Original paper submitted to be presented at the Nature™ Inc Conference, 30 June-1 July
2011
Title: The Politics of Sustainable Community Tourism in Ghana and the ‘Ecotourism
Script’
Authors: Renée van den Bremer¹ and Bram Büscher²
¹ Master graduate in Social and Cultural Anthropology. Address: Catharijnesingel 93 bis,
3511 GS, Utrecht, the Netherlands, Tel: +31 6 5330 1470 Email:
[email protected].
Renée van den Bremer obtained her Master degree in Social and Cultural Anthropology in 2009
at the VU University Amsterdam. Her research interests include community conservation and
ecotourism, both with a focus on neoliberal tendencies. She is currently working as a researcher
at a Dutch semi-governmental institution.
² Lecturer, Institute of Social Studies, the Netherlands and postdoctoral fellow,
Department of Geography, Environmental Management & Energy Studies, University of
Johannesburg. Address: Kortenaerkade 12, 2518 AX, The Hague, The Netherlands, Tel:
+31 (0)70 4260 596, Fax: +31 70 426 0799 Email: [email protected].
Bram Büscher is a Lecturer in Environment and Sustainable Development at the International
Institute of Social Studies, Erasmus University, Rotterdam and a Postdoctoral Fellow in the
Department of Geography, Environmental Management & Energy Studies, University of
Johannesburg. His research interests revolve around (transfrontier) neoliberal conservation,
tourism, and the political economy of energy in Southern Africa. His forthcoming book
'Transforming the Frontier. ‘Peace Parks’ and the Politics of Neoliberal Conservation in Southern
Africa' will be published by Duke University Press.
Word count: 8.596
1
Abstract:
Ecotourism in West Africa has been on the rise over the last decade. Ghana, in particular, has over the last
decade tried to tap into the growing ecotourism market in Sub-Saharan Africa. By marketing over a dozen
‘community ecotourism’ sites, Ghana hopes to lure the adventurous traveller to spend money in the country
and so aid local development and protect natural resources. The article analyzes this trend in the light of
global neoliberal conservation and development dynamics, focussing on how these are reflected in
ecotourism's everyday reality in the case study of the Tafi Atome monkey sanctuary in Ghana. We propose
that the manner in which national and local institutions in Ghana and Tafi Atome adopt ecotourism seems
to work according to a ‘script’. This ‘ecotourism script’ not only influences local practice but is needed
to maintain the belief in ecotourism as a conservation and development panacea, despite the ambiguous
results of interventions.
Keywords: ecotourism, Ghana, community, West Africa, management, development,
conservation
2
INTRODUCTION
West Africa is probably not the first place many westerners think of when booking a
holiday destination. Africa, in general, is still the continent with the least amount of
international tourist arrivals, and within the continent, it is West-Africa that hits rock
bottom (UNWTO, 2009a). Yet, even in this region, tourism has become a booming
business. In general, tourism to Africa is doing very well, with international tourism
arrivals in Southern, East and North Africa growing exponentially. In fact, international
tourist arrivals in Africa have grown even during the financial crisis of 2008/2009; the
only continent to pull this off, as all other regions - except Latin America with a meagre +
0,2% in arrivals - of the world have shown (sharp) declines (UNWTO, 2009b). While this
growth is concentrated in Mediterranean North Africa (although this was seriously impacted
by the political uprisings first months of 2011), other parts - including Sub-Saharan Africa -
also continue to rise in popularity. Thus, (eco)tourism has become one of the fastest
growing industries and foreign exchange earners in many countries in Africa (for
numbers, see UNWTO, 2011).
One of the main reasons why (western) tourists go to Sub-Saharan Africa is because of its
wildlife and spectacular natural scenery (Büscher, 2011). Indeed, it is often pointed out
that tourism in this region - and even more so ecotourism - depends on certain
constructions of ‘Africa’, which, as argued by Dunn (2004, p. 487), are reminiscent of
colonial images of Africa: "it is clear that Africa is often presented as an exoticised
destination in which to see and consume both ‘nature’ and the ‘native’. This disposition,
informed by and built upon colonial travel narratives and tropes, entails the practice of
commodifying Africa and marketing it for Western consumption". Similarly, Nelson
argues that “the emotional power of these images for European and American audiences
is not in doubt; nor is their usefulness for fund-raising purposes” (Nelson, 2003, p. 80)
and, one can add, for tourism purposes. In turn, the ‘pristine nature’ appeal for western
tourists helps to put pressure on African governments to adequately conserve the source
for this international exchange, as is clear from a quote from the UN World Tourism
Organisation in 1999: “the great international interest in wildlife conservation will place
Sub-Saharan Africa in an advantageous marketing position if conservation programs are
pursued in the region” (UNWTO 1999, p. 11). Important for this article, this also goes for
West Africa, where ecotourism, especially in Ghana, is on the rise. At the same time its
tourism landscape is diversifying, as even the New York Times, in 2007, stated that West
3
Africa is “ready to shed its backpacker haven image and embrace a new kind of traveller”
(Polgreen, 2007); the one interested in more organised tourism that meets internationally
‘accepted’ tourism practices and standards.
In line with these trends, one can see ecotourism increasingly becoming the policy option
of choice in (parts of) West-Africa when devising strategies for economic growth that
stimulate national and local conservation and development. Yet, as Brockington et al.
(2008, p. 133) have argued, “tourism is clearly a highly political policy choice. Choosing
tourism as a means of producing development and paying for conservation also means
that overt and covert development objectives are pursued at the expense of other
objectives”. This begs the question: what are these overt and covert objects and at the
expense of what other objectives are they pursued? We want to find out what this means
in the Ghanaian context and so investigate how ecotourism projects work out locally,
particularly in a volatile region such as West-Africa that is increasingly placing faith in
the many promises that ecotourism offers.
