ArticlePDF Available

Neoliberalising Nature? Elephant‐Back Tourism in Thailand and Botswana

June 2010
Antipode 42(3):742 - 766

DOI:10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00771.x

Authors:

The University of Sheffield

This paper examines the case of elephant-back safaris in Thailand and Botswana; it argues that tourism has extended and deepened neoliberalism by targeting and opening up new frontiers in nature. In essence tourism redesigns and repackages nature for global consumption. Through a cross comparison of the same product (the use of captive/trained elephants) in two very different contexts (Thailand and Botswana) this paper analyses the variations in “actually existing neoliberalisms” (Brenner and Theodore 2002) and demonstrates that the effects are not unremittingly negative (Castree 2008b). It also draws out the ways that neoliberalism is challenged and reshaped by context specific processes and so it does not completely displace existing ways of approaching nature. Instead, existing approaches mix with neoliberalism to create new ways of valuing and conserving elephants.

Content uploaded by Rosaleen Duffy

Content may be subject to copyright.

anti_771 antixml-als.cls (1994/07/13 v1.2u Standard LaTeX document class) 4-17-2010 :859

ANTI anti_771 Dispatch: 4-17-2010 CE: N/A

Journal MSP No. No. of pages: 25 PE: Kirsten

Neoliberalising Nature?

Elephant-Back Tourism in Thailand

and Botswana

Rosaleen Duffy and Lorraine Moore

Politics, Manchester University, Oxford Road, Manchester, UK;

rosaleen.duffy@manchester.ac.uk, lorraine.moore@manchester.ac.uk

Abstract: This paper examines the case of elephant-back safaris in Thailand and Botswana; it

argues that tourism has extended and deepened neoliberalism by targeting and opening up new

frontiers in nature. In essence tourism redesigns and repackages nature for global consumption.

Through a cross comparison of the same product (the use of captive/trained elephants) in

two very different contexts (Thailand and Botswana) this paper analyses the variations in

“actually existing neoliberalisms” (Brenner and Theodore 2002, Antipode 34(3):356–386) and

demonstrates that the effects are not unremittingly negative (Castree 2008b, Environment and

Planning A 40(1):153–173). It also draws out the ways that neoliberalism is challenged and

reshaped by context specific processes and so it does not completely displace existing ways

of approaching nature. Instead existing approaches mix with neoliberalism to create new ways

of valuing and conserving elephants. This paper analyses the elephant back tourism industry

via four questions. How are elephants obtained and what are the patterns of ownership in the

tourism industry? How are the elephants used as a workforce? Are the captive elephants used

and valued in ways outside the tourism industry? And what are the welfare implications of using

elephants as a workforce? Q1

Keywords: ecotourism, neoliberalism, elephants, Thailand, Botswana

Introduction

In this paper we explore the neoliberalisation of nature debate by

examining the elephant-riding tourism industry in Botswana and

Thailand. The spectacular growth in the global tourism industry has

been one of the core drivers of neoliberalism in the last 20 years. It

constitutes one of a number of global processes that allows neoliberal

norms and values to travel over time and space (Castree 2009). Despite

claims that alternative tourisms such as ecotourism, responsible tourism

and nature-based tourism offer a challenge, our analysis of elephant-

back safaris demonstrates that they have been central to the expansion

and deepening of neoliberalism at a global scale.

Within the debate about the neoliberalisation of nature there have

been calls for more research on “actually existing neoliberalisms”

(Brenner and Theodore 2002; see also Castree 2008b) and the purpose

Antipode Vol. 42 No. 3 2010 ISSN 0066-4812, pp 738–762

doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00771.x

2010 The Authors

Journal compilation C

2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.

anti_771 antixml-als.cls (1994/07/13 v1.2u Standard LaTeX document class) 4-17-2010 :859

Neoliberalising Nature? 739

of this paper is to do just that. Brenner and Theodore (2002) note

that there is a tendency in the literature on neoliberal nature/neoliberal

environments to assume that neoliberalism is hegemonic, and therefore

it is ascribed with greater powers than it really has (also see Peck and

Tickell 2002). In this paper we interrogate the elephant-riding industry

across two different contexts to determine what is precisely neoliberal

about the industry, and are the dynamics of neoliberalism hegemonic or

challenged, reshaped or resisted by existing context-specific processes?

We do this by asking four questions applied to two different contexts

(Botswana and Thailand). Where does the industry obtain elephants

from and what are the patterns of ownership? How are the elephants

used as a workforce in the tourism industry? Are the captive elephants

valued and used in other ways apart from their role as a workforce for

global tourism? And finally, what are the welfare implications of using

elephants as a workforce?

In answering these questions, we make four arguments about the

role of the tourism industry in processes of neoliberalising nature.

Firstly, that the global tourism industry is not simply reflective of global

neoliberalisation, but is in fact an important constitutive element which

expands and deepens processes of neoliberalisation, especially in the

South. Secondly, that the tourism industry is one means by which

nature is neoliberalised, since it allows neoliberalism to target and

open up new frontiers in nature (Castree 2008a:141; Castree 2009).

Neoliberalism, through tourism, reconfigures and redesigns nature for

global consumption (West and Carrier 2004). Thirdly, examining the

ways trained elephants are used in the tourism industry in two very

different contexts allows us to analyse the variations in “actually

existing neoliberalisms” (Brenner and Theodore 2002) and thereby

demonstrate that the effects are not unremittingly negative (Castree

2008b:166). Fourthly, such a cross comparison highlights the ways that

neoliberalisation is challenged, resisted and changed by context-specific

processes, values, ideas and institutions. In essence, the elephant-back

tourism industry demonstrates that neoliberalisation of nature through

the global tourism industry produces a kind of “palimpsest” effect; it

inscribes new values and uses for nature so that it can be opened to

international markets, but does not completely obscure or obliterate

existing ways of valuing, using, owning and approaching nature.

