation. In all cases, the researcher performed group sessions, as well as individual interviews.

People involved with Ahimatan Project were interviewed for different perceptions about these contexts, among which: One professor of the Department of Community Development of the National University of East Timor; the Secretary of State for Employment and Professional Qualification at the Secretariat of State, Politics, and Professional Qualification

(SEPFOP); two representatives from PARCIC – PARC Interpeoples’ Cooperation (Japan); one representative of the Ministry of Tourism, and two graduate students in Community Development of Faculty of Social and Political Sciences of UNTL.

A cutoff of information from the original report was performed to organize the information to the purpose of this article, considering the learning in two levels: (1) as for the initiative acceptance and appropriation by community groups; (2) autonomy levels achieved in aspects of group and financial management, and provision of services to the visitor.

2. Community-based Tourism (TBC): what is in question?

TBC has been the focus of diverse researches in recent years, even though their features and activities are considered recent, with no more than one decade (^{Branquinho, 2012}). The understanding is complex, incorporating different denominations, approaches, and distances regarding its assumptions (sustainable tourism, responsible tourism, fair tourism, ethical tourism, solidarity tourism…). Without going into specifics, I agree with ^{Irving (2009}, p. 111-112) when he says that

[c]onsidering that tourism, in any of its forms of expression and intervention, interferes in the socio-environmental dynamics of any destination, community-based tourism can only be developed if the protagonists of this destination are subjects and not objects of the process. In this case, community sense transcends the classical perspective of “low income communities” or “traditional communities” to achieve the common sense of collective. […] Social protagonism results from belonging feeling and influence power over decision processes, and can only be fully expressed when the social actor recognizes himself as a construction process agent of reality and dynamics of development.

Another aspect, the fact that TBC can be stated as a counterpoint to forms of corporate and mass tourism, allowing “another way of visit and hospitality” (^{BURSZTYN; BARTHOLO; DELAMARO, 2009}, p. 86). Though practiced in the same destination, it requires smaller infrastructures and services, valuing the natural heritage and local culture, which is not consistent with the restricted perspective of traveling to exotic routes. In this sense, what is evidenced is the idea of respecting for

cultural heritages and local traditions, serving as a way to reinvigorate and even rescue them. It has centrality in its structuring, establishing a dialog and interactive relationship between visitors and hosts. In this relational manner, neither the hosts are submissive to the tourists, nor do the tourists make the hosts mere objects of consuming exploitation. (Ibidem, p. 86)

This argument agree with ^{Branquinho (2012)} study, stating that diverse European organizations involved with TBC, organize preparatory meetings with visitors, in order to obtain more information about the host communities and the trip goals, so people can be aware of different experiences of this proposal. TBC main benefits, perceived by the European organizations involved in this activity, are shown as following:

i. Population interaction with tourists; ii. Women’s role due to their self-esteem increase; iii. Recovery and appreciation of ancestral knowledge and practices; iv. Productive diversification, employment opportunities, and economic resources creation; v. Infrastructure improvements and local economy promotion. (Ibidem, p. 103)

TBC proposals, as a counterpoint to corporate models of all inclusive, uprooted from community spaces and relationships with populations, seems to have potential to stimulate horizontal relationships through communities participation, impelling the appearance of new political subjects as protagonists of their decision processes, and control and management of their natural, cultural, economic and social heritage. However, as ^{Bursztyn, Bartholo, and Delamaro (2009)} stated, it is not about these processes being immune to external influences, internal conflicts, and interests. The authors’ perspective

[s]tands out the significance of such community enterprises for democracy and quality of life, whether or not the communities are grouped in cooperatives, micro-enterprises, trade unions, or other forms of free association; and whether or not exist solidarity networks with non-governmental international or only national organizations. Partnerships — agreements and pacts negotiated for both projects implementation with local public administration and other government and private sector levels — are constitutive elements of participatory democracy, and situated and sustainable development. (p. 88)

Despite agreeing in part with these researches argument, it is necessary to take into account whether or not forms of organization and choices of partnerships stimulate the horizontal nature of relationships, sharing of powers and knowledge, transparency and trust, among other aspects associated with forms of cooperation, and “desired” solidarities, allowing the maturation of these experiences, not compromising their longevity.

