journal of ecotourism

JOURNAL OF ECOTOURISM ARTICLE ID: JOE150 TO: CORRESPONDING AUTHOR AUTHOR QUERIES - TO BE ANSWERED BY THE AUTHOR The following queries have arisen during the typesetting of your manuscript. Please answer these queries. Q1

Diehl, 2001 in text but 1997 in ref. list.

Q2

Lynn, 1993 in text but 1992 in ref. list

Q3

Huntington, 1971 in text but 1968 in ref. list.

Q4

Initial for Flores Ochoa?

Q5

Where are Broch-Due and Schoroeder (2000) cited in text?

Q6

Where is Brown cited in text? Please supply initials.

Q7

Where is Butcher (2002) cited in text?

Q8

Where are Cole and Middleton (2001) cited in text?

Q9

Where is Fair (1997) cited in text?

Q10

Where are Hulme and Murphree (1999) cited in text?

Q11

Please list all editors.

Q12

Where is Litfin (1994) cited in text?

Q13

Please list all authors for McGrew & Lewis ref. and cite in text.

Q14

Where is Middleton (1999) cited in text?

Q15

Where is Neumann (2000) cited in text?

Q16

Where is O’Brien et al. (2000) cited in text?

Q17

Where is Tucker (1994) cited in text?

Global Environmental Governance and the Politics of Ecotourism in Madagascar Rosaleen Duffy Centre for International Politics, Government, International Politics and Philosophy, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK This article examines the politics of ecotourism, through an examination of how it intersects with broader shifts in the global system. In particular, it argues that the changes brought about by the end of the Cold War led to increasing forms of governance through public –private networks of actors that range from states to NGOs to private companies. This article focuses on the development of ecotourism policy in Madagascar as an example of how ecotourism is integrated into global politics through rising forms of what is often called ‘global governance’. It specifically investigates the politics of ecotourism as ideologically informed by neoliberal definitions of development which underpin global governance, and through an analysis of the interplay between different interest groups involved in it. It examines the operation of the Donor Consortium and its relationship to global environmental NGOs, in order to understand why ecotourism is promoted by organisations as diverse as the World Bank and environmental NGOs. Keywords: conservation, community based tourism, ecotourism, global governance, NGOs

Introduction This article explores the politics of ecotourism, development and globalisation in Madagascar.1 Ecotourism is interrelated with broader processes of globalisation and in particular with global environmental governance. However its promotion as a politics or value free development option ‘invisibilises’ the wider political implications of pursuing ecotourism as a means of securing environmentally sustainable development in the South. The politics of ecotourism is a theme that is generally lacking in the more technicist and policy oriented literature of tourism studies, and even in development studies. Therefore, this article will locate ecotourism within the debates on governance in international relations, specifically North– South relations. The definition of ecotourism is not uncontested. Projects, tours and hotels may define themselves as ‘ecotourism’, but there is no single agreed definition of what it means (see Ceballos-Lascura´in, 2003; Clarke, 2002; Diamantis & Ladkin, 1999; Ryan, 1999 for further discussion). Ecotourist accomodation, it seems, ranges from the most luxurious resort to the small-scale communityrun campsite; furthermore, ecotours range from being nature-based vehicle safaris to consumptive use of wildlife through sport hunting (see Novelli et al., this issue). For the purposes of this article I will use a standard definition of ecotourism provided by The International Ecotourism Society (TIES), which 1472-4049/06/01 001-17 $20.00/0 JOURNAL OF ECOTOURISM

# 2006 R. Duffy Vol. 5, Nos. 1&2, 2006

1

2

Journal of Ecotourism

serves to illustrate how most definitions of ecotourism are presented as apolitical. TIES defines ecotourism as responsible travel to natural areas while conserving the environment and contributing to the well being of local people. In addition, community-based ecotourism is often presented as a form of ecotourism that takes the social dimension one step further; it includes notions of community participation in management of ecotourism projects so that they gain the maximum benefits from it.2 However, this article will examine the political underpinnings of the definitions and practices of ecotourism as well as the political impacts of ecotourism in Madagascar itself. Located off the east coast of Africa, Madagascar is a good case from which to explore these issues: it has both an African and Indian Ocean identity, it is one of the worlds poorest nations, it has a highly unique and diverse environment and has been subject to much attention from international financial institutions (IFIs), donors and environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs). In order to explore these issues in Madagascar, this article will firstly provide an analysis of global environmental governance and its relationship to ecotourism a form of ‘development’ for Africa; secondly, it will investigate ecotourism policies in Madagascar; and finally it will examine the role of donors and NGOs in formulating and implementing those policies.

Global Environmental Governance, Neoliberalism and the Politics of Tourism Reid suggests that tourism is at present a major force in the organisation of Barber’s McWorld, which is marked by corporate globalisation (Barber, 1995); tourism is a worldwide phenomenon dominated by transnational corporations, which exports western culture to the developing world and which drains the developing world of its resources. For Reid, tourism is a product of the hegemony of the West and it starkly demonstrates the ‘development’ gap between the world’s richest and poorest nations (Reid, 2003: 2– 3). Reid’s stinging criticism of tourism as an exemplar of growing corporate globalisation, where capital has free rein, highlights the link between the growth of tourism, structural changes in the global economy and fundamental shifts in international relations. It is clear that the expansion of the tourism industry, and the sub-sector of ecotourism, occurred against a backdrop of a rapidly changing post Cold War world (from 1991 onwards). This period was marked by geo-political realignment, resurgence of a belief in markets and an increase in the demands of multilateral institutions on the developing world (such as economic liberalisation under Structural Adjustment Programmes). It was accompanied by the expansion of the influence and activities of international organisations and the ascendancy of the language of sustainable development (see Walley, 2004: 32; also see Fukuyama’s (1992) ‘End of History’ argument). The increasing interest in global governance in debates about the nature of international relations, development and environmental management can be regarded as part of this fundamental shift. This included a move away from traditional thinking about states as the most important political actors in the global system and a recognition of the geo-political and economic changes that marked the post Cold War world.