Neoliberalisations, Nature and the Global

Tourism Industry

We analyse the growth of elephant-back tourism in two different

contexts (Thailand and Botswana) in order to critically examine the

neoliberalisation of nature debate. Defining neoliberalism itself and

identifying what is especially “neoliberal” about elephant-back tourism

2010 The Authors

Journal compilation C

2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.

anti_771 antixml-als.cls (1994/07/13 v1.2u Standard LaTeX document class) 4-17-2010 :859

740 Antipode

is no easy task. Debates about the precise nature of neoliberalism are

already well covered in the literature. Castree (2008a, 2008b) points

out there is a large and growing body of critical scholarship on the

neoliberalisation of nature, which aims to understand why the natural

world has become such a vital target (see Castree 2009). For example,

McCarthy and Prudham argue the connections between neoliberalism,

environmental change and environmental politics are deeply, if not

inextricably interwoven. In this way neoliberalism can be regarded

as an inherently and necessarily environmental project because it

changes the relationships between human communities and biophysical

nature; neoliberalism and environmentalism have emerged as powerful

ideological foundations for social regulation; and finally because

environmental concerns are the most powerful source of opposition to

neoliberalism (McCarthy and Prudham 2004:275–277; see also Heynen

et al 2007).

First it is important to define what neoliberalism is in order to

understand what neoliberalisation of nature means. Neoliberalism can

be briefly defined as a specific form of capitalism which is privatisation,

marketisation deregulation and various forms of re-regulation. Critical

scholars defined it as a hegemonic project that produces a “nebuleuse” of

ideas, institutions and organisations which create conditions favourable

to neoliberalism so that it appears as natural, neutral and as if there

were no alternative (see Cox 1996). During the past 20 years we have

witnessed the global expansion of neoliberalism, including the roll back

of states coupled with a roll forward of new forms of regulation to

facilitate private interests, the expansion of market-based mechanisms

to new natural resources such as water and genetic material, as well

as the privatisation of public services (Castree 2008a; see also Harvey

2005; Heynen et al 2007; Heynen and Robbins 2005; Liverman 2004;

McCarthy and Prudham 2004:275–277; O’Neill 2007; Peck and Tickell

2002). Neoliberal approaches rose to international prominence during

the 1970s and by the mid 1990s they seemed globally dominant, pushed

forward by a range of global actors including states, corporations and

International Financial Institutions (IFIs) (Brenner and Theodore 2002;

Cox 1996).

However, it is critically important not to reify neoliberalism and

ascribe it a greater level of coherence and dominance than it really

deserves (Bakker 2005; Castree 2008a; Brenner and Theodore 2002;

Mansfield 2004; McCarthy and Prudham 2004). Instead it is important

to interrogate how neoliberalism plays out “on the ground”, to probe its

complexities, unevenness and messiness (see Peck and Tickell 2002). In

this paper we concentrate on comparing the practices of neoliberalism

in order to draw out these messy entanglements; this demonstrates how

neoliberalism can be challenged, resisted and changed by its encounter

with nature (Bakker 2009; Castree 2008b:161). Therefore, we do not

2010 The Authors

Journal compilation C

2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.

anti_771 antixml-als.cls (1994/07/13 v1.2u Standard LaTeX document class) 4-17-2010 :859

Neoliberalising Nature? 741

rehearse the well worn debates on definitions of neoliberalism, but

rather take up the challenge of comparative research on “actually

existing neoliberalisms”, which involves engaging with contextual

embeddedness in order to complicate neat theoretical debates. As

Brenner and Theodore (2002:349–355) suggest, to understand actually Q2

existing neoliberalism we must explore the path-dependent, contextually

specific interactions between inherited regulatory landscapes and

emergent forms of neoliberalism. As such, the neat lines and models

generated via theoretical debates can be traced, refined, critiqued and

challenged through engagement with specific case studies (Bakker 2009;

Castree 2008b). We examine how nature-based tourism relies on the

neoliberalisation of nature through the transformation of experiences

with elephants.

Tourism, as a global industry, is not just reflective of neoliberalism, it

drives, expands and deepens it. Tourism has experienced a sustained

period of growth; this occurred from the 1970s onwards against a

backdrop of global shifts and especially benefited from the expansion

of neoliberalism across the world. Tourism development fitted very

well with the new faith in markets, decentralisation and roll back

of the state. Since the late 1970s global tourism flows have rapidly

increased in response to greater prosperity and social and economic

shifts in the industrialised world, which allowed larger numbers of

people to engage in overseas travel. This has further developed into

markets for ethical/responsible/green travel that reflect and draw on

the changing holidaying tastes of societies in the North (for further

discussion, see Butcher 2003). Statistics on international tourism clearly

demonstrate how much it has grown, and despite warnings of the impact

of a global recession, it is still a healthy industry. The UN World

Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) figures show that international tourist

arrivals grew at 3.7% between January and August 2008, compared

with the same period in 2007; international tourism receipts grew

to US$856 billion, an increase in real terms of 5.6% on 2006; and

international tourist arrivals were 903 million in 2007, up 6.6% on

2006. However, the first quarter of 2009 indicated a sharp drop in

international tourist arrivals, down by 22% on the same period in 2008.

The UNWTO states that the reduction in numbers is due to fears about

an international influenza pandemic coupled with the global financial

crisis. Nevertheless, the UNWTO still believes the industry is robust

and estimates there will be 1.6 billion visitor arrivals in 2020.1Tourism

has remained a highly attractive option for governments, the private

sector and international organisations as a potential means of delivering

economic growth, and even “development”.

The wider context of growing international tourism has led to the

promotion of nature-based tourism as a key policy agenda for IFIs,

national governments, private sector and international environmental

2010 The Authors

Journal compilation C

2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.

anti_771 antixml-als.cls (1994/07/13 v1.2u Standard LaTeX document class) 4-17-2010 :859

742 Antipode

non-governmental organisations (NGOs). As a result, tourism has been

identified as a strategy by which many states in the South can diversify

their economies and produce environmentally sustainable development

(Bramwell and Lane 2005:53). Furthermore, the UN declared 2002

the International Year of Ecotourism, a clear reflection of the global

expansion of tourism and the expectations placed on it. The World

Tourism Organisation also claims that ecotourism can contribute to

conservation of natural and cultural heritage in natural and rural areas,

as well as improving living standards in those areas (UNWTO 2003:2).