A study performed by ^{Maldonado (2009)}, in Ecuador, identifies different forms of community association in TBC, which is interesting, although he systematically resort to “business” term to argue about the theme, which seems to be a simplistic approach in face of dimensions that different proposals articulate (economic, but also political, social, cultural, among others). In any case, his systematization content, positively illustrates what we intend to focus on:

Such examples indicate internal organization forms and partnerships that modify the relationship with people, giving shape to different TBC expressions with higher or lower protagonism, and community control of the processes. Considering that any TBC experience tends to coexist with hegemonic practices and thinking of a globalized world, based on vertical power-knowledge relationships and certain indicators of success, it emphasizes the initial concern of knowing the collaborative management mechanisms present in some of these experiences, signaling to social transformation by self-management and solidarity, and generating new protagonists in this process.

3. TBC: Are there other economies in progress? What are the possibilities of social emancipation?

Contemporary neoliberal globalization, based on new technologies are increasingly promoting invisibility, crossed by discourses and relational forms of coexistence, and organization based mostly on capitalist rationality, in which the opacity of the “market”, naturalizes the domination by force of a “diluted, vague figure, engendering the imprecise fiction of “sovereign individuality.” (^{CATTANI, 2009}, p. 177).

Work has been one of the central axes strengthening this logic of social reproduction, either through precarious and punctual insertion in the market, disqualifying it systematically, and throwing it into a limbo of uncertainties; or through the direct subordination of dependent and wage earner labor. In this sense, capitalist ideology has proved to be efficient, especially in cognitive terms - cognitive capitalism – (^{LAZZARATO, 2006}), since not only the means of production tend to be dominated, but the production of desires and wishes that led to consumerism, and stimulate the mimicry of behaviors and discourses that compromise the social emancipation.

Therefore, “other economies” field reveals an open space to socioeconomic practices study based on other rationalities and forms of material life organization (^{SANTOS, 2015}), undermining the economy formulation focusing on capitalist enterprise, subordinate-wage earner labor, and in capitalist market. Stating what Gibson-Graham (2007) says to be a small part of activities, in which we have been producing, exchanging, and distributing values. In his point of view, this perspective allows to expand the economy conceptions as “a comprehensive and scientific body of knowledge under critical suspicion, due its narrow focus and mystifying effects” (p. 3, my own understanding).

Thus, the multiplicity of solidarity and cooperation experiences, carried out from other logics of work, tend to be produced as absences and discredited, remembering ^{Santos (2003)}, against the dominant⁴ ideology. What is in question is the epistemological dispute of other senses, in order to contribute for creation, recreation, and revitalization of their dynamics to rescue them from invisibility. Amongst this tension, we reinforce Santos and Rodriguez’s statement that cultures marginalized contribution by capitalist hegemony is fundamental, since

Alternative forms of knowledge are alternative sources of production seeking for alternatives to capitalist production. Minority or hybrid cultures contribution, marginalized by capitalism hegemony and modern science is fundamental. […] There are ways of looking at the world that establish a relationship radically different from capitalist/ modern among human beings and nature, production and consumption, work and free time, use and profit, and development and growth. What is needed, then, is not only respect the cultural diversity that allows the survival of these worldviews, but also learn to build a paradigm of cosmopolitan knowledge and action, different from what underlies the neoliberal globalization. (2003, p. 60-61)

Therefore, the effort to rescue other rationalities/ economies from invisibility, according to TBC experiences studied here, serves the purpose of figure out the solidarity links settled down in the work centrality and against accumulation of capital, besides the combination of different modes of association, in addition to non-market oriented view of the relationship with nature.