Ecotourism in Madagascar

3

For the purposes of this article it will be useful to provide a brief analysis of what global governance means and how it interlinks with the neoliberalism that underpins ecotourism development in the South. One of the most commonly referred to definitions of global governance was provided in 1995 by the Commission on Global Governance; it defined governance as formal institutions and regimes empowered to enforce compliance, as well as the informal arrangements that people or institutions have agreed or perceive to be in their interest (Commission on Global Governance, 1995: 4; Hewson & Sinclair, 1999: 5 –11; McGrew, 1992: 13; Rosenau, 1990: 10 –12). However, within the literature on global governance there are definite differences in the ways it is understood (Selby, 2003: 3 – 7). Post-structuralists such as Hardt and Negri have argued that it is a decentralised and deterritorialised regime of power which they call ‘empire’ (Hardt & Negri, 2000: 22). In contrast, realists suggest that global governance merely constitutes a further extension of the power of states in the global system (despite the proliferation of non-state actors such as NGOs and international organisations). Other scholars view global governance as a replacement for the term ‘multilateralism’, to indicate types of organisations which may be proliferating, but which are not controlled or supported by any centralised, sovereign authority, so they cannot be referred to as a world ‘government’ (Diehl, 2001; Paolini et al., 1998; Wilkinson & Hughes, 2002; Young, 1997). Still, Q1 even amongst these different ways of analysing global governance, there is some agreement about its core meaning. In its essence global governance is normatively about dispersing power away from hegemonic centres of power, especially states, about extending and overcoming resistance to liberal democratic values and procedures, and about ordering people and things through recourse to reason, knowledge and expertise (Selby, 2003: 6). Glasbergen suggests that governance presupposes a manageble society, or one that can be influenced, and that this notion is then allied to a belief in progress (Glasbergen, 1998b: 1). For the purposes of this article, global governance is defined as a set of neoliberal ideas that have been translated into similarly neo-liberal programmes and policies. These policies aim to govern people, resources and activities through complex networks of actors, rather than through a single source of power and authority, such as a state. Here, this article is concerned with what might be termed ‘global environmental governance’, which focuses on the regulation of environments and the actors that impact on them. The changes in global politics brought about by globalisation have impacted on the ways that environmental problems are increasingly subject to transnational forms of management. The increasing phenomenon of global governance is an important new development for environmental management. In particular, the transboundary nature of environmental problems has meant that they have become an important arena for what might be termed global environmental governance. Forests, wildlife, climate change, pollution, amongst other things, are increasingly subject to international forms of management. Glasbergen (1998b) suggests that environment is rich in models of governance that range from formal legal regulations, such as the Convention on Biodiversity, to market regulation and self-regulation. However, he is particularly concerned with the potential of what he calls ‘co-operative management’,

4


that is the engagement between public and private actors to reach a consensus about how best to tackle and resolve environmental problems (Glasbergen, 1998b: 1– 21). Although he recognises this model has its problems and its critics he views it as the most appropriate and promising means of co-operatively resolving environmental problems (Driessen, 1998; Glasbergen, 1998a). This article will examine the operation of such public–private engagement in terms of global governance and ecotourism development in Madagascar. This will in turn reveal the potentials and pitfalls of such forms of governance. The interest in embracing ecotourism as a development strategy is part of this global emergence of neo-liberalism as expressed through global environmental governance. Reid (2003: 6) notes that because of the sheer size of tourism as a global industry, any critique of it must also involve a critique of the system in which it operates. Tourism has often been promoted as a means of achieving sustainable development for North and South alike. Even the motto of the World Tourism Organisation – Tourism: Passport to Peace 3 – suggests that it increases communication and understanding through cultural exchange and thereby is a force for global peace. In terms of debates about the developing world, tourism is regularly presented as an engine of development. A recent special issue of Africa Insight was devoted to tourism and it was promoted as the ideal or problem free pathway to sustainable development; the headline was: ‘Tourism: Africa’s key to prosperity. The African Continent needs to conserve its natural heritage while creating a future for its people. Tourism can do both’.4 Actors as diverse as national governments (of the North and South), the World Bank, development and environment NGOs, as well as the private sector have expressed this view. In addition, ecotourism as a subset of tourism, has even greater claims attached to it: that it is the environmentally sustainable form of development for Africa. However, this view is rarely subjected to careful criticism. Tourism and ecotourism are underpinned by a market oriented strategy that neatly fits with the outlook of neo-liberalism. The interest in tourism can be related to neo-liberal theories of modernisation and their emphasis on the importance of internal factors as facilitators or inhibitors of development (for further discussion and critiques of neoliberal development see Escobar (1995) and Hoogvelt (2001)). This ideological basis of tourism growth indicates that it is very much a political process related to wider global changes (see Matthews & Richter, 1991; Reid, 2003; also see Hall 1994). The renewed emphasis on outward oriented growth and the rise of neo-liberal development strategies has focused attention on tourism as a potential growth sector. The central core of neo-liberal development strategies is an emphasis on economic diversification, particularly a commitment to non-traditional exports, such as tourism (Brohman, 1996; also see Reid, 2003). This approach has also been favoured by organisations such as the World Bank and IMF, and by bilateral donors, which have made loans available in return for reforms that favour market-oriented growth (World Bank, 2005). Developing countries are considered to have a comparative advantage in tourism since they attract tourists from the First World who seek sunshine, beaches and other natural and cultural attractions found in the developing