Elsewhere Duffy has argued thatthere is little difference between various

forms of “alternative tourism” (such as ecotourism) and mass tourism:

they are both part of the same continuum and heavily interlinked with

global capitalism through their reliance on international markets (Duffy

2008). One of the core justifications for nature-based tourism is that

nature can be conserved or saved precisely because of its “market value”

to tourists willing to pay to see and experience it. While supporters

of tourism development argue that natural resources, landscapes and

wildlife have intrinsic, cultural and ecological values, they also point to

their economic value, which can be harnessed through the application

of market-based mechanisms (see McAfee 1999). In effect, wildlife

and landscapes are produced, reproduced and redesigned as tourist

attractions. In the process they are commodified and drawn in to the

global tourism marketplace as products to be consumed (see West and

Carrier 2004). The tourism industry is particularly adept at designing

and creating new commodities that clients will pay to see or experience.

It relies on the transformation of places into desirable “must see”

locations, and the development of new “must do” activities that people

will be willing to pay to experience. This includes the production of

new sensory experiences centred on close encounters with animals (for

further discussion, see Bulbeck 2004).

Comparing Neoliberal Nature in Thailand and Botswana

This paper is based on fieldwork conducted during 2008 with a total

of 3 months’ fieldwork in Botswana and 3 months in Thailand. The

research primarily used qualitative methods as the most appropriate

to uncover the complexities of the elephant-riding industry in both

countries. We conducted 75 interviews in Kasane, Maun and Gaborone

(Botswana) plus Bangkok and Chiang Mai (Thailand). Kasane, Maun

and Chiang Mai are the main areas for elephant-related activities,

whereas undertaking research in the capital cities of Gaborone and

Bangkok allowed us to access the relevant wildlife, conservation and

tourism authorities associated with each country. Interviewees were

selected from a diverse range of regulatory authorities, wildlife and

human rights NGOs, tour operators, lodge/camp owners, tourist guides

2010 The Authors

Journal compilation C

2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.

anti_771 antixml-als.cls (1994/07/13 v1.2u Standard LaTeX document class) 4-17-2010 :859

Neoliberalising Nature? 743

and the tourists themselves. These interviews were supplemented by

participant observation at tourist sites, such as elephant shows and

elephant riding tours which allowed us to observe how tourists interacted

with elephants (eg riding, washing, feeding, playing and watching them).

The interviews and observations are also supported by analysis of

documentary evidence from NGOs, national tourism authorities and

tour operators.

Bakker (2009) argues it is important for research on neoliberal

nature to take up the challenge of comparative research; in line with

Bakker’s argument we examine particular liberal environmentalist

strategies (nature-based tourism) as applied to a specific resource

(captive/trained elephants). This kind of comparative research allows us

to examine the contours, boundaries, challenges and limitations placed

on neoliberalism by its encounter with “nature”. Thailand and Botswana

provide interesting but contrasting contexts in which to research the

character of neoliberal nature. Thailand has a long history of training and

using elephants as a workforce: elephants have an important cultural-

heritage value and the tourism industry has expanded to become a major

income earner for the country. In contrast, Botswana has no history of

using trained elephants as a workforce. As training elephants is an

emerging activity in Botswana there is no cultural heritage associated

with the practice. The tourism industry in Botswana is based around the

wildlife safari industry and has been expanded by the government so

that it is now a critical economic sector (Mbaiwa 2004). The different

trajectories of development of elephant riding in Thailand and Botswana

provide us with an interesting set of questions around the role of the

global tourism industry as a driver of the expansion of neoliberalised

nature.

Neoliberalising Nature: Elephant-riding Tourism

Elephant Trekking in Botswana

Botswana, formerly the British Protectorate Bechuanaland, gained

independence in 1966. It is often presented as one of Africa’s

success stories, demonstrating the benefits of following a neoliberal

development model centred on diamond mining and luxury safari

tourism. During the 1980s sub-Saharan Africa was the site of a

series of external interventions inspired by donors and IFIs which

developed and promoted economic liberalisation packages. This was

followed in the 1990s by a decade of political conditionalities centred

around ideas of good governance (Clapham 1996). Botswana was not

immune from these global shifts and Melber (2007:5) points out that

Botswana is “currently widely considered as a relative success story

in terms of democratisation and ‘good governance’ ...”. Botswana

is often identified as a model African democracy, and a beacon of

2010 The Authors

Journal compilation C

2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.

anti_771 antixml-als.cls (1994/07/13 v1.2u Standard LaTeX document class) 4-17-2010 :859

744 Antipode

economic development in a region with high rates of poverty and

underdevelopment. However, Good (2008) argues that Botswana is

dominated by a ruling party which revolves around an elite clique.

He further states that the immense wealth produced by diamond mining

(and by the tourism sector) has not led to greater prosperity for all, but

instead the country is marked by serious disparities of wealth (also see

Taylor and Mokawa 2003; and Poteete 2009b).

Ideas of democratisation and decentralisation of natural resource

management were also taken up by the Ministry of Environment

and Tourism, and implemented via community-based approaches to

conservation (see Twyman 2001). The Community Based Natural

Resource Management (CBNRM) approach developed during the

1990s as a critically important, more effective and more community-

oriented means of managing natural resources (see Hutton, Adams and

Murombedzi 2005). The notion that communities can manage natural

resources and develop ecotourism fits well with neoliberal approaches

to regulating, organising and implementing conservation that include

extension of the market as the most efficient manager of natural

resources. In particular, it intersects with the argument that decentralised

networks of “stakeholders” can govern resources rather than leaving

them in state hands (Hulme and Murphree 1999; Ribot 2004). This

resonates with the agendas of IFIs and NGOs that claim to engage

in participatory methods of development and conservation with local

communities.