This article aims to address these questions by analyzing a local ecotourism project, that
of the Tafi-Atome monkey sanctuary in the east of Ghana, and placing this project in
broader political-economic contexts. We will argue that the ‘overt and covert objectives’
of ecotourism in Tafi-Atome seem to work like a script in practice, albeit one that is
followed and challenged at the same time. The article will show that the importance of
this script is, however, not in how it is pursued in practice but rather how it can be
applied to to maintain the belief that ecotourism is an important conservation and
development panacea, despite the often ambiguous results of interventions
The article will proceed as follows. First, we discuss how we believe ecotourism should
be approached as a subject of academic inquiry. Next, we describe the ecotourism context
in Ghana and what the country is doing to attract international tourism. Following, we
describe and analyze the case-study of Tafi-Atome in the Volta Region, after which we
will end with some conclusions.
ECOTOURISM AND ITS GLOBAL CONTEXT
The popularity of ecotourism has seen a steep rise in the wake of the ‘sustainability’
bandwagon that started with the publication of the Brundlandt Report in 1987, and the
4
creation of Agenda 21 at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Seen by many as an
ideal way to integrate challenges of economic growth with environmental conservation
and to do so in a participatory manner, ecotourism rapidly rose to the top of international
policymaking circles, as was illustrated by the United Nations’ declaration of 2002 as the
International Year of Ecotourism. Since then ecotourism has continued to boom, leading
to a pronounced presence in the field of conservation (Duffy, 2002). Considering the
expectations attached to it, this is not surprising, as it is believed by many that ecotourism
creates an advantageous ‘win-win’ situation for all the different parties - governments,
communities, NGOs, commercial organizations, tourists and nature - involved.
Following this trend, ecotourism or sustainable tourism has been the subject of a fast
growing academic literature (Duffy, 2002, 2006a, 2006b; Carrier and Macleod, 2005;
Brockington et al., 2008, ch. 6; Fletcher, 2009; Hollinshead et al, 2009). Obviously, this
literature boasts a great variety of ways to approach the topic. As an extensive overview
of the literature is not the goal of this article, we follow West and Carrier (2004, p. 484)
that one of the ‘most intriguing’ approaches “sees ecotourism as the institutional
expression of particular sets of late capitalist values in a particular political-economic
climate”. According to West and Carrier, “this approach situates ecotourism in its broader
context and thus encourages us to consider the relationships among the rhetoric of
ecotourism, the values of ecotourists, and the ways in which these are manifested in
ecotourism projects” (ibid). An important aspect of the rhetoric of ecotourism that West
and Carrier talk about is the manner in which ecotourism is seen as an ideal solution for
environmental and developmental problems. Ecotourism is seen as a potentially key
strategy to bring these often divergent goals together, including in many African contexts
(Büscher, 2010). As argued by Duffy (2006b, p. 131): “ecotourism as a subset of tourism,
has even greater claims attached to it: that it is the environmentally sustainable form of
development for Africa” (emphasis in original).
This form of development, in turn, needs to be seen within the ‘broader context’ that
West and Carrier speak of, in particular how ecotourism is linked to the global neoliberal
political economy. This is emphasized by Duffy, who argues that “tourism and
ecotourism are underpinned by a market oriented strategy that neatly fits with the outlook
of neo-liberalism” (ibid). According to the logic of neoliberalism ecotourism can through ostensibly ‘free’ market mechanisms - provide a strong motivation for
5
conservation by selling experiences of nature to tourists while allowing often poor rural
communities living close to valuable natural resources to profit and ‘develop’. This is
why in developing countries endowed with attractive natural areas ecotourism is an
interesting option, as it would mean that nature could be conserved without investing
sparse government resources, while development could be achieved for the most deprived
areas (West and Carrier 2004, p. 484). This, however, has an important structural
implication: the (further) commoditization of nature and the (culture of the) communities
living with this nature (e.g. Bianchi, 2009).
In analyzing ecotourism’s neoliberal outlook, commentators have pointed at some glaring
contradictions. First of all, there is the obvious inconsistency between the environmental
impact of often long-distance travel, and the environmental benefits ecotourism is
supposed to bring. On a local scale ecotourism might have a positive impact on
conservation, but on a global scale, the emissions resulting from this type of travel most
certainly have a negative impact on the environment (Duffy 2006a, p. 4). This is also
emphasized by Holden (2009), who argues that before tourism can truly become
sustainable, the negative impact of aviation should be recognized and dealt with
accordingly, rather than focusing efforts the niche market of ecotourism which is
currently seen as the ‘green’ side of tourism. A second contradiction can be found in the
actual development possibilities accompanying ecotourism. Butcher (2005) argues that
through the underlying assumptions of ecotourism - in which development is generated
by protecting the environment - development will still be narrowly circumscribed as local
people will still (at least partly) depend on their natural surroundings for subsistence and
income (2005, p. 116). Although Butcher omits further clarification on how ecotourism
exactly prohibits further development and what this development entails, a contradiction
becomes apparent nonetheless, one that can be explained by referring to Holt’s argument
around the ‘catch-22 of conservation’ (Holt, 2005).
In her article, Holt responds to ‘neoprotectionist’ conservationists who argue that people
living without technology and in low population densities are compatible with
conservation ideas, while this simultaneously denies those people the development of an
‘environmental awareness’ that - according to these same commentators - arises through
(economic) development (ibid, p. 201). This obvious contradiction renders Western
culture both the problem and the solution to environmental degradation. In other words,
6
when indigenous people ‘develop’ they become a negative influence to their
environment, while this same ‘development’ in the West has led to the noble ideas of
environmentalism and sustainability (ibid). Duffy phrases the same argument as follows:
"...it [ecotourism] is particularly promoted for underdeveloped countries because it is
precisely their 'underdevelopment' or 'lack of modernization' that makes their
environments attractive commodities for visitors from the developed world (the north)."
(2006a, p. 1).