5

world. Governments in developing countries, facing financial problems and an end to secure markets for their goods in former colonial powers, have looked to tourism as an answer to their problems (Lynn, 1993). National tourism policies Q2 tend to be geared toward the generation of economic growth and the concept of tourism development is almost synonymous with neo-liberal definitions of economic growth, westernisation and modernisation for governments, since tourism means employment, balance of payments, regional development and foreign exchange (Fukuyama, 1992; Hall, 1994; Harrison, 1992; Huntington, 1971; Rostow, 1991). Q3 This article will now turn to an investigation of how these issues are played out in the ecotourism sector in Madagascar, specifically the role of global donors and environmental NGOs, as well as the politics of community based ecotourism and conservation. Firstly, however it is important to explain how this research was carried out. This work was conducted as part of a research grant from the Economic and Social research Council of the UK. I carried out two months fieldwork in Madagascar during mid-2004 (plus a shorter pilot project in 2001). The material was gathered primarily through semi-structured interviews with key interest groups involved with environmental governance in Madagascar. Interviewees were identified according to their expertise and role in environmental governance and the gem sector. A total of 36 interviews were carried out in Madagascar.5 The information obtained in interviews was then cross checked and supported through reference to published sources such as official reports of the World Bank, Malagasy Government and environmental NGOs, as well as newspaper articles and official websites. During interviews, the topics covered were specifically tailored to suit the interests and expertise of the informants. A number of interviews were carried out with the assistance of a translator, Mrs Bodo Rajaonarison. Using an interpreter inevitably changes the interactions within an interview situation and may impact on the kinds of information obtained (for further discussion see Ebbutt, 1998; Herod, 1999). However, it was clear that the benefits outweighed the problems associated with using a translator.6 The interviews were not taped, but I took detailed notes. This allowed a more free flowing discussion so that the interviewee and myself could respond to new issues as they arose in conversation. Similarly, taking notes rather than taping interviews meant that interviewees felt more comfortable when giving information about politically controversial topics. Interviewees were informed that their identities would remain confidential if they requested anonymity. This proved to be a very fruitful way of working, and allowed me to gain access to many different arguments and debates about the direction of ecotourism in Madagascar that would not have been accessible in any other way.

Global Environmental Governance and Ecotourism in Madagascar In this section I will outline the main features of the tourism industry in Madagascar, and then examine the role of donors, international financial institutions and environmental NGOs in developing ecotourism and conservation

6


policy in Madagascar, and finally I will provide an analysis of the politics of community-based initiatives. In keeping with neo-liberal development and environmental strategies, tourism has been identified as a critical sector for Madagascar. In particular it has been promoted as a means of providing sustainable development, which will ensure environmental conservation and alleviate poverty. Broadly Madagascar’s main niche market is in wildlife based ecotourism, especially visiting national parks, reserves and (to a lesser extent) beaches.7 Structurally most of the tourism industry is located in the island of Nosy Be (off the north coast of Madagascar), with another popular but less visited route through south-central Madagascar from the capital, Antananarivo, through Isalo National Park, to Ifaty and/or Fort Dauphin (for the privately owned Berenty Reserve).8 Furthermore, most of the industry is foreign owned, and the Malagasy Government has offered generous incentives to foreign operators to invest in building hotels and opening ecotourism related businesses.9 The key markets for Madagascar are in Europe, especially France, UK and Germany; with small numbers of tourists visiting from Japan, the US and Canada.10 Madagascar has been identified by the World Tourism Organisation and the Pro-Poor Tourism Partnership as a rapidly expanding market for global tourism. For example, over the period 1990 – 2000 visitor arrivals to Madagascar increased by 202%, with 53,000 visitors in 1990 and 160,000 visitors in 2000.11 Clearly, tourism had started to increase during the 1990s, but was then hit hard by the 2002 presidential crisis, which lasted for 6 months. During that period, flights to Madagascar were suspended and many foreign governments advised against travel to the area until it was resolved in mid-2002 (when Marc Ravalomanana was finally declared the winner of the December 2001 election).12 Clement Ravalisoana of the Professional Association of Tour Operators indicated that in 2004 visitor numbers had still not recovered from the 2002 crisis.13 The new Malagasy President, Marc Ravalomanana, has made it clear that he is interested in further developing the tourism industry as part of a broader programme of economic liberalisation and diversification. As part of this Government strategy, the Ministry of Tourism has begun to develop the idea of marketing Madagascar as a ‘culture’ destination to complement its reputation as an ‘eco’ destination. This will include tours to see circumcision rituals and ‘turning of the bones’ ceremonies where Malagasy communities celebrate the lives of their ancestors; since these ceremonies are unique to Madagascar it is hoped that they will constitute a key attraction for people wanting to experience a different culture.14 In addition, the Ministry of Tourism has begun developing plans to co-market Madagascar with Mauritius to make the destination more cost effective and attractive. This would allow Madagascar to offer a nature/culture tour, followed by a beach stay in Mauritius.15 It has also begun to develop its profile as a diving destination that offers pristine coral reefs and diverse marine life (including whales); finally, the solar eclipse ‘event’ in mid-2001 was used to raise its profile to potential visitors as tours were offered to national parks in the south of Madagascar where the eclipse could be clearly viewed.16 Where Madagascar fails to compete in the global tourism industry is in terms of facilities for visitors


7

and price when compared with other African and Indian Ocean destinations. It is relatively expensive to fly to Madagascar compared with comparable wildlife holidays in ‘big game’ destinations such as South Africa and Kenya; similarly, it is difficult for Madagascar to compete with beach destinations in the Indian Ocean such as the Seychelles, Mauritius and Kenya because its tourism infrastructure is not well developed and it is not especially well known as a relaxing beach or diving destination.17 However, the main purpose of this article is to explore the politics of ecotourism and how Madagascar fits into broader debates about global environmental governance and neo-liberal forms of development. Madagascar has become a key site of global interest in conservation and ecotourism partly because it contains high levels of biodiversity (also termed megadiversity), high rates of endemic species and is suffering from habitat loss.18 A common argument put forward by global donors, international financial institutions and global and local NGOs alike is that once the environment is secured or ‘saved’ it will attract global business in the form of ecotourism or adventure tourism.19 The unique cultures, flora, fauna and landscapes means that in terms of neo-liberalism the country has a ‘comparative advantage’ in nature, adventure and cultural tours. In particular, Madagascar can be thought of as a special interest wildlife destination. Madagascar has a unique environment, and in terms of recognition as a ‘brand’ in the global tourism market, it has the great benefit of the highly charismatic and instantly recognisable lemurs. The ‘lemur factor’ in Madagascar means that it can compete with other African destinations on the basis of wildlife and the habitats in which they live. In fact, the Malagasy environment and wildlife tourism ‘product’ has no equivalent competition because endemic lemurs cannot be viewed anywhere else. It is also important to analyse the role of the donor community and international environmental organisations in order to understand to development of Madagascar as an ‘environment’ destination. In this section I will provide an analysis of the broad features of global environmental governance and how it operates in the Malagasy context. Madagascar has become a key site for global environmental governance partly because it contains very high levels of biodiversity, high rates of endemic species and is well known to have severe environmental problems.20 The idea of an environmental crisis in a megadiverse and extremely poor country means that Madagascar has been identified by donors, NGOs, IFIs and others as a place that demands global attention, and more importantly, global action. In many ways Madagascar can be regarded as an object of prestige for donors and NGOs that are keen to be involved in conservation. Donors have been very influential because in the late 1980s the Malagasy government was in a debt crisis and was looking for debt relief and external aid. At the time, environmental protection was one of the newest and most important funding priorities for global donors. The cash strapped Malagasy government was more than willing to enter into relationships with donors to release funds in return for promises of greater attention to environmental protection. As a result, Kull argues that donors have developed a much higher degree of influence on Malagasy environmental policy making than elsewhere (see Kull, 1996: 68– 71).