Botswana also promoted CBNRM as a potential solution to

conservation. The decentralisation of natural resource management to

local communities became a central pillar of environmental policies.

This intersected with the rise in faith in markets as a means of

“producing” development in Botswana and in sub-Saharan Africa

more generally. Under the Natural Resources Management Project,

rural communities were encouraged to enter into partnerships with

private safari operators, with promises that such links would result in

better wildlife management and would bring material benefits (Hoon

2004; Mbaiwa 2004). However, as Hoon (2004) points out, these new

market-oriented, decentralised and community-oriented policies did not

obliterate existing social dynamics; instead they opened up new kinds

of interactions. The results of CBNRM were mixed in Botswana. While

some communities derived benefits from their partnerships with safari

operators, critics pointed to the lack of genuine participation, the limited

economic benefits and the conflicts it produced within communities

(Hoon 2004; Mbaiwa 2004, 2008; Twyman 2001).

Tourism is one of the largest income earners for Botswana,2and it

has been identified by the government as a critical sector for sustained

economic development in the future (Keitumetse 2009; Mbaiwa 2004).

Wildlife-based tourism has been promoted by a range of actors,

2010 The Authors

Journal compilation C

2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.

anti_771 antixml-als.cls (1994/07/13 v1.2u Standard LaTeX document class) 4-17-2010 :859

Neoliberalising Nature? 745

including the government, private sector, international conservation

NGOs and IFIs. It has been developed as a potential driver for economic

development, environmental sustainability, wildlife conservation and

community empowerment, among others. The National Ecotourism

Strategy for Botswana (drawn up in 1990) promotes wildlife/wilderness

as the central “brand” and attraction for the country. However, Mbaiwa

notes that the upscale luxury safari tourism industry in Botswana

produces similar problems to enclave tourism in the Caribbean and

elsewhere; namely that the main profits go to foreign companies, there

is little benefit for local communities and the lodges/safari concessions

are highly exclusive and potentially exclusionary (Mbaiwa 2004, 2008).

One interesting twist in the wildlife/wilderness safari industry is the

development of “elephant back safaris”. It is one small, but growing,

part of the southern African tourism industry product and relies on the

development of close interactions with elephants, including elephant

riding and walking with elephants. The development of elephant riding

is the combined result of entrepreneurs such as Randall Moore (owner

of Elephant Back Safaris) and Uttum Corea (the owner of the Mokolodi

Nature Park), seeking to create niche forms of tourism at a time when

Botswana wanted to diversify its tourism package. The way in which

elephant back riding has developed in Botswana (as well as the wider

southern African region) is strongly related to the wider preference for

market-based approaches to natural resource management.

Elephant trekking in Botswana accounts for less than 1% of the total

elephant population in Botswana, which is one of the largest in sub-

Saharan Africa. In stark contrast to the case of Thailand, discussed

later in this paper, the Botswana Department of Wildlife and National

Parks estimates that it has 152,000 wild elephants.3Trained elephants

are used for transport, essentially as safari vehicles for tourists. But

encounters with elephants are also marketed and promoted as a “back

to nature” experience, despite the obvious contradiction that tourists are

interacting with a trained animal, not one of its “wild” counterparts.

Historically, experiences with captive trained elephants are not part of

the standard safari package, but have been developed as an additional

high-end/luxury tourism product in the last decade, and can now be

found in South Africa, Botswana, Zimbabwe and Zambia.

The ways that elephants are obtained for the elephant-riding industry

is an important factor in understanding how non-human nature is

neoliberalised. The absence of a history or culture of domesticating

elephants in Botswana means elephant camps rely on elephants that

formerly lived in circuses, zoos and safari parks, or as calves who

survived elephant culling operations. For example, one of the reasons for

developing an elephant trekking industry was because they had to find

a new role for wild-caught calves that had survived culling operations,

elephants that were no longer suitable to work in circuses, or were being

2010 The Authors

Journal compilation C

2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.

anti_771 antixml-als.cls (1994/07/13 v1.2u Standard LaTeX document class) 4-17-2010 :859

746 Antipode

kept in poor circumstances in zoos. One researcher based in Maun

suggested that since they could not be returned to the wild, one way of

dealing with them was to train them for work in the tourism industry.4

The use of trained elephants in Botswana is limited to three privately

owned safari camps and one publicly run nature reserve, Mokolodi

(near Gaborone), and cannot be done without approval and monitoring

by the Department of Wildlife and National Parks. The elephants have

been purchased or donated to three camps in the Okavango Delta: Abu

Camp and Seba Camp (both owned by Elephant Back Safaris, EBS) and

Living With Elephants, which works with Stanleys Camp and Baines

Camp. The District Wildlife Co-ordinator in Maun stated that although

the Parks Department retains oversight of the captive elephants and had

to give their permission for the elephants to be used in the camps, the

captive elephants are privately owned.5

The elephants funnelled into the tourism industry were trained and

developed as a labour force to be deployed for international tourism. By

allowing these elephants to be removed from other captive situations and

come together in newly formed and privately owned elephant camps,

they have, in a sense, been re-packaged and re-regulated to occupy

a space within the tourism industry to improve their circumstances,

and to diversify the tourism product in Botswana. The status of these

captive elephants as privately owned sets them apart from their wild

counterparts because they are state owned. The unique nature of this

situation does not end here though. Twyman (1998, 2001) argues that

while Botswana has been committed to decentralisation of natural

resource management, the actual process has been a real challenge. Yet,

in the case of captive elephants, this has been achieved because wild

elephants are state owned, but captive elephants have been devolved to

the private sector. As such, the trained elephants in Botswana can be

characterised as fully neoliberalised because they exist only to serve

international safari tourism markets and have little opportunity for

employment outside tourism. Even their limited use as educational tools

for local communities is inextricably linked to their use as a labour force

in international tourism.