A third contradiction relates to how ecotourism relies on an image of ‘authenticity’,
which it achieves in part through its distinction from conventional mass tourism (Gibson
2010, p. 522). The (supposed) small scale of many ecotourism projects allows tourists to
have an ‘up-close and personal’ experience with nature and the people living near it, an
experience which is usually promoted as authentic, adventurous and unique (Fletcher,
2009). Interestingly though, it is exactly through this process of commodification that
these ‘authentic’ and locally particular ecotourism expressions and actor dynamics can
simultaneously acquire tendencies that transcend the local and the ‘authentic’. Based on
case-study research in such disparate locations as Jamaica and Papua New Guinea, West
and Carrier (2004, p. 491) conclude that “the common pressure we have described is
toward subordinating concern for environmental conservation and respect for local
communities, which ecotourism is said to encourage, to concern for attracting ecotourists
and their money”. Through the commodification of cultural beliefs and practices
associated with commercial ecotourism, disparate local ecotourism experiences acquire
global semblances.
Nonetheless, while commercial ecotourism expansion triggers these major contradictions,
proponents simultaneously do away with these inconsistencies to construct ecotourism as
a balanced and attractive proposition for tourists, private companies, local people, NGOs
and governments alike. In turn, these constructions circumscribe and influence the
behavior of the various ‘stakeholders’ in particular settings. In this context, Carrier and
Macleod (2005) refer to the ‘ecotourism bubble’ as the creation of an image whereby the
actual context and realities of ecotourism are excluded, and within which the natural,
cultural and economic aspects of ecotourism experiences and sites are idealized (2005, p.
329). Büscher (2010) takes this a step further and argues that value of ecotourism images
necessarily has to exceed their actual contradictory realities. This is a phenomenon he
7
describes as ‘derivative nature’, namely that “the investment of capital is focused on
creating value out of meaning and images that nature and poverty (ideally) represent,
rather than what they are” (ibid, p. 271). Büscher argues that in today’s neoliberal global
economy, it is the bubble that attracts people and therefore forms the main source of
value for tourism entrepreneurs. Indeed, there is strong pressure for local people to
adhere to the bubble, rather than for tourists to accept the contradictory realities they help
to expand through ecotourism activities.
In turn, this triggers the new ‘development objectives’ that Brockington et al. (2008)
pointed at. As also observed by Fletcher (2009, p. 281): “while ecotourism planners may
claim that they are merely offering locals an economic activity, we can observe in their
practice an attempt to promote a variety of cultural or ideological changes”. Amongst
others, Fletcher points to particular ideas about ‘romancing the wild’, production and
consumption of experience, ‘achievement and asceticism’, exotic escapism, postmaterialism and even neocolonialism as beliefs and cultural anchors that accompany
global ecotourism driven by “white, professional middle-class members of post-industrial
Western societies” (ibid, p. 271; see also Hughes, 2010). This further reinforces the
argument that commercially introduced ecotourism in reality blurs disparate and
culturally distinct locations and thus their ‘authenticity’. Although ecotourism has the
goal to protect both nature and culture, its actual impact goes beyond this goal through
the ensuing cultural exchanges and negotiations (Gibson 2010, p. 523), leading to the
contradictory situation in which it changes the culture it aims to ’conserve’.
Some of these negations are both consciously and unconsciously intended to create a kind
of coherence between all the different shapes and forms ecotourism can take and the
contradictions they unleash and hide, in the context of the global ecotourism discourse.
West and Carrier refer to this phenomenon as ‘generification’ (2004, p. 491, drawing on
work by Gewertz and Scott) which entails the reduction of environments and people into
recognizable categories like ‘nature’ and ‘simple’ (ibid). Western conceptions are thus
projected on nature and culture, allowing tourists to enjoy clear-cut and pleasant
experiences. Yet we propose to not only look at the simplification of the setting of
ecotourism, but also at the underlying processes and power structures that make this
simplification possible in the first place (see Bianchi, 2009). We suggest that it seems as
if the different parties involved in ecotourism are performing a particular type of ‘world 8
making exercise’ (Hollinshead et al, 2009), namely a play, replete with particular roles
and procedures deemed compulsory for a successful ‘performance’. If indeed a play is
performed, then certain ‘scripts’ are being followed. We believe that the concept of a
script allows us to see ecotourism as something that is actively staged, and so adds to the
above discussions that predominantly see ecotourism as having a disconnect with reality
without going into how this is maintained. In the remainder of this article we will explore
the purchase and limits of this idea, using the case study of Ghana and the Tafi Atome
Monkey Sanctuary.
AKWAABA: WELCOME TO GHANA!
African tourism is most widely known for its jeep-safaris on the Eastern and Southern
African savannahs, and perhaps the exclusive beach resorts in West African countries
like The Gambia. Less known, but growing in popularity, is Ghana. Unable to boast the
‘big five’, safe from difficult to spot forest elephants in Kakum National Park or elusive
lions in Mole National Park, Ghana is mostly praised - or praises itself - for the
welcoming nature of its citizens and its accessibility for all types of travelers. However,
despite the country’s seeming lack of ‘spectacular’ natural attractions, through
ecotourism the traveler is offered an ’authentic’ experience with natural phenomena like
monkeys or waterfalls in a grassroots and local setting, quite the contrary of the often
quite expensive and luxurious settings of Southern and Eastern African experiences of
nature. The growing number of these ecotourism destinations all over the country thus
allows Ghana to tap into a budding market. This is illustrated by figure 1 showing
primary tourist sites, of which about a third focus on ecotourism. Most of these can be
found in the forested inland, some in the dryer North, while the coast still remains to be
the domain of main-stream tourism with its nice beaches and historical sites. The number
of sites has been growing steadily since the 90’s - coinciding with the global rise of
ecotourism, as was discussed in the previous section.
9
Figure 1: A map of Ghana's primary tourism and ecotourism sites (Ghana Tourism, n.d. a).