8


From the late 1980s Madagascar experienced a boom in conservation and tourism related activity by international organisations. For example, the World Bank provided funding for a National Environmental Action Plan with a pledge of US$100 million. In addition, international NGOs have been key drivers of conservation and ecotourism policy. In 2003 ANGAP, Conservation International and a Malagasy NGO, Fanamby, launched a 14 minute film, entitled ‘A Cry for Hope’ in an effort to attract international tourism. The film focused on Analamazaotra Special Reserve and Ranomafana National Park and their contribution to conservation and ecotourism. In particular, as part of the film launch the new Malagasy President Marc Ravalomanana met with the Director of Conservation International, Dr Russell Mittermeier, to discuss the use of ecotourism as a means of conserving biodiversity.21 In general, Madagascar has financially benefited from a proliferation of relationships with multiple global donors since the mid-1980s that are all interested in funding environmental conservation programmes. The result for Malagasy people is an increase in foreign funded projects that aim to halt what they define as the human (or more specifically Malagasy) induced spiral of destruction (Kull, 1996: 50 –53). The high degree of influence held by donors in Madagascar is clearly indicated by the role of the Donor Consortium. It incorporates public and private actors, and as such it conforms to Glasbergen’s (1998b) notion of co-operative management. The idea of the Donor Consortium developed in tandem with the creation of the World Bank funded Office National Pour L’Environnement and the Charter for the Environment, and arose from the complex interactions between donors, international NGOs and the Malagasy State. The Donor Consortium is made up of USAID, the German Government (GTZ), the Japanese Government, the French Government (Co-operation Francais); the Swiss Government (Co-operation Suisse), Conservation International, WWF, Wildlife Conservation Society (joined in 2004), but the key lynchpin of the Donor Consortium is the World Bank.22 The Donor Consortium meets monthly to review the progress made so far, to determine future funding priorities and policies for Madagascar. The discussions regularly centre on environmental policy and the ways donor and NGO funds can be used to produce specific environmental outcomes. The Donor Consortium is one illustrative example of the development of global environmental governance in Madagascar. In particular, it is useful to examine the ways a group of international NGOs (especially Wildlife Conservation Society and Conservation International) worked through the Donor Consortium to persuade the Malagasy Government to increase the number of protected areas. The result of lobbying by Conservation International and Wildlife Conservation Society was that in 2003 the new Malagasy President, Marc Ravalomanana, announced that Madagascar was to triple the area under protection within six years to create a six million hectare network of terrestrial and marine reserves to protect its unique biodiversity and to turn Madagascar into a regional leader in ecotourism.23 The commitment was named the ‘Durban Vision Initiative’, named after the World Parks Congress in Durban, South Africa, where it was first announced. It led to the creation of the ‘Durban Vision Group’, which includes donors, NGOs and


9

Malagasy government agencies, which is tasked with implementing the vision within six years.24 However, the case is more complex than being just an example of negotiation to produce consensus amongst equal partners, and it is not merely a case of dominant or powerful external actors ‘producing’ a policy commitment to protected areas funded through ecotourism either. While the Durban Vision Initiative could be regarded as a clear example of the power of global environmental governance, it can also be regarded as an example of its limitations. The newly set up Durban Vision Group (which included global and local NGOs, donor and state agencies) dealt with this policy announcement. The group rapidly redefined the meaning of ‘protected areas’ in order to create a policy that was globally and locally acceptable. Under the Durban Vision Initiative, the new protected areas will now include numerous types of multi-use areas rather than requiring the establishment of strict National Parks, which is costly in financial and social terms as well as being time consuming and extremely difficult.25 It was clear that the initial policy of tripling the number of protected areas was rapidly diluted so that it could become a practically implement-able and socially acceptable project. The vision of creating a new network of protected areas, which will rely on ecotourism to pay their way in Madagascar indicate a partial resurgence of the fortress conservation narrative. Brockington (2002) argues there is a specific vision of the African environment that has driven conservation. The premise is that people have harmed the environment, a view supported by scientific interpretations of environmental change, a romanticised view of a stunning wilderness and an aura of extraordinary biodiversity. Consequently, to many donors, global environmental NGOs and others, saving African environments means that they have to become denuded of people. While this narrative has been challenged by influential work on the need to integrate people and environments for conservation (see Hulme & Murphree, 2001; Leach & Mearns, 1996), the vision of the human free African wilderness remains a powerful one. For example, USAID has been involved in developing biological corridor projects in Madagascar that aim to ensure that environmental resources that link protected areas are managed in a sustainable way.26 Part of the biological corridors project is to ensure that human activities do not reduce biodiversity in the area, prevent the movement of wildlife populations or frustrate the expansion of ecosystems (such as forests or savannah) between protected areas. This means that areas that fall outside the boundaries of national parks are subjected to forms of governance that will generally place restrictions on the activities of companies, government organisations and more importantly local people. The active involvement of global donors in environmental management (including ecotourism) and protected areas in Madagascar has also assisted in the transmission of preservationist ideas. Paradoxically that preservation narrative coexists alongside a neo-liberal discourse that promotes the introduction of market-oriented strategies through reliance on ecotourism to ensure that conservation pays its way. In particular, ecotourism is promoted as a strategy to secure conservation and promote development for all levels of society from local communities through to the Malagasy state. The notion that communities