The experiences with elephants occupy a high-end niche market, and

elephant rides cost at least US$150 per person per hour. In Botswana

close interactions with elephants are sold as part of an accommodation

package in fly-in luxury camps costing between US$500 and 2000

per night (see Mbaiwa 2004). It is possible for visitors to Botswana,

however, to incorporate elephant trekking as a day trip during a mobile

safari, or as an independent traveller in Kasane where they can take

advantage of shorter elephant rides in Victoria Falls (on the Zambian

and Zimbabwean sides).6There are key differences between the camps

and elephant experiences. The camps are located in the Okavango Delta,

which is the centre-piece of Botswana’s “wilderness tourism” product.7

2010 The Authors

Journal compilation C

2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.

anti_771 antixml-als.cls (1994/07/13 v1.2u Standard LaTeX document class) 4-17-2010 :859

Neoliberalising Nature? 747

Abu Camp is the most expensive luxury resort in the Okavango Delta—

costing approximately US$2000 per night.8It is owned by a former

animal trainer from America, Randall Moore, who brought the first

trained elephants to the camp in 1990. Moore has hired his elephants

out for film, television and advertising. For example, the camp is named

after Abu, the original male elephant which was brought from the USA

to South Africa to star in the film The Power of One. Since then the Abu

Camp elephants have appeared in diverse formats including adverts for

Cote d’Or chocolate, and when the Miss World Contest was held in

South Africa the elephants were used as part of the show.9Apart from

their media appearances, the elephants are used for wildlife safaris,

when tourists can ride the elephants or walk with them while viewing

wildlife. Abu Camp promotes the activity as a means by which tourists

can then feel they are part of the elephant herd and will get closer to the

wildlife. Abu Camp also has an active research programme into how

domesticated elephants can reintegrate into wild herds, but this too is

offered as a spectacle for tourists visiting the camp.10

In contrast, Baines Camp and Stanley’s Camp offer walking with

elephants, but are quite clear that they do not allow or promote elephant

riding. EBS and Living with Elephants state that they are committed to

returning captive and domesticated elephants to the wild. Baines and

Stanley’s Camps are exclusively for clients booked through Sanctuary

Lodges—a division of the global safari company Abercrombie and

Kent.11 The elephants used at the camps are privately owned by Sandi

and Doug Groves who run a company “Grey Matters” and an NGO

“Living with Elephants” (LWE).12 LWE was founded in 1999 with

three adopted elephants, Jabu, Thembi and Morula. The elephants are

used by the camp for tourist experiences but during the low season,

LWE use their elephants to provide free educational tours for school

children in the delta area. Sandi Groves of LWE suggested that the

trips are to educate children into having a more “positive” view of

elephants.13 LWE’s mission statement is that it is “dedicated to creating

harmonious relationships between people and elephants. Doug and

Sandi have striven to find ways in which their foster elephants can act as

ambassadors for their wild counterparts.” The key motivation for LWE

is to “reduce competition between elephants and human populations

in Botswana”.14 The use of captive elephants for educational purposes

and school trips to the luxury lodges are one way in which the lodge

and tour operators maintain their concession and operator licences. It

is a government stipulation that all safari concessions must provide a

package of benefits for local communities.15 Mokolodi Nature Park

offers similar educational activities as LWE, but also allows visitors to

ride the elephants.

The elephant-back safari industry in Botswana is a good example of

how nature-based tourism acts as a driver for global neoliberalism. The

2010 The Authors

Journal compilation C

2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.

anti_771 antixml-als.cls (1994/07/13 v1.2u Standard LaTeX document class) 4-17-2010 :859

748 Antipode

animals used in this “alternative” form of tourism are privately owned,

and in contrast to their wild counterparts their management has been

decentralised away from state authorities. In essence they have been

privatised, re-regulated and re-packaged to be consumed by the global

tourism industry. Wild elephants remain state owned, and are the core

concern of state authorities. They are a central part of the promotion

of Botswana as a leading safari tourism destination, a key strategy for

economic development which mirrors the state approach to ownership

and management of diamonds as a national resource (see Poteete 2009b).

The approach to management and use of captive, trained elephants is

rather different. While the state retains ultimate oversight of captive

trained elephants, they are effectively under private sector management

and have been re-configured and re-packaged for tourist use. Essentially,

this is an example where resources become de-regulated and re-regulated

by the state (see Bakker 2003, 2007; Brockington, Duffy and Igoe 2008; Q3

Castree 2008a; Heynen et al 2007). Captive elephants in Botswana

exist only as a labourforce to work in the tourism industry. Therefore,

the development of elephant-back safari tourism in Botswana acts as

an important driver of neoliberalisation. The elephant-riding industry

has targeted and opened up new frontiers in nature (elephants) for

colonisation by neoliberalism.

Neoliberalisation of nature has been rendered more complex by

locally specific contexts, histories and social processes. Understanding

the precise patterns of ownership (a particular blend of state and

private associated with de-regulation and re-regulation) and use of

captive elephants in Botswana complicates the neat lines of theoretical

frameworks used to understand the nature of neoliberalism. First, its

effects are not unremittingly negative (Castree 2008b:166). Second,

neoliberalisation of nature is not a neat process, easily implemented in

standard ways; instead it plays out in particular ways on the ground. The

challenges it faces from context-specific dynamics shape the character

of neoliberalism in different places around the world. In the case of

Botswana, the specificities of ownership of captive versus wild elephants

and the lack of history of training and using elephants as work animals

shapes the character of neoliberalised nature. This further develops

McCarthy and Prudham’s (2004:275–277) argument that environmental

concerns are the most powerful source of opposition to neoliberalism

(also see Heynen et al 2007). Our analysis of elephant-back tourism

reveals the ways that existing approaches to nature encounter and mix

with neolibralism to produce new forms on the ground in different

contexts. This is made clear in the ways captive elephants are used as

a labour force for the tourism industry in Thailand. In that context it is

the history of using elephants as domesticated, working animals which

shapes the precise character of neoliberalised nature.

