It is worth asking the question as to whether symbiosis between conservation
and development is per se a good thing in another sense. The approach put
forward by Fennell (1999) and Goodwin (2000), and central to the claims of
ecotourism’s many advocates, makes a virtue out of a harmonious relationship
between people and their natural environment. People, it is held, are a part of
nature. Yet whilst this may be true in a philosophical sense (although one could
easily contend the issue is really not whether humanity is part of nature, but the
extent to which they should be regarded as the dominant part of nature) why
should it be true in specific spatially defined cases? Why not offer communities
something better than a life close to nature? There is nothing intrinsically positive
in encouraging specific groups of people to remain in a traditional relationship to
their land. The thrust of development historically has tended to separate people
from a direct dependence on their immediate environment, through urbanisation, trade and the development of division of labour. People in the developed
world reap many benefits from this legacy (the ability to travel widely for leisure
itself being just one). The talking up of a ‘harmonious’ relationship between
communities and their environs reflects a degraded development agenda that
should be challenged rather than lauded as innovative and ethical.