10


can manage natural resources and develop ecotourism fits very well with post Cold War ways of thinking about governance. In particular, it intersects with the argument that networks of actors can govern resources rather than leaving them in state hands. One response to criticisms of the socially and economically divisive effects of tourism has been the development of community managed ecotourism in the developing world. Social or community ecotourism includes participation by economically weak or otherwise disadvantaged people with the intention of extending any benefits derived to these economically marginal groups (Bottrill, 1995: 45– 48; Butler & Hinch, 1996; Denman, 2001; Hall, 1994: 43– 47; Price, 1996). Community-based ecotourism is intended to maximise the participation of local people in decision-making from a very early stage. In particular, local communities are expected to play a major role in deciding on the direction and rates of ecotourism development in their area. Securing this community participation is often dependent on the commitment to sharing the benefits of ecotourism development. Madagascar has developed a number of community based ecotourism schemes which have poverty alleviation as one of their objectives.27 The Managing Director of the Ministry of Water and Forests stated that the environmental challenge was to fight against traditional local practices, such as grazing, slash and burn agriculture and hunting. She suggested that the Ministry was involved in developing alternative strategies for forest use such as collection of raffia and medicinal plants or ecotourism to generate income for local communities.28 However, it is impossible to determine just how many people are involved in the ecotourism industry. For example, numerous members of local communities around the Ranomafana National Park sell eggs and chickens to the local hotels for tourists to eat; similarly in Ifaty some members of the local community will kill an extra zebu cow each week and sell it to the resorts, while others run small campsites that are managed by the community. It is difficult to determine whether these people are engaged in community-based ecotourism or not.29 In line with neo-liberal forms of development favoured by many donors, community based ecotourism development has also developed in the private sector. One example of a privately owned but community oriented ecotourism initiative is resort of Anjajavy, located in north-east Madagascar and which is marketed to ‘high end/luxury’ ecotourists. Its combination of luxury ecotourism with community development has attracted the attentions of the global media, including the BBC.30 While Anjajavy is owned by South African business people, all staff that are employed in the resort are from the neighbouring community, and the income from the resort has been used to build a clinic and a school in the area.31 A more ‘conventional’ form of community based ecotourism development can be found in Conservation International’s management of Andasibe-Mantadia National Park in western Madagascar. There local communities are given priorities for employment as guides and rangers, while local women make t-shirts, baskets and so on for the gift shop. In addition Conservation International has set up buffer zones around the park where activities of the communities are restricted.32 The Zahamena National Park is run by Conservation International as it develops the


11

institutional capacities of the state run national parks agency (ANGAP) by training game guards. There has been some interest in community involvement in managing the national park, such as drawing trainee game guards from the surrounding area and educating people to ensure that they live sustainably, or ‘correctly’ as a Conservation International representative put it.33 The emphasis on community involvement and integrated conservation and development projects was clear amongst donors, local NGOs and local state agencies. This is in part a reflection of how the community oriented ecotourism discourse has entered into the consciousness of donor and recipient alike. However, this community conservation narrative was very much at odds with other more preservationist environmental priorities. Organisations are clearly capable of simultaneously holding multiple contradictory views of how best to conserve Madagascar’s natural resources. While individuals in each organisation may well favour one view over another, it is clear that organisations have to speak at the same time to a number of different agendas. They must simultaneously attempt to satisfy multiple audiences that may favour preservation, economic development initiatives, poverty reduction, education, community-based conservation, sustainable use and many more. For many local organisations, they are aware that funding will not be forthcoming without at least some acknowledgement of the ‘local people’ factor. In many ways the promotion of ecotourism satisfies all of these competing and overlapping agendas in one neat neo-liberal package. This cross cutting and contradictory discourse on preservation and community conservation is interspersed with a clear commitment to neo-liberal principles that suit donor agenda. As with many programmes in protected areas, much of the discussion amongst donors about saving the environment has become intimately tied up with the idea that eventually conservation would have to pay its own way, usually through ecotourism development. However these initiatives are not unproblematic, and face similar difficulties encountered in other kinds of integrated conservation and development projects. The current interest in handing over of ecotourism operations to sub-state entities, such as local communities, require the development of dynamic and enthusiastic institutional arrangements. Since only a few ecotourism schemes have strong institutions that are capable of managing complex businesses for community development it is not suited to every situation (Duffy, 2002: 98 –126; Hulme & Murphree, 2001; Steele, 1995: 34– 36). For example, in Isalo National Park in south-central Madagascar, the parks agency, ANGAP, had a complex system in place for ensuring that local Bara communities were given priority for employment as guides and rangers. However, it was clear that ecotourists were coming to the park with cheaper non-licensed guides who were not members of the local community. This undermined the initiatives run by local communities, ANGAP and environmental NGOs in the area such as WWF-Madagascar.34 Furthermore, efforts toward ecotourism development in the park have been severely hampered by the unregulated and illegal sapphire mining in the neighbouring area of Ilakaka.35 The local communities had little power over the unlicensed guides and the illegal mining activities, both of which directly impacted on success or failure of their ecotourism initiative.