Although several organizations are active on the Ghanaian ecotourism market (for
examples, see Ontmoet Afrika, n.d., or Jolinaiko Eco Tours, n.d.), it is dominated by the
Nature Conservation and Research Centre (NCRC) which has founded over a dozen
projects. NCRC is a Ghanaian NGO that has been the driving force behind the inclusion
of communities in conservation in the country for some time. One of their key strategies
to achieve this inclusion is the implementation of ecotourism. According to their website
“the ownership, management and operation of these rural tourist destinations reside
solely in the communities themselves” (NCRC, 2008a). NCRC has a history of
cooperation with several divisions of the Ghanaian government, like the Ministry of
10
Tourism and the Wildlife Division. This has given it a strong position in terms of
trustworthiness and accountability, which allowed it to become an attractive partner for
international funding organizations looking for local partners. One of NCRC’s most
important partnerships in terms of funding is USAID. The fact that this US government
agency takes up these types of partnerships is a very conscious act, according to Corson
(2010). She reveals how a combination of national and international politics has led the
US government to focus their main efforts in terms of biodiversity conservation in poor
developing countries, strategically ‘outsourcing’ its policies, so as not to ‘burden’
commerce and industry closer to home. She concludes that this focus on international
conservation has allowed NGOs to attract Western corporate and governmental support,
which in turn allows these supporters to be environmentalists without actually engaging
with environmental issues (ibid, p. 595). As USAID shows with its support for NCRC,
ecotourism is matches this strategy well: far from US borders with strong neoliberal
intent.
The importance of this intent for USAID is especially clear when looking at the rhetoric
that accompanies its funding for ecotourism projects. The guideline developed by USAID
to be considered for funding is an apt example:
One way to increase capture of those benefits is through relatively simple,
market-based mechanisms (such as park entrance fees and concession
fees), known collectively as tourism user fees. The fees partially reflect
the cost for supplying recreational services, the demand for natural
resources, and the value that visitors place on their experience at the site.
The direct link between conservation and income from user fees provides
conservation with a strong economic rational. With ecotourism growing
so rapidly, and with the wide range of fees available, tourism user fees
provide a conservation finance mechanism with perhaps the broadest
application and highest overall revenue potential (USAID 2005, p. 45).
In this policy-document, ecotourism is offered as a conservation method that provides
revenue and reinterprets human-nature relations according to ‘economic rationales’
which is in effect an institutional expression of the capitalist values West and Carrier
(2004, p. 484) speak of.
11
Looking at the situation in Ghana, it is not a stretch to argue that the manner in which
ecotourism is practiced and promoted by local NGOs such as NCRC is narrowly
circumscribed by international funding organizations such as USAID. Indeed, it can be
argued that the overall embedding of ecotourism on the national level depends on
legislative, institutional and political cooperation between various ministries and semigovernmental organizations, many of which are under similar pressures to adhere to
neoliberal demands from international organizations. As ecotourism in Ghana takes place
to a large extent in forested areas, it is especially noteworthy that the Ghanaian forestry
sector has seen similar changes, with several interviewees in the Ghana Forestry
Commission (three interviews, held on February 2nd and 3rd 2005) pointing out how under
the influence of international financial institutions and donors, the Ghanaian forestry
sector has rapidly adapted to ‘community-based rhetoric’ (although the same
interviewees pointed out that on the local level this rhetoric is often difficult to
implement) and ‘market-based mechanisms’, such as competitive pricing, development
of property rights, and so forth.
If we look at the three major components of the ‘broader context of ecotourism’ as
mentioned by West and Carrier (2004, p. 484) - rhetoric, the values of ecotourists, and
the ways in which these are manifested in ecotourism projects - we can further ascertain
these pressures for NCRC. On the level of rhetoric, NCRC seems to follow USAID’s
prescriptions quite literally, as they state: “Community-based tourism creates new
opportunities for poor rural people to earn income that is based on the conservation of
their natural resources, biodiversity and local culture” (NCRC, 2008b). This is echoed by
Ghana’s Ministry of Tourism, which proudly proclaims that “Over recent years Ghana
has emerged as a pioneer in the field of community-based ecotourism, which aims to
create a mutually beneficial three-way relationship between conservationists, tourists and
local communities” (Ghana Tourism, n.d. b).
Regarding the values of ecotourists, it is the alleged pristine and authentic character of
the Ghanaian ecotourism locations that is stressed. In general, as also argued by Fletcher
(2009, p. 276), ecotourists - especially American and European white collar workers seem to be driven by the urge to go out of their comfort zone, to experience a sense of
achievement (see also Gibson 2009, p. 523, drawing on work by Britton). Thus, to get
12
tourists to actually go to a specific site, an image must be created of a place where the
longed for authenticity and adventure can readily be consumed. Ghanaian ecotourism
providers are more than happy to cater to this longing, as exemplified by the creation of
the ecotourism portal Ghana Rural Ecotourism & Travel (GREET), a joint venture of
NCRC, the Ministry of Tourism and the Support Programme for Enterprise
Empowerment and Development (SPEED) Ghana. On its website as in its folders,
GREET offers ecotourists information on all ecotourism destinations, as well as general
travel advice. How these media play into ecotourist values becomes clear from the actual
expressions that are being used, for example asking tourists to “be a part of a movement
of ethical tourism that will put your tourist dollars to work to preserve precious resources
and provide livelihoods to underprivileged communities” (GREET, n.d. a).
The implementation of actual ecotourism projects - the third aspect of the broader context
of ecotourism as West and Carrier proposed (2004, p. 484) - incorporates the actual
manifestation of the rhetoric of ecotourism and the demands of ecotourists. We argue that
this is where the ‘ecotourism script’ comes into play: prescriptions that are produced by
institutions involved in ecotourism in order to minimize the inherent ‘gap’ between
rhetoric and reality. While we propose this as a conceptual heuristic of the disciplining
mechanisms at play in instituting ecotourism governmentalities (see Fletcher, 2010), the
examples from Tafi Atome can help us go beyond abstract heuristics.
THE POLITICS OF ECOTOURISM IN TAFI ATOME
This section will examine a Ghanaian ecotourism project to see how the ecotourism script
plays out at the grassroots, and how local reality relates to the grander context of
ecotourism rhetoric and its inherent contradictions. This exploration is based on data that
has been collected during a three month fieldwork period (January-March 2009) on a
sustainable community tourism project in the village of Tafi Atome in the Volta Region
of Ghana. The project, founded by NCRC and funded by, amongst others, USAID, has
the intention to protect the forest and the True Mona monkeys adjacent to the village
while creating development opportunities for the community. This is done by promoting
the village as a ‘monkey sanctuary’, where travelers can come to enjoy the playful
monkeys, the lush forest and the rustic village. Founded in 1996, the project has since
then created the infrastructure needed to make the village an attractive tourist destination.