By giving new meaning to the study, as an act of creation and an educational-pedagogical principle overcoming the discourse and the dominant representation, there is a field of possibilities to social emancipation, as far as individual and/ or collective subjects confront the dominant rationality of economy, with new forms of power-knowledge by autonomy, self-management,⁵ and solidarity. Rescuing such experiences from invisibility and discredit, the power-knowledge coloniality⁶ is confronted⁷ as one of modern-eurocentric paradigm legacies, which has inferiorized new knowledge produced by emerging political subjects during these processes, and when emancipating from such cognitive patterns.

However, prospect the social emancipation means search for a set of principles, concepts, and material processes on which other expressions appear to giving it meaning - proletarian self-emancipation, self-government, socialism, self-managed society, and freely associated producers society (^{CATTANI, 2009}). According to the author, social emancipation concept is related to “the ideological and historical process of liberation by political communities or social groups of dependence, tutelage, and domination in economic, social and cultural spheres” (Ibidem, p. 175). Therefore, “emancipation means to get rid of the power held by others, achieving at the same time, full civil and citizen capacity in a democratic rule-of-law state” (Ibidem, p. 175). Thereby, social emancipation is related to autonomy, i.e,

a political community is emancipated and free, when its laws are not imposed by repressive, tutelary, or paternalistic processes; is autonomous when does not obey subjective, adventitious, or arbitrary rules; is truly emancipated when the supreme law is the common, objective, and universal good. In emancipated society, individuals have the maximum of freedom, based on equality, reciprocity of rights, obligations, and finally, the civilizing process guaranteeing the free respectful expression of difference and freedom of the other. (Ibidem, p. 175)

In an analysis about emancipatory power of subjects’ autonomy, ^{Rey (2011:169)} considers the autonomy meaning⁸ when it is about the organization and management of common issues from the following elements:

1. Quién es el “sujeto” real o potencialmente autónomo: ¿*el individuo, *la clase, *el grupo social, *la organización, *la multitud, *la comunidad, *el pueblo, *las masas, *la sociedad?. ¿Cómo se practica y extiende la autonomía? ¿Cómo se define y conforma su subjetividad? ¿Qué se entiende por subjetividad y subjetivación?

2. Cuál es el alcance de la autonomía, en qué “escala” se concibe su ejercicio: ¿la asociación voluntaria para un fin específico, la fábrica, la escuela, el barrio, la comunidad territorial, el municipio, la agrupación política, la nación, el planeta? En su caso ¿cómo se replicarían las prácticas autonómicas en colectivos sociales múltiples y complejos?

3. Cómo se expresa la autonomía, es decir, cuáles son las reglas de juego para la participación individual y colectiva en la toma de decisiones: ¿horizontalidad, asamblea, delegación, representación?

4. Cuál es la forma democrática de existencia de un colectivo autónomo. El ideal perfecto de democracia directa, en el que todos participan, plenos de voluntad y conciencia, de las decisiones sobre asuntos colectivos – la historia lo enseña –, parecería sólo practicable en comunidades muy pequeñas y sencillas, cuya agenda de cuestiones comunes tiene un formato limitado. También podría ser viable en ámbitos acotados, como un lugar de trabajo, una escuela, una organización social, una comunidad territorial, etcétera. Sin embargo, también aquí se ponen en juego otras cuestiones que merecen una reflexión particular.

a) ¿Qué características y tamaño debe tener el espacio asambleario donde todos puedan realmente emitir su opinión razonada y escuchar y evaluar los argumentos de los demás, para alcanzar la mejor decisión posible? ¿Es necesario que estén y participen todos para que una decisión sea legítima? ¿Basta con que estén notificados? ¿Quién está habilitado, entonces, para definir el momento y el lugar? ¿El que no va, delega la representación o preserva su capacidad de decisión? ¿Hay un deber de participar en las decisiones y acciones colectivas o es un derecho que se ejerce o no? ¿Las personas deben influir en las decisiones en proporción a cómo son afectadas por ellas? ¿Qué es lo que legitima una decisión tomada en un ámbito asambleario: el espacio mismo definido como abierto o el número de participantes, o una combinación de los dos? ¿Y quién y cómo decide esto?

b) ¿Qué recursos intelectuales y de información deben poseer los miembros de ese colectivo que toma decisiones para estar en igualdad real de condiciones, a la hora de decidir? Si la opinión de todos sobre todo es equivalente, ¿existe el derecho a argumentar una propuesta en función de saberes específicos sobre la cuestión en juego? Quienes están directamente afectados por una cuestión, ¿deberían o no tener mayor incidencia en la decisión final?