12


It remains to be seen if the new network of protected areas and related ecotourism developments are successful in Madagascar. But it is clear that some donors which are critical of the influence of environmental NGOs in Madagascar hold a very negative view of the increased interest in ecotourism to fund the expanded network of protected areas under the Durban Vision Initiative. In particular, there are fears that it will result in a new round of forced evictions of villagers from the proposed parks, and there are accusations that this has begun already. In particular there are concerns that the donor and NGO driven Durban Vision Initiative will send a message that wildlife and habitats are more important than people’s needs, and will mean separation of people and environments.36 More widely, while community-based ecotourism implies a high degree of public participation, critics have pointed out that communities are very rarely given the chance to respond meaningfully to schemes that are supported by governments and/or the private sector. In this way community-based ecotourism can often only benefit a narrow elite because the political nature of decision-making processes can often cut out communities and their interests. As a result, many community schemes have developed a tokenistic form of participation (Hall, 1994: 167– 171; also see Wolmer, 2003). Such minimal participation then allows tour companies to package communities as a tourism attraction, with depictions of local people as smiling and welcoming faces for international visitors. Yet, aspects of indigenous society and politics are kept away from the tourist gaze, so for example, indigenous groups that assert land claims in tourist areas are redefined as disruptive and disloyal by central governments and the private tourism industry. This is because tourism development can become a struggle in which one powerful interest group attempts to legitimate its understanding of the appropriate use of space and time, while another less powerful group resists this control (Hall, 1994: 182– 200; Van den Berghe & Flores Ochoa, 2000). It is clear then that Glasbergen’s notions of co-operative management through public– private networks is problematic in practice. In terms of community-based ecotourism under the Durban Vision Initiative it is unclear how effectively communities are able to participate and retain control over their long-term development.

Conclusion In conclusion, ecotourism has developed as part of a broader set of structural changes in the global system. Ecotourism in Madagascar is heavily interlinked with structures of global governance, including environmental NGOs and donor organisations. As a result it is important that ecotourism be regarded in the context of its wider political arena. In particular, ecotourism is a good example of the growing importance of global environmental governance and its shift away from state centric global politics towards a more pluralised system of governance that is made up of networks of actors that range from governments to global NGOs to international financial institutions. Furthermore, ecotourism is one example of the global spread of neo-liberalism and wider critiques of liberalisation are equally relevant to ecotourism developments in the South. This in turn raises serious questions about the promotion


13

of ecotourism as a path to sustainable development in the South. It is clear that ecotourism is not a politics free option: it is politically, economically or socially neutral. As a neo-liberal form of development, it is a highly political choice. Correspondence Any correspondence should be directed to Dr Rosaleen Duffy, Centre for International Politics, Government, International Politics and Philosophy, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK (rosaleen. [email protected]). Notes 1. This is an ESRC funded project grant number RES 000 22 0342. I am grateful for the comments made by the anonymous referees, which I found very useful in revising this article. 2. See http://www.ecotourism.org/. Accessed 12.8.03; also see http://www. ResponsibleTravel.com. Accessed 20.8.04; and Denman (2001: 4 – 5). 3. See http://www.world-tourism.org/. Accessed 15.11.04. 4. Africa Insight, vol. 33, no. 1. June 2003. 5. Breakdown of number of interviewees by institution: Global Environmental NGOs (8) (e.g. World Wide Fund for Nature and Conservation International); Local environmental NGOs (6) (e.g. Christina Dodwell Trust and Fanamby); Government Agencies (9) (e.g. Madagascar Ministry of Tourism, Madagascar Ministry of Environment, Water and Forests); Global Donors (13) (e.g. Madagascar offices of the World Bank, Embassies, USAID and the United Nations Development Fund). The project was carried out according to best practice as defined by the Faculty of Social Sciences Ethics Committee at Lancaster University (details of their guidelines are available on the university website at http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/resources/ethics. 6. I am very much indebted to Bodo Rajaonarison who acted as the translator for the project. Bodo proved to be critical to the research in many ways, she translated in three languages (English, French, Malagasy). 7. Interview with Jean Jacques Rabenirina, Minister of Culture and Tourism, Ministry of Tourism, Antananarivo, 30.3.04; interview with Clement Ravalisoana, President of the Professional Association of Tour Operators in Madagascar, Antananarivo, 19.4.04; interview with Tovondriaka Rakotobe, Coordinateur General, Office National Pour L’Environnement (ONE), Antananarivo, 31.3.04. 8. Interview with Jean Jacques Rabenirina, Minister of Culture and Tourism, Ministry of Tourism, Antananarivo, 30.3.04; also see The Lonely Planet Guide to Madagascar (4th edn, 2001) as an example of the ways certain routes and attractions in Madagascar are promoted. 9. Interview with Jean Jacques Rabenirina, Minister of Culture and Tourism, Ministry of Tourism, Antananarivo, 30.3.04; interview with Clement Ravalisoana, President of the Professional Association of Tour Operators in Madagascar, Antananarivo, 19.4.04. 10. Interview with Clement Ravalisoana, President of the Professional Association of Tour Operators in Madagascar, Antananarivo, 19.4.04; Interview with Lala Randrianarivo, Chargee de Mission, Ministry of Tourism, Antananarivo, 21.8.01; interview with Jose Ravelonandro, Chef de Volet Ecotourisme, Isalo National Park, Ranohira, 29.8.01; precise figures are impossible to obtain, these general figures are estimates. 11. See http://www.world-tourism.org/frameset/frame_statistics.html. Accessed 10.8.05. Also see http://www.propoortourism.org.uk/info_sheets/5%20info%20sheet.pdf. Accessed 10.8.05. 12. For further discussion of the presidential crisis see http://www.bbc.co.uk, World Bank welcomes Malagasy reforms (24.7.02), and Madagascar leader rolls his sleeves up (24.7.02). Accessed 08.2.02.