2010 The Authors

Journal compilation C

2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.

anti_771 antixml-als.cls (1994/07/13 v1.2u Standard LaTeX document class) 4-17-2010 :859

Neoliberalising Nature? 749

Elephant Trekking in Thailand

Thailand’s political history is rather complex and differs substantially

from Botswana. It was never a colony but was governed by an

absolute monarchy until Rama VII, King Prajadhipok was challenged

by a military coup in 1932. Prajadhipok was invited to remain a

constitutional monarch, he was succeeded by Ananda, and then by his

brother, King Bhumibol Adulyadej, the current King of Thailand (Wyatt

2003). Since 1932 Thailand has effectively switched between military

dictatorships and civilian governments. Despite this, since the end of

the Second World War Thailand has largely followed a development

trajectory which fits well with a global context of neoliberalism.

Along with the other ASEAN-5,16 Thailand aligned with the USA

during the Cold War and followed a growth model influenced by

modernist principles, including IMF reforms and the development of

a US style consumer society modelled on the USA. Thailand went

on to develop export-orientated industrialisation from the 1980s, and

by 1995 74% of Thailand’s exports were manufactured commodities.

However, Thailand’s economic success appeared much more fragile

with devaluation of the Thai baht in 1997, which is often credited

with triggering the wider Asian Financial Crisis. The crisis led to high

levels of unemployment and economic recession, leading to further

neoliberal reforms under the IMF (McGregor 2008). In the late 1990s

the increasing powers of the IMF and of foreign capital were used

as a focal point for anti-government campaigns by the Thai Rak Thai

Party, established by the Thai billionaire, Thaksin Shinawatra; local big

businesses was keen to protect their own interests and supported the

election of Thaksin in 1997 (see McCargo and Pathmanand 2005 for

further discussion). Economic growth returned to pre-crisis levels by

2002 and Thailand remains a lower middle income country, but one

characterised by extreme variations of wealth and poverty (McGregor

2008). Neoliberal approaches to the environment have been applied in

Thailand since 1980. Government and independent think tanks, such as

the Thailand Environment Institute, have focused on the “technocratic

task” of developing economic instruments for “sound environmental

management” and the right market signals (Hirsch 1997:23). Thai NGOs

have embraced the neoliberal ideals of democracy and participation at

the grassroots level, particularly in the forestry sector, which translated

into community-based projects in rural areas.

The development of the tourism industry pre-dates the global

expansion of neoliberalism, and the economic reforms inspired by the

IMF in the 1980s and 1990s. The current form of international tourism

developed out of the creation of “rest and recreation areas” for the US

military during the Vietnam War, which themselves drew on a longer

tradition of a sex industry in the country (see Enloe 2001; Peleggi

2010 The Authors

Journal compilation C

2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.

anti_771 antixml-als.cls (1994/07/13 v1.2u Standard LaTeX document class) 4-17-2010 :859

750 Antipode

1996). By the late 1970s, the Thai government had identified tourism

as a critically important sector for expansion, and made it a top priority

in the 1978–1991 National Economic and Social Development Plan.

Between 1998 and 1999 the government aimed to attract 17 million

tourists through the Amazing Thailand Campaign to counter the negative

impacts of the Asian economic crisis (Kontogeorgopoulos 1999:317).

The government was keen to diversify the tourism product and attract

clients from the Asian region, especially Japan (see Enloe 2001:36,

43–65) as well as Europe and the USA (see Kontogeorgopoulos 1999).

The longer term history of tourism development is important for

understanding how elephant trekking occupies a particular niche within

a wider industry that caters to a much wider range of interests than

the Botswana tourism industry. Unlike Botswana’s focus on high-cost–

low-impact international safari tourism, Thailand is a well worn tourist

destination. Its product is highly varied, and includes standard packages

of the three or four “s”s: sun, sea, sand and sex; it also markets

itself as a destination for cultural tourism (especially to see Northern

Hill communities), adventure tourism (eg scuba diving, sea kayaking),

nature-based tourism (visiting national parks, wildlife viewing) (for

further discussion of the profile of the Thai tourism industry, see Cohen

2008; Peleggi 1996).

There are 40–50 elephant camps in Thailand, and they form a critical

part of the tourism industry in northern Thailand, especially around

Chiang Mai (Kontogeorgopoulos 2009:431). Thailand’s use of elephants

in tourism differs from that in Botswana in a number of ways. For

example, unlike Botswana, the longstanding cultural practices of owning

and training elephants as work animals in Thailand means that it is much

easier to acquire them as private property than in Botswana (see Lair

2004). In contrast to Botswana, Thailand has 3000 elephants, 2000

of which are privately owned trained elephants; only 1000 are “wild”

animals living in national parks. The 2000 captive elephants were largely

bred within captivity, but there are concerns that a small number of

baby elephants have been wild caught and trafficked in from Burma

to serve the demand for “cuter” animals in circuses and shows. The

government authorities responsible for Thailand’s captive elephants are

the Department of Livestock, the Department of Transport, and the

Forest Industry Organisation, rather than the Department of National

Parks or Ministry of Environment. This serves to underline the ways that

captive elephants are regarded as working animals rather than as wildlife.

Each elephant is owned by someone or something. Lair (2004) identifies

two broad categories of ownership: government and private. Lair further

divides privately owned elephants into mahout owned and non-mahout

owned. Non-mahout owned elephants usually require a hired mahout to

look after the elephant (for further discussion of ownership categories,

see Lair 2004:15–30; also see Kontogeorgopoulos 2009:440).