A visitor centre and over-night accommodation were built, guides were trained, and the
13
chiefs (the traditional local authority) selected a number of community-members to
manage the day to day business of the sanctuary.
To illustrate how the ecotourism script has been prescribed in Tafi Atome and - equally
important - what its limits are, we will discuss three examples from the project’s
everyday reality. This will show how new perspectives need to be adopted to be able to
identify these limits and show the tensions between the ideals of the script and its
functions within local and extra-local tourism politics.
Natives and Strangers
One of the most important manners in which ecotourism rhetoric was implemented in
practice is the management structure created for the project. NCRC strongly emphasizes
community inclusion as the underlying logic for this structure, which is at the same time
an illustration of how ecotourism shifts from rhetoric to practice. Ecotourism rhetoric
‘begs’ for a harmonious community that is able to sustain a project with a focus on the
generation of tourism income as a rational for conservation. The structure that was
created in Tafi Atome is a representation of this rhetoric in the sense that it was
implemented to be its practical equivalent. The link between rhetoric and practice is
especially clear in the so called constitution NCRC, the chiefs and the tourism committee
(which was consequently renamed ‘board’) signed in 2010, which states:
“We the Chiefs, elders and people of Tafi Atome have come together to
establish a community ecotourism project for the conservation and
protection of natural resources within the designated forest of Tafi Atome,
especially the monkeys as well as creating economic opportunities in a
spirit of togetherness by constituting ourselves into a Board” (NCRC,
2010).
This text shows how rhetoric around ‘togetherness’ and ‘community’ are translated into
practical terms like ‘board’ or ‘tourism committee’. Hence, the structure of the project is
based on the belief that a community is harmonious and egalitarian, or at least can be
seen as such. This is a tendency that has been recognized and criticized for its role in
conservation policy (e.g. Adams and Hulme 2001; Agrawal and Gibson 1999; Blaikie
2006; Dressler et al, 2010). Agrawal & Gibson explain that most conservationists
14
favoring methods that include local communities in the conservation process, like
sustainable community tourism, see a community as a small spatial unit; a social
structure; and a set of shared norms (1999: 633). It is assumed that these three
characteristics make communities suitable for conservation practices. However, looking
at communities in this manner often deemphasizes their heterogeneity. This view of
communities fits the idea of ‘authenticity’ that is associated with ecotourism. As was
discussed earlier, this leads to one of the major contradictions within ecotourism, in the
sense that although ecotourism relies on this image, it at the same time causes the
disparate localities involved with ecotourism to acquire global semblances.
This is also the case in Tafi Atome where NCRC, with its focus on the authentic and
harmonious community, overlooked sensitive differences among the village’s population.
The most pronounced issue with the biggest impact on the project was the distinction
made by villagers between Tafi Atome’s original inhabitants (the eight clans that first
settled the area) and the people that immigrated thereafter. The chiefs are selected from
these eight clans, and as they in turn select the members of the tourism committee, the
division between the original inhabitants and immigrants reproduces itself in the
execution of the project. What this means in practice is that in the project’s history, out of
the 73 local people that have been involved in the project in some way or another, only
one was an immigrant, and that development initiatives like latrines and electricity have
been centered around the part of the village where most of the people were ‘native’ (Van
den Bremer, 2009). However, also in the group of people that descended from Tafi
Atome’s original inhabitants, divisions and struggles are abound. For example, the
selection of committee members and guides led to gossip and disgruntlement among all
parts of the population, especially regarding the handling of tourism income. As one
‘native’ villager’s statement illustrates: “… when the community money comes … they
use the money not in any good aspect” (interview held February 10th 2009).
This shows that the reality of Tafi Atome’s community is in fact very diverse, divided,
and thus contrasts with the image portrayed by NCRC. Hence, there is a gap that needs to
be bridged to uphold this image towards tourists. Whereas the structure of the project
mirrors this image, the behavior and views of the people that are supposed to uphold this
structure initially did not, which is why the structure can be seen as part and parcel of the
ecotourism script.
15
Different versions of history
Having assessed how the structure of the project can be interpreted as a script, we move
to how Tafi Atome is portrayed within this context. Since its founding the Tafi Atome
monkey sanctuary has been marketed by NCRC as an example of putting traditional
beliefs to use for the conservation of nature, drawing on the village’s religious history. As
NCRC states on its website:
“Conservation also must emerge from local cultural belief systems, so that
culture and economics are linked as core elements … For example NCRC
built on traditional taboos against harming sacred monkeys to create
highly successful ecotourism projects in Ghana’s Tafi Atome and
Boabeng-Fiema communities” (NCRC, 2008c).
The manner in which Tafi Atome is promoted sketches an image of an authentic but
backward place where people used to believe the monkeys were messengers to the ‘fetish
gods’ until the coming of Christianity (GREET, n.d. c). A leaflet produced by NCRC
near the end of the nineties states that people believed that the monkeys were sacred, and
that they always accompanied the traditional gods, but then: “… around ten years ago
Christianity overpowered the traditional beliefs. A few villagers began to chop down the
trees in the forest for firewood, to clear farmland and kill the monkeys just to prove that
they no longer feared the fetish gods”.
Oral history of Tafi Atome, as professed by inhabitants, contrasts sharply with NCRC’s
version. For one, the traditional priest explained that no divine status has ever been given
to the monkeys, as he stated that the monkeys are something beautiful to the traditional
gods, but that they are not their messengers (Van den Bremer, 2009, p. 28). Furthermore,
there was no clear dividing line between people’s beliefs and behavior before and after
the coming of Christianity. Most people in Tafi Atome have incorporated both
traditionalism and Christianity in their beliefs, and do not regard them as conflicting.
Even people that do not believe in any traditional entity state that they respect the beliefs
of their neighbors, and would thus not intentionally harm anything they find important.