14


13. Interview with Clement Ravalisoana, President of the Professional Association of Tour Operators in Madagascar, Antananarivo, 19.4.04. 14. Interview with Jean Jacques Rabenirina, Minister of Culture and Tourism, Ministry of Tourism, Antananarivo, 30.3.04. 15. Interview with Jean Jacques Rabenirina, Minister of Culture and Tourism, Ministry of Tourism, Antananarivo, 30.3.04; interview with Lala Randrianarivo, Chargee de Mission, Ministry of Tourism, Antananarivo, 21.8.01. 16. Interview with Lala Randrianarivo, Chargee de Mission, Ministry of Tourism, Antananarivo, 21.8.01; interview with Jose Ravelonandro, Chef de Volet Ecotourisme, Isalo National Park, Ranohira, 29.8.01; and Guardian (UK) 27.8.02, Survey reveals risk to reefs. 17. Interview with Clement Ravalisoana, President of the Professional Association of Tour Operators in Madagascar, Antananarivo, 19.4.04; also see pers comm. Nivo Ravelojaona, Director, Za Tour, Antananarivo, 27.4.04. 18. For further discussion of threats to biodiversity in Madagascar see http:// www.bbc.co.uk, Madagascar Biodiversity Threatened (16.1.02). Accessed 08.2.02; and Financial Times, 15.5.01, Madagascar’s jewels of nature under threat. 19. Interview with Lala Randrianarivo, Chargee de Mission, Ministry of Tourism, Antananarivo, 21.8.01; and interview with Josette Rahantamalala, Conservation International, Antananarivo, 20.8.01. 20. For further discussion of threats to biodiversity in Madagascar see http:// www.bbc.co.uk, Madagascar Biodiversity Threatened (16.1.02). Accessed 08.2.02; and Financial Times, 15.5.01, Madagascar’s jewels of nature under threat. 21. Madagascar Banks on Biodiversity to Rebuild Tourism Industry (04.2.03) http:// www.conservation.org/xp/news/press_releases/020403.xml. Accessed 03.11.03. Also see interview with Serge Rajaobelina, Director, Fanamby, Antananarivo 26.3.04. 22. Interview with Dr Helen Crowley, Country Director, Madagascar Programme, Wildlife Conservation Society, Antananarivo 25.3.04; and interview with Bienvenu Rajohnson, Senior Environmental Policy, Adviser, World Bank, Antananarivo, 26.3.04. 23. Interview with Dr Helen Crowley, Country Director, Madagascar Programme, Wildlife Conservation Society, Antananarivo 25.3.04; interview with Bienvenu Rajohnson, Senior Environmental Policy Adviser, World Bank, Antananarivo, 26.3.04; and see Madagascar to Triple Areas Under Protection (16.9.03). http:// www.conservation.org/xp/news/press_releases/020403.xml. Accessed 03/11/03. 24. Interview with Dr Helen Crowley, Country Director, Madagascar Programme, Wildlife Conservation Society, Antananarivo 25.3.04; interview with Dr Joanna Durbin, Director of the Madagascar Programme, Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, Antananarivo, 31.3.04; and interview with Leon M. Rajaobelina, Senior Executive Director, Conservation International Madagascar, Antananarivo, 23.3.04. 25. Interview with Dr Helen Crowley, Country Director, Madagascar Programme, Wildlife Conservation Society, Antananarivo 25.3.04; interview with Dr Joanna Durbin, Director of the Madagascar Programme, Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, Antananarivo, 31.3.04; and interview with Lantoniaina Antriamampianina, Director of the Terrestrial Programme, Wildlife Conservation Society, Antananarivo 24.3.04. 26. Interview with Holisoa Rasamoelina, Chef de Service Suivi et Communication, Project d’Appui a la Gestion de l’Environnement (PAGE), Antananarivo, 28.8.01. 27. Interview with Lantoniaina Antriamampianina, Director of the Terrestrial Programme, Wildlife Conservation Society, Antananarivo, 24.3.04. 28. Interview with Fleurette Andriantslavo, Managing Director, Ministry of Water and Forests, Antananarivo, 30.8.01; also see interview with Lantoniaina Antriamampianina, Director Of The Terrestrial Programme, Wildlife Conservation Society, Antananarivo, 24.3.04. 29. Interview with Clement Ravalisoana, President of the Professional Association of Tour Operators in Madagascar, Antananarivo, 19.4.04.


15

30. Interview with Clement Ravalisoana, President of the Professional Association of Tour Operators in Madagascar, Antananarivo, 19.4.04. 31. http://www.anjajavy.com. Accessed 15.6.06; also see pers. comm. Nivo Ravelojaona, Director, Za Tour, Antananarivo, 27.4.04. The owners of this resort also own the up-market resort of Tsarapenjina near Nosy Be). 32. Pers comm., Pascal, Tour Guide, Andaside-Mantadia National Park, 28.3.04. 33. Interview with Josette Rahantamalala, Conservation International, Antananarivo, 20.8.01. 34. Interview with Jose Ravelonandro, Chef de Volet Ecotourisme, Isalo National Park, Ranohira, 29.8.01. 35. Interview with Dr Helen Crowley, Country Director, Madagascar Programme, Wildlife Conservation Society, Antananarivo, 25.3.04; also see pers. comm. Nivo Ravelojaona, Director, Za Tour, Antananarivo, 27.4.04; also see Duffy (2005) for further discussion of gem mining in Ilakaka. 36. Anonymous interviewee, Madagascar 2004.

References Barber, B.R. (1995) Jihad Versus McWorld: Terrorism’s Challenge to Democracy. New York: Ballantine. Bottrill, C.G. (1995) Ecotourism: Towards a key elements approach to operationalizing the concept. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 3, 45 – 54. Broch-Due, V. and Schroeder, R.A. (eds) (2000) Producing Nature and Poverty in Africa. Uppsala: Nordiska Afrikainstitutet. Brockington, D. (2002) Fortress Conservation: The Preservation of the Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania. Oxford: James Currey. Brohman, J. (1996) New directions in tourism for Third World development. Annals of Tourism Research 23, 48– 70. Brown, (2000) A History of Madagascar (2 edn). Colchester: Palladian Press. Butcher, J. (2002) Debating Matters – Ethical Tourism: Who Benefits? London: Hodder and Stoughton. Butler, R. and Hinch, T. (eds) (1996) Tourism and Indigenous Peoples. London: International Thomson Business Press. Ceballos-Lascura´in, H. (2003) Preface. In M. Lu¨ck and T. Kirstges (eds) Global Ecotourism Policies and Case Studies: Perspectives and Constraints (pp. viii – xii). Clevedon: Channel View Publications. Clarke, J. (2002) A synthesis of activity towards the implementation of sustainable tourism: Ecotourism in a different context. International Journal of Sustainable Development 5 (3), 232– 250. Cole, J. and Middleton, K. (2001) Rethinking ancestors and colonial power in Madagascar. Africa 71 (1), 1 – 37. Commission on Global Governance (1995) Our Global Neighbourhood. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Denman, R. (2001) Guidelines for Community Based Ecotourism Development. Ledbury: The Tourism Company/Geneva: WWF-International. Diamantis, D. and Ladkin, A. (1999) The links between sustainable tourism and ecotourism: A definitional and operational perspective. Journal of Tourism Studies 10 (2), 35 – 46. Diehl, P.F. (ed.) (1997) The Politics of Global Governance: International Organizations in an Interdependent World. London/Boulder: Lynne Rienner. Driessen, P. (1998) Concluding remarks: The scope of co-operative management. In P. Glasbergen (ed.) Co-operative Environmental Governance: Public-Private Agreements as a Policy Strategy (pp. 251– 268). Dortrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Duffy, R. (2002) A Trip Too Far: Ecotourism, Politics and Exploitation. London: Earthscan. Duffy, R. (2005) Global environmental governance and local resistance: Illegal sapphire mining in Madagascar. Development and Change 36 (5), 1 – 19. Ebbutt, D. (1998) Evaluation of projects in the developing world: Some cultural and methodological issues. International Journal of Educational Development 18 (5), 415– 424.