Thus, it was concluded that building TBC experiences in a context of social emancipation is not a simple task. Next, see the learning of the studied processes.

4. Valu Sere, Hakmatek, and Laloran: What they have taught about social emancipation?

First, autonomy levels achieved by community groups is a result of a pedagogical process developed along TBC project implementation. During external evaluation, a thematic survey of training and methodologies contents was performed to relate the testimonials obtained in situ, for cross-reference information.

There was a concern to combine technical contents to values assigned to TBC, especially in thematic blocks “Management and cooperative organization,” and “Current management of hotel and restoration activities,” as well as in study visits. Thus, some pedagogical contents used in experiential learning process were highlighted: (1) Ethics: the stimulus for building principles and values of each group based on consensual “Codes of Conduct”; (2) Technical: In hospitality, restoration, financial and housing management, and security fields, among other aspects. Using experience-based participatory methodologies, participants are encouraged to compare critically TBC proposal with those essentially entrepreneurial. The debate on diverse tourism typologies, from “mass tourism” to those with affinities with TBC (such as ecotourism) were important measures for deeper understanding the concept and development of an analytical vision about work, relationships with members, and forms of interaction with surrounding environment.

During interviews with members of three cooperatives, we tried to identify how each experience integrated the learning process with its daily practices. Therefore, we used the following references: (1) operation of working groups; (2) financial management; (3) complementarities with traditional activities and surrounding community.

In this point, it is worth highlighting the existence of codes of conduct among members in three cooperative, created from dialogue and participation of them during Ahimatan Project. Another aspect is subgroups of work turnover, related to visitors’ accommodation operation self-managed by participants. In all three contexts, the members have not abandon their traditional activities (agriculture, sometimes combined with raising animals and, in some cases, artisanal fishing), coexisting with TBC activity.

In Valu Sere Cooperative, the rotational scale is one week for each one of four subgroups responsible for accommodation management. Including attendance services to visitors in restaurant, rooms, and kiosk, selling some products as water and handicrafts. Each one controls what happens during the period. These notes are recorded in a book that everyone has access. The information includes: (1) activities performed at the kiosk - what was sold and their prices; (2) accommodation period - number of overnight stays; (3) restaurant – number of meals served.

In weekly management transfer, every Sunday, the subgroup in charge transmits the information about the movement carried out, including cost estimate, expenses, and revenues. About twelve people are part of each subgroups with the following tasks and number of people: finances, one; bathroom cleaning, two; rooms, two; kitchen, four or five; restaurant, two or three. A meeting between members is held before transfer the management to the next subgroup, organizing the work and ensuring the flow of information. There is a general meeting every quarter with the general coordinator of the group.

The code of conduct serves as a guideline for the group functioning, as following: (1) attempting to mediate conflicts, which happens by consulting the coordinator of each subgroup and, if there is no solution, resort to the general coordinator and, in the last case, appeal to the counselor; (2) property issues, because the cooperative is collective, but the land belongs to a family, who allowed the construction of structures; (3) cleaning of rooms, kitchen, and common areas, which are carried out every day by the team in charge.

Hakmatek Cooperative has about forty people of hundred resident families working there. Two subgroups ensure the housing management. The code of conduct includes criteria on responsibilities and collaboration at work, among which we highlight: (1) one coordinator is responsible for organization along with the group; (2) one treasurer controls the money; (3) two people work in the kitchen and one in the cleaning; (4) there is a weekly rotation of two subgroups, always on Mondays; (5) the coordinator is replaced every three years; (6) each subgroup have ten people meeting monthly for rendering of accounts; (7) collective decisions are taken every three months.