This would mean that at the time of the implementation of the project people respected
the part of the forest considered sacred - something that is confirmed by a clear majority
16
of informants (ibid), and saying that “Christianity overpowered traditional beliefs” is
quite an overstatement.
Rather than the forest suffering under changing beliefs, it was factors like population
growth that led to the encroachment of forest and the killing of monkeys that left the
sacred grove. These practices - carried out for sustenance - were not seen as disrespectful
to the traditional gods by anyone. Although this situation eventually led to a worsening
situation for the monkeys and the need for NCRC’s intervention, the portrayal of how the
situation came to be shows a stark contrast with the Tafi Atome’s own version, and has
lost its nuance. The fact that not the local version of history, but NCRC’s version is
being portrayed towards tourists shows the importance of ‘generification’ as West and
Carrier already pointed at (2004). Tafi Atome’s history is simplified in a way that allows
NCRC’s intervention to be easily understood, and can be placed in the context of the
‘catch-22’ of conservation (Holt 2005). This entails the convenient attribution of the
negative influences development has on natural resources, in this case in the form of
Christianity and the encroachment of the forest, and the need for an intervention to get
Tafi Atome back to its previously harmonious state by reestablishing the traditional value
of the forest and the monkeys. As was mentioned earlier, this shows the interesting
contradiction of ecotourism’s promise of development on the one hand, and the
idealization of an underdeveloped state on the other hand.
This rhetorical discrepancy on a local level means that the ecotourism script must bridge
the gap. And indeed, the difference in versions of history meant that tourist guides needed
to be trained in order for them to be able to relate the project’s version of the story to
visiting tourists. Thus, guides are instructed to behave in certain ways towards tourists,
despite them having different beliefs and knowledge about the history and current
situation of their village. As one guide stated when asked about the monkeys: “No, I had
never heard this story before, my grandmother told me that the monkeys never followed
us, they were already here, and they were never messengers to the gods” (excerpt from
fieldnotes, March 19th 2009). An interesting addition to the guides’ training was their
familiarization with the monkeys. The supposed need for this was that the tourists should
be able to easily see the monkeys during their visit, which indeed was achieved as they
now eat out of tourists’ hands. However, one can wonder how natural this type of
behavior is to monkeys, or any wild animal for that matter. Vivanco’s case study of
17
ecotourism revolving around the quetzal in Costa Rica shows that tourists are not
insensitive to this issue, as they feel their experience of nature is less authentic because of
people feeding the quetzals (Vivanco 2001, p. 85). This shows how the ecotourism script
can act as a double edged sword: while the intention is to create an image to tourists’
liking, this same creation can decrease a project’s appeal to tourists.
These dynamics are yet another example of one the major contradictions within
ecotourism: the reliance of ecotourism on an image of authenticity, while its very
presence creates tendencies that transcend the local differences that one would think
would in fact constitute this authenticity, as pointed out by Fletcher (2009). This example
from Tafi Atome shows how this takes place in practice: authenticity is not a matter of
letting tourists experience the grassroots reality of life and nature in Tafi Atome, it is a
matter of portraying ‘authenticity’ in a manner that fits ecotourism rhetoric and the values
that are attributed to tourists. Hence the diverging version of history, the necessity for a
specific training for guides, and the feeding of monkeys, or to summarize: the need for a
script. Thus the belief in ecotourism as a viable project for both development and
conservation endures, as the script and the ensuing play revolving around ecotourism in
localities like Tafi Atome take away the room for self-reflection and thorough evaluation
for NGOs like NCRC. There seems to be no possibility for ecotourism to fail, as it is
prescribed as such by ecotourism rhetoric, and none of the parties involved have the need
to look beyond this. At the same time this is also ecotourism’s weakness; we shall see in
the following section how flimsy the script can be in relation to the reality it tries to
overlay.
The Youth
The third and final example is the role that youth play in showing the limits of the
ecotourism script. ‘The youth’ refers to a group of men that belong to the ‘native’ part of
the community and are led by a number of informally selected leaders. When that these
leaders feel that issues in the village were not being managed properly, they form a group
to go talk to the chiefs. In this sense the youth can be considered as an institution, as they
have an impact on the prescriptions that people use to organize interactions. However, as
the youth steps in and out of existence as an institution, depending on the situation, they
remain very elusive (Lund, 2006, refers to this phenomenon as ‘twilight institutions’). It
18
is this elusiveness that has made the youth a force to be reckoned with, as it acts like a
watchdog keeping an eye on daily business of the village.
In several cases in the monkey sanctuary’s history, the project’s management has had to
deal with this phenomenon, namely in the nineties, in 2003 and in 2008. In all of these
cases the youth was able to exert such influence that daily practice of the project was
disturbed. While in the first and last case the youth successfully pressured the chiefs into
replacing the tourism committee because of suspicions of corruption, the most
spectacular instance occurred in 2003. This was when the youth actually took over the
visitor centre, ousting the tourism committee and the guides as they were not happy with
the way the money was handled, the lack of investments in the community and suspected
the committee of corruption. As mentioned earlier, this happened against the background
of a general and persistent lack of trust by community members. NCRC intervened by
stating that all support would be suspended until the committee and the guides were
reinstated, which forced the youth to cave in.
These events illustrate the vulnerability of the project, as in these periods of impasse,
tourism would not run smoothly or not run at all because of the lack of experience of the
new people in the committee (who are normally trained by NCRC before they take up
their position). This is what happens when the script, which leans strongly on the
structure that orchestrates the project’s day to day business, is disrupted. It is fascinating
to see how NCRC reacted when faced with these disruptions, as interestingly enough no
actions were undertaken to ease the youth’s - and the larger community’s - worries. No
research was carried out as to the truthfulness of the allegations of corruption, nor did
they make any significant changes in the general management of the project. Priority was
given to get things back to business as usual. The fact that the youth had not been
accounted for within the structure of the project, thus leaves it a major factor of
uncertainty in terms of upholding the script. When looking at the actual cause of these
unrests, again one of the contradictions of ecotourism becomes apparent: the promised
benefits for the community versus ambiguous results in reality. The example of Tafi
Atome shows that this can lead to tensions among the people that were promised certain
benefits - be it employment or development - that ecotourism would bring. Furthermore,
these tensions were not eased by NCRC; rather they were covered up by the ecotourism
script.