Q5

Q6 Q7

Q8

16


Escobar, A. (1995) Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Fair, D. (1997) Tourist trends in the Indian Ocean Islands. Africa Insight 27 (4), 279– 283. Fukuyama, F. (1992). The End of History and the Last Man. London: Hamilton. Glasbergen, P. (ed.) (1998a) Co-operative Environmental Governance: Public-Private Agreements as a Policy Strategy. Dortrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Glasbergen, P. (1998b) The question of environmental governance. In P. Glasbergen (ed.) Co-operative Environmental Governance: Public-Private Agreements as a Policy Strategy (pp. 1 – 21). Dortrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Hall, C.M. (1994) Tourism and Politics: Policy, Power and Place. Chichester and New York: John Wiley and Sons. Hardt, M. and Negri, A. (2000) Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Harrison, D. (ed.) (1992) Tourism and the Less Developed Countries. London: Belhaven Press. Herod, A. (1999) Reflections on interviewing foreign elites: Praxis, positionality, validity and the cult of the insider. Geoforum 30 (3), 313– 327. Hewson, M. and Sinclair, T.J. (1999) The emergence of global governance theory. In M. Hewson and T.J. Sinclair (eds) Approaches to Global Governance Theory (pp. 3 – 22). New York: State University of New York Press. Hoogvelt, A. (2001) Globalisation and the Postcolonial World: The New Political Economy of Development (2nd edn). London: Macmillian. Hulme, D. and Murphree, M. (1999) Communities, wildlife and the ‘new conservation’ in Africa. Journal of International Development 11 (3), 277– 285. Hulme, D. and Murphree, M. (2001) African Wildlife and Livelihoods. Oxford: James Currey. Huntington, S.P. (1968) Political Order in Changing Societies. Newhaven and London: Yale University Press. Kull, C.A. (1996) The evolution of conservation efforts in Madagascar. International Environmental Affairs 8 (1), 50 – 86. Leach, M. and Mearns, R. (eds) (1996) The Lie of the Land: Challenging Wisdom on the African Environment. Oxford: James Currey. Litfin, K. (1994) Ozone Discourses: Science and Politics in Global Environmental Co-operation. New York: Columbia University Press. Lynn, W. (1992) Tourism in the people’s interest. Community Development Journal 27, 371– 377. Matthews, H.G. and Richter, L.K. (1991) Political science and tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 18, 120–135. McGrew, A.G. (1992) Conceptualizing global politics. In A.G. McGrew and P.G. Lewis et al. (eds.) Global Politics (pp. 1 – 28). Cambridge: Polity Press. McGrew, A.G. and Lewis, P.G. et al. (1992) Global Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press. Middleton, K. (1999) Who killed Malagasy cactus? Environment, science and colonialism in Southern Madagascar, 1924– 1930. Journal of Southern African Studies 25 (2), 215– 248. Neumann, R.P. (2000) Primitive ideas: Protected area buffer zones and the politics of land in Africa. In V. Broch-Due and R.A. Schroeder (eds) Producing Nature And Poverty in Africa (pp. 220 –242). Uppsala: Nordiska Afrikainstitutet. O’Brien, R., Goetz, A.M., Scholte, J.A. and Williams, M. (2000) Contesting Global Governance: Multilateral Economic Institutions and Global Social Movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Paolini, A., Jarvis, A. and Reus-Smit, C. (1998) Between Sovereignty and Global Governance: The United Nations, State and Civil Society. London: Macmillan. Price, M.F. (ed.) (1996) People and Tourism in Fragile Environments. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Reid, D.G. (2003) Tourism, Globalisation and Development: Responsible Tourism Planning. London: Pluto Press. Rosenau, J.N. (1990) Turbulence in World Politics: A Theory of Change and Continuity. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Q9

Q10

Q12

Q11 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16


17

Rostow, W. (1991) The Stages of Economic Growth. Cambridge: Cambridge Press. Ryan, C. (1999) Editorial: Issues of sustainability in tourism. Tourism Management 20 (2), 177. Selby, J. (2003) Introduction. In F. Cochrane, R. Duffy and J. Selby (eds) Global Governance, Conflict and Resistance (pp. 1 – 18). London: Palgrave/Macmillan. Steele, P. (1995) Ecotourism: An economic analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 3, 29 – 44. Tucker, M. (1994) A proposed debit-for-nature swap in Madagascar and the larger problem of LDC debt. International Environmental Affairs 6 (1), 59 – 68. Q17 Van den Berghe, P. and Flores Ochoa (2000) Tourism and nativistic ideology in Cuzco, Peru. Annals of Tourism Research, 27, 7 – 26. Q4 Walley, C. (2004) Rough Waters: Nature and Development in an East African Marine Park. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Wolmer, W. (2003) Transboundary Conservation: The Politics of Ecological Integrity in the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park. Brighton: Sustainable Livelihoods in Southern Africa Research Paper No. 4, Institute of Development Studies. World Bank (2005) World Development Report: A Better Investment Climate for Everyone. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wilkinson, R. and Hughes, S. (eds.) (2002) Global Governance: Critical Perspectives. London: Routledge. Young, O. (ed.) (1997) Global Governance: Drawing Insights from the Environmental Experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.