A banner in the restaurant explains the collective operation. The coordinator articulates the group and complaints about members not fulfilling their responsibilities. The vice-coordinator assumes during the coordinator absence. The “treasurer” deals with the budget. The “move goods” promotes the local product. The “internal” is responsible for housing management. The “social relationship” mediates the community conflicts or issues by consulting the coordinator.

From 60 initial workers, there is 45 currently working. Money distribution is the most common problem, since 15 ex-members are requiring it. However, the problems are being settled by dialogue: “if they have the group name, they need to work.” (member, 2014). The Laloran Cooperative, which also has a code of conduct, highlights the following aspects of its operation: (1) discipline; (2) the other must be respected; (3) regulation of activity within the group; (4) there is a list of attendances showing members participation in the meetings; (5) a member exclusion is performed after an oral warning followed by a written one; (6) the environment must be protected; (7) shared decision-making: members must be heard in a forum; (8) they work together, so that everything goes well; (9) two groups of 15 people (total of 30) take turns in housing management.

As for the organization there are: One general coordinator and one vice-coordinator by subgroup; one treasurer; one guide; two sales promoter/ commercial department; two responsible for the rooms; three responsible for the kitchen; one serving the table, and two security guards. General cleaning is daily performed. Subgroups alternation is performed every two weeks, on Mondays. The group had built the housing together based on the current management alternation. Members designed the drawing, identified the appropriate materials, and acquired it from the mountain.

If someone is absent, there is a mutual assistance in different tasks. In addition to housing, the cooperative has a restaurant for parties and other room for meetings, as a way to make an extra profit. Before the biweekly alternation, there is a meeting to settle questions about inputs and outputs of money, and plan the following week. Every month, there is a general meeting to decide on purchases.

Other relevant aspects of collective management are: (1) the security, due to surveillance for parking, control of people and animals, and visitors’ belongings when they go to the sea; (2) purchasing system, with biweekly planning due to visitors arrival, including local products for meals and maintenance materials; and (3) cleaning divided between men (bathrooms) and women (rooms), with mutual collaboration if there are many visitors.

This item focus on economic benefits division resulting from TBC activity, associated with transparency mechanisms created for accountability. The three cooperatives found their own ways of distributing benefits, despite the problems in Hakmatek Cooperative.

In Valu Sere Cooperative, benefits division is performed based on weekly reports, and the distribution is carried out every three months: 25% general reserve; 15% construction; 10% maintenance; 75% remuneration for workers. Counselors and elderly people receive 25%, every three months. Among workers, 42 have income from housing distributed equally to all. Entries and exits of visitors are recorded in a logbook filled and signed on arrival. It is one of the basic tools for permanence controlling of visitors, including daily rate, check in/check out, visitors’ name. From July 2008 until the external evaluation, 895 people visited Valu Sere, collecting approximately USD 111,002.15 of income. From 2005 to 2008, there is no record. In 2005, they had some visitors, but in 2006, there was a political party conflict destabilizing the country and set up a crisis.

In the case of Hakmatek Cooperative, benefits distribution is based on income and expenses generated by housing and restaurant, as following: (1) total of expenses related to housing maintenance; (2) members receive no income but make withdrawals as they need. The coordinator authorizes and the treasurer pays. The coordinator record in the report shown at the quarterly meeting.

Entries and exits control of visitors shall be recorded in a logbook, as well as the amounts received. There are two books for such record: (1) number of visitors and expenses with each one; who carried out the purchases and invoice input; (2) members’ cash withdrawal and contribution to the community. The maximum amount of loans to members is USD 20.00.

The book supposedly indicates the amount borrowed, its return, among other expenses.

However, the first book has visitor and expense records only until April (it was July). The number of visitors filled in it was lower than the input. About a hundred visitors, at least, were not recorded. When inquiring about this mismatch, one of the coordinator reveals that members forget to present the book. The first visitor was recorded on August 16, 2012 and, until this study date, they supposedly received about two hundred people. There is a reserve fund created for maintenance expense, USD 1,000.00, which is under responsibility of one of the members.