19
This analysis shows how, especially when it comes to the contradictions inherent to
ecotourism, the limitations of the script become apparent. Yet, there are only very short
intervals in which the limits of the script became obvious. For the most part the script
remains a play within a bigger play, as it becomes part of the daily reality for villagers in
Tafi Atome while simultaneously holding up a sugar-coated, even fake picture to
international communities of tourists, donors and tourism organizations. Each of these
organizations, in turn, has a role to play in keeping this situation ‘stable’ so as to keep the
commodity fiction alive and convincing. Indeed, in the face of all that might shatter the
harmonious ecotourist image, the script (in the case of Tafi Atome mostly the structure of
the project) is something to hold on to as it stimulates the belief that the fiction might
indeed become possible. For Tafi Atome, the script, however spurious, is for the most
part maintained, as it seems tourists do not stay long enough to start looking beyond it
due to the small size of the project, while the villagers are equally restrained to break
with the script in a definitive way as we saw with the temporal nature and effects of the
‘uprisings’ of the youth. Furthermore, the script makes an actual evaluation of the project
challenging, as it is the reality according to how the script is played out that is evaluated.
What is certain is that the monkeys have thrived since the start of the project, since they
now receive complete protection and more forest area to move around in. Less certain are
the development benefits in the village, which are limited and unequally distributed
because of the focus on the ‘native’ part of the village.
CONCLUSION
Coming back to the New York Times’ statement in the introduction, West-Africa is
indeed ready to shed its backpacker’s image and embrace a more diverse tourism
‘market’. Ghana, in particular, aims to do so by ‘professionalizing’ and modernizing its
tourism industry and creating attractions that can tap into the burgeoning Sub-Sahara
African tourism markets. In doing so, it needs to overcome a tricky problem, namely how
to set itself up as an attractive alternative to Eastern and Southern Africa while staying
similar enough in order to tap into the same wildlife, nature oriented tourism market. For
one, it markets itself as “a nation with the reputation as the friendliest in Africa” (Ghana
Tourism, n.d. c) thus trying to exploit some of the fears of crime related to other parts of
Africa. Yet, at the same time, it cannot stray too far from the general tourism image
associated with ‘Africa’, that of a continental wildlife reserve filled with wild,
20
charismatic megafauna and open, ‘empty’ landscapes (Büscher, 2011). Hence, a crucial
part of Ghana’s tourism marketing, as this paper has shown, is its image of a ‘nature
lover’s delight’ (Ghana Tourism, n.d. b) a country that - like the rest of Africa - boasts
plenty of wildlife and biodiversity and enables tourists to enjoy close proximity to exotic
species, while stimulating local development at the same time. Thus has helped Ghana
become a self-proclaimed ‘pioneer in the field of community-based ecotourism’ and has
worked hard to conform to internationally accepted ideas of what this entails. These ideas
- the ecotourism rhetoric - are underpinned by free market mechanisms through which a
(seeming) win-win situation is created for both conservation and development. In this
situation local rural communities both become part of the tourism appeal of a locality,
while at the same time they are seen as the perfect agent to bring ecotourism into practice
at the grassroots.
Through a case-study of one of the many local ecotourism projects in Ghana, that of the
Tafi Atome monkey sanctuary, the paper has shown that introducing ecotourism to such a
locality is not very clear cut. To reinforce the ecotourism rhetoric that has become so
prevalent in Ghana on the grassroots level, a script - which we have dubbed the
‘ecotourism script’ - is necessary to make sure all the actors involved act to portray the
desired image towards the outside world. At the same time, we have emphasized the
limitations of this script, where it is not strong enough to ‘overlay’ or indeed change local
realities. The fact that these limitations are not recognized as such, results in the
persistence of ecotourism rhetoric in its prescribed form and shows how the script
encourages a lack of self-reflection by ecotourism operators. We emphasize that our
exploration of the ecotourism script is based on tentative research, and that more research
is needed to further investigate, compare and expand on the idea. Yet at the same time
this article has made clear that the way in which local communities involved in
ecotourism are altered takes place on many levels, of which one is literal enscripture.
Ghana as a pioneer in the African ecotourism market has become a frontier site to
investigate these matters; further research can help to provide valuable insights on the
intricate linkages between ecotourism, conservation and development.
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Robert Fletcher for valuable comments on an earlier draft of this paper.
21
REFERENCES
Adams, W. & Hulme, D. (2001) Conservation & Community: Changing Narratives,
Policies & Practices in African Conservation, in: D. Hulme & M. Murphree (Eds),
African Wildlife & Livelihoods: The Promise & Performance of Community
Conservation, pp.8-29 (Oxford: James Currey Ltd.).
Agrawal, A. & Gibson, C. (1999) Enchantment and Disenchantment: The role of
community in natural resource conservation, World Development, 27(4), pp.
629‐649.
Bianchi, R. V. (2009) The ‘Critical Turn’ in Tourism Studies: A Radical Critique.
Tourism Geographies, 11(4), pp. 484-504.
Blaikie, P. (2006), Is Small Really Beautiful? Community‐based Natural Resource
Management in Malawi and Botswana, World Development, 34(11), pp. 1942‐1957.
Brockington, D., Duffy, R., & Igoe, J. (2008) Nature Unbound. Conservation, Capitalism
and the Future of Protected Areas (London: Earthscan).
Büscher, B. (2010) Derivative Nature: Interrogating the Value of Conservation in
‘Boundless Southern Africa’, Third World Quarterly, 31(2), pp. 259-276.
Büscher, B. (2011, in press) The Neoliberalisation of Nature in Africa. In: Ton Dietz,
Kjell Havnevik, Mayke Kaag & Terje Ostigard (Eds) New Topographies of Power?
Africa Negotiating an Emerging Multi-polar World (Leiden: Brill).
Butcher, J. (2005) The moral authority of ecotourism: a critique, Current Issues in
Tourism, 8(3,4), pp. 114-124.