2010 The Authors

Journal compilation C

2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.

anti_771 antixml-als.cls (1994/07/13 v1.2u Standard LaTeX document class) 4-17-2010 :859

Neoliberalising Nature? 751

These privately owned elephants have been deployed as an important

labour force for the tourism industry, but unlike Botswana they have a

series of other roles as working animals. Elephant trekking in Thailand

is marketed in a variety of ways to attract the vast range of tourists

that visit Thailand seeking different kinds of tourist experiences, unlike

Botswana where elephant riding is a specific niche market within a

dominant safari industry. In a sense, Thailand has reconfigured and

mobilised the historical practice of using elephants as a labour force

in the logging industry to attract international tourists. Elephant shows

vary in form and include circus-style shows in the major package holiday

destinations where elephants perform tricks including standing on their

heads (such as Fantasea in Phuket) to demonstrate the historical skills

used in the logging industry (stacking and pulling logs) and displays of

elephants painting pictures, or the Elephant Orchestra where elephants

play tunes on a glockenspiel (such as the elephant show at the National

Elephant Research Institute in Lampang). Other common activities

found in elephant shows (for example Mae Sa and Maetaman elephant

camps) include elephants playing football/basketball and re-enactions

of the trust between mahout and elephant where the elephant steps over

a mahout lying on the ground.17

Some of the differences between neoliberalisation of nature in the

Thai and Botswana tourism industries can be explained via the differing

histories of using captive elephants as a labour force. Prior to 1989

elephants were primarily used in teak logging by the government of

Thailand and by private operators. However, following the 1989 ban

on logging the elephants in the logging camps faced an uncertain

future. While a limited amount of logging still continued in government

reserves, many elephants were put out of work by the decision in 1989.

Each trained elephant requires a mahout to work with it—and without

the mahout the elephant can be extremely dangerous. For the mahout

the elephant is a source of income, but it eats between 120 and 200 kg

of food per day. As the head of the Mahout Training School in Thailand

pointed out, without access to work in the logging camps the elephants

and their mahouts had to find alternative employment.18

Following the logging ban, some elephants were released, but the

amount of land under national parks is not large enough to provide

sufficient habitat for all the elephants in Thailand. Since elephants

are a key source of income for their mahouts, the majority had to

look for alternative forms of employment (for further discussion, see

Kontogeorgopoulos 2009). However, this proved to be difficult. In

the initial years after the ban some elephants were funnelled into the

illegal logging industry. One of the vets working with in the National

Elephant Hospital suggested that a major concern at the time was

that elephants were often working long hours and during the night

to avoid detection, and there were numerous accounts of elephants

2010 The Authors

Journal compilation C

2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.

anti_771 antixml-als.cls (1994/07/13 v1.2u Standard LaTeX document class) 4-17-2010 :859

752 Antipode

being given amphetamines to make them work faster.19 The head of

the Training School for Thai Elephants and Mahouts pointed to a

second problem that arose after the ban: it created the phenomenon

of “street wandering elephants”—unemployed elephants and mahouts

who came to the big cities and tourist areas to beg on the streets.20

In Bangkok the problem was especially acute because of the dangers

posed to traffic and pedestrians. At the time, the Food and Agricultural

Organisation (FAO) and the Forest Industry Organisation expressed

concerns regarding elephant welfare: they were working long hours

(including at night) they were being frightened by the noise and lights

of city traffic, and walking on tarmac and concrete is painful and leads

to potentially crippling disorders in the elephants’ feet.21

Once the government banned elephants from urban areas, there was a

need to find alternative forms of employment for the elephants and

mahouts. This is where the tourism industry became the potential

solution for the unemployed elephants and their mahouts. In this way

the relationship between elephants and global markets switched from

their position as a source of labour for the timber industry to a new

role as a source of labour and as a commodity in themselves for

the global tourism industry. This also meant that, in line with wider

processes of neoliberalisation, they shifted from being employed in

government-run logging plantations to working in the private sector.

The unemployed elephants and their mahouts had the opportunity of

employment as tourist attractions, and the industry developed new

commodities out of marketing everyday working practices of elephants

(such as offering transport and pulling logs) and of mahouts (washing

and feeding elephants).

The transfer of working elephants from the public to the private

sector came from small beginnings in the government-run Thai Elephant

Conservation Centre (TECC). It started out as the “Young Elephant

Training Centre” as a place for training mahouts and providing short

courses for officials who might encounter elephants as part of their duties

(eg police officers who confiscated elephants in urban areas, zookeepers

etc). The TECC then began to offer tourist rides for elephants and a

short show where elephants displayed the skills they had once used in

the logging industry, such as skidding and piling up logs. As the TECC

tourist “product” developed the mahouts trained the elephants to play

musical instruments. The idea was then taken up by the private sector,

and a number of elephant camps have opened in the Chiang Mai area

and the product was extended again to include elephant painting (an

idea which originally came from the USA),22 aimed at the international

tourist market. Since the TECC is a national government institution it

has to be affordable to Thai visitors, and so it has found it increasingly

difficult to compete with the privately owned elephant camps that have

developed around Chiang Mai, Chiang Rai, and Pai near Mae Hong Son.

2010 The Authors

Journal compilation C

2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.

anti_771 antixml-als.cls (1994/07/13 v1.2u Standard LaTeX document class) 4-17-2010 :859

Neoliberalising Nature? 753

These camps offer much the same tourist product as the TECC: elephant

rides, elephant shows, the chance to purchase an elephant painting or

the opportunity to experience mahout training for one or more days. It is

clear that the elephant camps are not a singular phenomenon that offers

a homogenous experience which is produced and managed in the same

way.

Although international tourism has been Thailand’s single biggest

foreign exchange earner for the past 10 years, those involved in tourism

are painfully aware of how fickle the industry can be. In particular,

Thailand has been the site of a major disaster, the tsunami of 2004,

and suffered from outbreaks of avian flu and severe acute respiratory

syndrome, and each of these has affected the number of visitors to

Thailand. Partly as a result of this, the TECC has explored other avenues

to demonstrate the importance of conserving wild and domesticated

elephants in Thailand. Prasop Tipprasert, chief of the Training School

for Thai Elephants and Mahouts (at the TECC), argued that tourist rides

and even the mahout training experiences might not be the basis for

funding elephant conservation in the longer term. Therefore, the TECC

developed new products from their elephants, including elephant dung

paper and organic fertiliser. He has also been involved in a medical

study with the University of Chiang Mai about the positive influence

of experiences with elephants on autistic children. He suggested that

through the study on autism he hoped that Thai people would see the

utility of elephants and support their conservation.23 Therefore, their

long-term survival might well depend on demonstrating their utility but

not necessarily their market value. As such, it is clear that even in an

area where the elephant tourism industry is booming, those involved in

elephant conservation are wary of relying on a global industry to save

the species in the longer term. Indeed it is very interesting to note that

Tipprasert’s view was that the future lay with demonstrating the wider

importance of the elephant to Thai people.