Laloran Cooperative defined that, if incomes are low it is not distributed among the members, being oriented for “reserve fund” and “maintenance” items. For benefits distribution, the items created must meet the following amounts: for an income of USD 1,000.00, the reserve fund shall be USD 400.00 (40%); maintenance, USD 100.00 (10%); distribution among members, USD 500.00 (50%). If the expected amount is considered high, the entire group decides what will be charged and its destination. Such agreements are safeguarded in a transparent manner.

The organization has a logbook that is filled and signed by visitors at arrival, including daily rates, check in/check out, visitors’ name, telephone, among others. Entry control is performed by any one of the members and is never forgotten. Number of visitors, name, entry and exit date, nationality, comments, and signature are recorded in logbook. Since December 22, 2011, there is an official logbook. 249 visitors have been recorded until the external evaluation date, along with some at a supplementary list prior to the book, totalizing 260. There is a financial management book, similar to Maubissi, which lists income and expenses and if there are any tips. It is noteworthy that who gives a direct support to the visitor receives the tip. Income and expenses balance is calculated at the exit of each visitor, and by pax, obtaining a final amount. Members in charge for managing the fortnight performs this balance collecting and closing the balance sheet account. When another group assumes, shall always check the balance sheet account of previous fortnight.

These complementarities are especially related to interaction with traditional activities, in feed field, and appreciation of local culture, widely involving the communities in TBC, in addition to those participating directly in cooperatives.

According to Valu Sere Cooperative coordinator, there were changes in community traditional activities after TBC creation, especially for fisheries. They used to be realized without equipment, but now, it is performed with machines and boat support. The Cooperative and other traders buy the fish, which was formerly consumed by the family. There is also a freezer bought by the state. Valu Sere workers have other activities as vegetable gardens, fishing, farming, and raising animals. Among anglers, three are members. Local products are used in restaurant and in special recipes. Some people sell their products in front of their homes, with children support before they go to school. Usually, they use bananas, cassava, pumpkin, potatoes, sweet potatoes, coconuts, and papayas, among local crops. Women cook pudim of pumpkin, banana, and papaya, and pisang goreng with fried banana, cassava, and corn.

Wheat is bought in the supermarket, but they used to process maize meal and cassava flour. Since this task takes some time, they prefer wheat. Selling everything, they have a gross income of about USD 5.00, discounting the cost with flour, oil, sugar, baking powder, and wood. Some of these products are sold in four other communities.

As for animals, there is a lot of Timor’s chicken in Tutuala, which is small and costs about USD 1.00. However, there is the annual problem with avian influenza and vaccination in general. Fish is bought from fishing group. Others things are sometimes acquired in other communities. Pork is expensive, between USD 40.00 and 50.00, if it is small. The cooperative members use maize, potatoes, cassava, banana, papaya, pumpkin, papaya leaves and flowers, cassava and pumpkin leaves, and lettuce (when water is available).

Laloran, Hakmatek, and Valu Sere exchange cooking experiences. Comparative studies were important to know how to plant, and that there is exchange of products, besides showing to visitors that there are other groups as Valu Sere, in Maubara and Maubissi. Seeds are not exchanged because climate and land are different. Buy and sell products are allowed among all.

In Hakmatek Cooperative, products from local crops are sold to housing group, if there are production surplus. Vegetables are always from local crops. If there is Timor’s chicken, they buy from the community. If there is not, they use the imported ones. Fish is bought in Aileu, in Sucu Daisoli, but sellers also go to Maubissi to sell, since there is a bazaar twice a week. Where products as vegetables, pig, buffalo, cow, and horse from various communities are sold. Before TBC, local product was never purchased. Thus, TBC is a valorization factor of products and local culture, receiving visitors wishing to know it.

“Grandfathers” are involved in TBC work, since they live in traditional houses and tell stories to visitors. There are seven traditional houses, in four of them eight people can live there. They say, “when visitors arrive nothing bad happens because they all have information.” (Hakmatek member, 2014). In general, they acknowledge that the community is happy with TBC implementation, because of visitors are coming to know the place and buying products, especially food as potatoes, eggs, among others.