Carrier, J.G., & Macleod, D.V.L. (2005) Bursting the Bubble: the Socio-Cultural Context
of Ecotourism, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 11, pp. 315-334.
Corson, C. (2010) Shifting Environmental Governance in a Neoliberal World: US AID
22
for Conservation, Antipode, 42(3), pp. 576-602.
Dressler, W., Büscher, B., Schoon, M., Brockington, D., Hayes, T., Kul, C., McCarthy, J.
& Streshta, K. (2010) From Hope to Crisis and Back? A Critical History of the Global
CBNRM Narrative, Environmental Conservation 37(2), pp. 5-15.
Duffy, R. (2002) A trip too far: ecotourism, politics, and exploitation (London:
Earthscan).
Duffy, R. (2006a) The Politics of Ecotourism and the Developing World, Journal of
Ecotourism, 5, pp. 1-6.
Duffy, R. (2006b) Global Environmental Governance and the Politics of Ecotourism in
Madagascar, Journal of Ecotourism, 5, pp. 128–144.
Dunn, K.C. (2004). Fear of a Black Planet: Anarchy Anxieties and Postcolonial Travel to
Africa, Third World Quarterly, 25, pp. 483-499.
Fletcher, R. (2009) Ecotourism discourse: challenging the stakeholders theory, Journal of
Ecotourism, 8(3), pp. 269-285.
Fletcher, R. (2010) Neoliberal Environmentality: Towards a Poststructural Political
Ecology of the Conservation Debate, Conservation and Society, 8(3), pp. 171-181.
Ghana Tourism (n.d. a) Tourist sites. Available at:
http://www.touringghana.com/tourist_sites.asp (accessed February 3rd 2011).
Ghana Tourism (n.d. b) Eco tourism. Available at:
http://www.touringghana.com/ecotourism/index.asp (accessed February 3rd 2011).
Ghana Tourism (n.d. c) Ghana Tourism. Available at: http://www.touringghana.com.asp
(accessed February 3rd 2011).
Gibson, C. (2010) Geographies of tourism: (un)ethical encounters, Progress in Human
Geography, 34, pp. 521-527.
23
GREET (n.d. a) Welcome. Available at: http://www.ghanaecotourism.com (accessed
October 6th 2010).
GREET (n.d. b) Ghana Rural Ecotourism & Travel Office (GREET) Sensitization
Material. Available at: http://www.ghanaecotourism.com/Documents/OtherFiles/GREETCommunities.aspx (accessed October 7th 2010).
GREET (n.d. c) Tafi Atome. Available at:
http://www.ghanaecotourism.com/Destinations/List/Tafi-Atome.aspx (accessed
December 24th 2009).
Holden, A. (2009) The Environment-Tourism Nexus: Influence of Market Ethics, Annals
of Tourism Research, 36(3), pp. 373-389.
Hollinshead, K., Ateljevic, I. & Ali, N. (2009) World-Making Agency – World-Making
Authority: the Sovereign Constitutive Role of Tourism. Tourism Geographies, 11(4), pp.
427-443.
Holt, F.L. (2005) The Catch-22 of Conservation: Indigenous Peoples, Biologists, and
Cultural Change, Human Ecology, 33(2), pp. 199-215.
Hughes, D.M. (2010) Whiteness in Zimbabwe. Race, Landscape, and the Problem of
Belonging (New York: Palgrave Macmillan).
Jolinaiko Eco Tours (n.d.) The Jolinaiko Ecolodge. Available at: http://www.joliecotours.com/ecolodge.htm (accessed February 1st 2011)
NCRC (2008a) Our Work. Available at: http://www.ncrc-ghana.org/page.php?pageid=25
(accessed February 1st 2011).
NCRC (2008b) Community Ecotourism. Available at: http://www.ncrcghana.org/page.php?pageid=12 (accessed January 17th 2011).
24
NCRC (2008c) Conservation Model and Philosophy. Available at: http://www.ncrcghana.org/page.php?pageid=15 (accessed December 24th 2010).
NCRC (2010). Constitution for the Tafi Atome Monkey Sanctuary. Accra: NCRC.
Nelson, R.H. (2003) Environmental colonialism: “Saving” Africa from Africans, The
Independent Review, 8(1), pp. 65-86.
Ontmoet Afrika (n.d.) Ecotourism. Available at http://www.ontmoetafrika.nl/ecotourism
(accessed February 1st 2011).
Polgreen, L (2007) From Pampered to Primordial: a Delta Journey. Available at:
http://travel.nytimes.com/2007/03/18/travel/18next.1.html?8dpc (accessed October 25th
2010).
UNWTO (1999) Guide for local authorities on developing sustainable tourism:
supplementary volume on Sub-Saharan Africa. Available at:
http://pub.unwto.org/WebRoot/Store/Shops/Infoshop/Products/1116/1116-1.pdf
(accessed January 27th 2011).
UNWTO (2009a) UNWTO World Tourism Barometer. Available at:
http://www.unwto.org/facts/eng/pdf/barometer/UNWTO_Barom09_2_en_excerpt.pdf
(accessed January 27th 2011).
UNWTO (2009b) Testing Times for International Tourism. Available at:
http://www.unwto.org/media/news/en/press_det.php?id=4421&idioma=E (accessed
January 27th 2011).
UNWTO (2011) UNWTO. Available at: www.unwto.org (accessed January 27th 2011).
USAID (2005) Biodiversity conservation: a guide for USAID staff and partners.
Available at: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADE258.pdf (accessed February 1st 2011).
25
Vivanco, L.A. (2001) Spectacular Questzals, Ecotourism, and Environmental Futures in
Monte Verde, Costa Rica, Ethnology, 40(2), pp. 79-92.
West, P. & Carrier, J. (2004) Ecotourism and Authenticity. Getting away from it all?
Current Anthropology, 45(4), pp. 483-498.
Van den Bremer, R. (2009) Monkeys, Money and Management: The impact of
institutional dynamics on community conservation in Tafi Atome, Ghana. MSc Thesis,
VU University Amsterdam.
26