Finally, in Laloran Cooperative the members are farmers, with two anglers and one weaver. They raise animals and live close to housing, making possible to reconcile traditional activities with TBC, and monetizing it through purchase of products to cooperative members. As an example, they use local products as corn, cassava, fish, buffalo, pork, and young goat in the meals. They say that Timor’s chicken is expensive compared to imports. However, the visitors do not like the imported ones, so they give preference. It is bought from the members, although depending on the visitors, they use the imported one, if there is no formal request for the Timor’s chicken. When there are visitors, anglers sell the fish preferably to housing.

There was a training for food processing, but there is no production because the lack of furnace, machinery, or packaging. At home, members often fail to prepare meals like in the restaurant because there is no oil and other necessary products.

Finally, people involved in this process are significant, i.e.: 48, 40, 30 people of four, two, and two subgroups guaranteeing housing management and their aggregates, in Valu Sere, Hakmatek, and Laloran Cooperatives, respectively. As for people indirectly involved 360 families in Sucu de Tutuala, 100 families in Sucu de Maubissi, and 50 families in Sucu de Vatuboro, subdistrict of Maubara.

5. Conclusions

These TBC experiences, studied from the point of view of social emancipation, showed important contributions to other economic fields, since other rationalities are expressed here, although not decoded by their subjects (in none of the cases forms of resistance or counterpoints to capitalist rationality were mentioned). However, they criticize corporate and mass tourism.

There are evidences that the way they organize themselves to ensure the management of TBC is not restricted to a merely technical response for the performance of their roles. Since TBC is a complementary activity, the participants need to organize themselves in a collaborative way, in which turnover allows the conservation of their traditional activities, beyond the feedback associated with the products circulating via TBC, showing a collaborative dynamism of the small local economy.

Other products such as handicrafts are also covered by TBC, in which sharing the local culture is another reinforced value. In addition, there is also the participation of older people, such as the storytellers in Maubissi, who play an important role by sharing the cultural and oral tradition, as well as the benefit that TBC also brings to the development of activities related with tradition (grandparents are directly benefited with part of the remuneration from TBC, applied in community initiatives).

It is important to emphasize the contents and debates carried out during the training involving ethics, understood as a set of principles and values which guide TBC (or at least some views on TBC, seeing there is not just a single one), in which cooperation, solidarity, transparency, and autonomy can be found in the discourses and practices which guide these experiences, expressed in codes of conduct, in the numerous forms of management, and in the relationship with the surrounding communities.

The concern with the transfer of management from a subgroup to another, and the meetings for the performing of agreements and decision-making indicate that these groups give importance to the existence of a powers-sharing process. This is also observed in financial management, regarding the distribution of benefits derived from work and the transparency mechanisms found to make clear the handling of income and expenses. For this, they have found simple mechanisms for the easy identification of the elements necessary to understand how each subgroup can carry out their expenditure estimation, purchases expenses, revenues, and calculation of benefits.

The way they integrate the TBC activity into local forms of production and commercialization is not limited to a mere increase of the local population’s income. This is only part of the process that implies new rhythms and work dynamics, as well as new sociabilities, since shared management requires the organization of spaces and times for systematic meetings in which benefits are calculated and it is decided how they will be distributed, in addition to debates on recent problems, forms of intervention of different people, and whatever is object of collective decision-making.

Finally, it is possible to learn from these experiences that new subjects of shared power and knowledge are present in these spaces, organizing themselves based on collective work, in collaboration with families, and their respective surrounding communities. These sociabilities and forms of coexistence show that, with the self-management of work, the autonomy of these subjects is imprinted in the everyday life of these relationships, removing them from the condition of executing object of wage labor and subordinate work. Under this condition, TBC can be a way for new subjects to construct other rationalities - other economies - through the experimentation of collective practices with a horizon of social emancipation. Thank you CIDAC for having authorized the use of the information from the external evaluation report, on which this article is based, and for the disclosure of the names of the diverse entities.