This view of elephants as more than just a commodity taps into

the historical relationship with elephants through the practice of

mahoutship. For example, mahouts will pray to Ganesha before any

journey with an elephant. Ganesha is a very popular idol in Thailand, as

well as the wider South and Southeast Asian regions, and it is common

for people to make an offering to Ganesha before any undertaking. In

addition to this, elephants were once a status symbol in Thailand. The

rich could demonstrate their wealth through the number of elephants

they owned. As in Africa, elephant symbolism is ever present in

Thailand, from the logo of Chang Beer (Chang is Thai for elephant)

to the lapel pins worn by women students at Chiang Mai University.

However, there are very few people in Thailand who believe that

culture alone can save the elephants. Due to the high number of captive

elephants, combined with the amount of money required to keep a

2010 The Authors

Journal compilation C

2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.

anti_771 antixml-als.cls (1994/07/13 v1.2u Standard LaTeX document class) 4-17-2010 :859

754 Antipode

captive elephant, the survival of captive elephants will be reliant on their

ability to pay their way, either in the tourism industry or by providing

services for people. This does lend captive elephants to neoliberal

principles. Kontogeorgopoulos (2009:443) argues that Thailand has

failed to conserve elephants based on their intrinsic worth as living

creatures, and so their future depends on demonstrating their economic

importance and utility to human beings.

Neoliberal approaches to nature can be used to re-invent traditional

practices. For example, an elephant fashion show organised by the

owner of the Elephant Life Experience to mark National Elephant

Day on 13 March 2008 demonstrates the use of historical practices

of training elephants to create a diverse range of products to support

conservation. The show featured clothes made from fabrics which

used patterns taken from paintings by elephants. The elephants painted

pictures onto paper and the patterns were then transferred to fabrics to

be used for bespoke designs by a British fashion designer, Lawrence

Goldman. Funds generated from the sales of the outfits were to be used

for elephant conservation, and it was the first such event anywhere in

the world. The Elephant fashion show was intended to draw attention

to elephant conservation, the Art by Elephants Foundation and to

the artificial insemination programme organised between the National

Elephant Hospital at the Thai Elephant Conservation Centre and the

privately owned Mae Sa Camp. The event was covered by global

television networks, including the BBC, and appeared on youtube.24

The neoliberalisation of nature in Thailand has become hybridised

through its engagement with locally specific contexts, histories and

social processes to create new opportunities and ways in which elephants

can be conserved. It is clear from these events that the links between

the private sector and the national government institutions were reliant

on the global tourism industry, but they used the historical practices of

training elephants to create a diverse range of products associated with

elephants.

The cases of elephant riding in Botswana and Thailand demonstrate

neoliberalism can be extended to an increasing range of non-

human phenomena through the development of new tourist spectacles.

However, the two cases also show that this is an uneven process, and

is molded by other values for elephants (especially in Thailand). This

reveals that the global tourism industry drives and deepens processes of

neoliberalisation, but does so in complex and varying ways. It has not

led to an inevitable and all consuming process which displaces all other

values and approaches to conservation. The ways in which wildlife can

be neoliberalised is dependent on the wider cultural and socio-political

contexts in each area. Tourism has developed experiences with elephants

as valuable commodities of the market in both Botswana and Thailand,

but local cultural traditions associated with elephants and the wider

2010 The Authors

Journal compilation C

2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.

anti_771 antixml-als.cls (1994/07/13 v1.2u Standard LaTeX document class) 4-17-2010 :859

Neoliberalising Nature? 755

socio-political conditions of each country have produced very different

economic possibilities and tourism products.

Neoliberalisation of nature is not a neat process, easily implemented

in standardised ways. Instead it plays out in particular ways on the

ground, and this allows us to gain greater insight into actually existing

neoliberalisms (Brenner and Theodore 2002). In the case of Botswana,

the specificities of ownership of captive versus wild elephants and the

lack of history of training and using elephants as work animals shapes

the character of neoliberalised nature. Thailand’s elephants, on the other

hand, were re-trained and employed in the tourism industry to manage

the problems associated with street-walking elephants since they lost

their jobs in the logging industry.

Elephant Welfare in the Work Place

Concerns about elephant welfare are one source of commonality

between Thailand and Botswana, and both have much to learn from

comparing experiences to ensure that captive elephants are well cared

for. The use of elephants in Thailand and Botswana for elephant back

tourism is fraught with a series of ethical issues centred around animal

rights and animal welfare, essentially arising from the ways that they

are used as a labour force for international tourism. For example,

the International Fund for Animal Welfare and the Humane Society

of the USA are strongly opposed to any form of elephant training for the

tourism industry (or any other industry) on the grounds of cruelty.25

As Kontogeorgopoulos (2009:430) points out, there are important

objections to the ways some elephant training relies on the use of

physical force. Critics also object to the ways that male elephants in

Asia may be chained for many weeks during musth because they become

unpredictable and violent. Furthermore, elephants that live in camps find

it difficult to bond with each other as part of a herd, which means they

do not reproduce as effectively as in the wild. Finally, captive elephants

may not receive a sufficient variety of foodstuffs to provide them with

adequate nutrition.

Many of these issues unfold in similar ways in Thailand and

Botswana, however both areas also have specific problems they are

confronted with. For example, because Botswana does not have a

background associated with elephant trekking there is a lack of the

knowledge about the long-term management of captive elephants. As

one interviewee pointed out, taking on a captive elephant is not a short-

term business strategy since the animals can live for 50–60 years and

need to be cared for throughout their lives.26 One of the problems with

the expansion of the elephant-riding industry in southern Africa as a

whole was that there was little understanding of the lifelong commitment

attached to working with elephants. One researcher expressed concerns

2010 The Authors

Journal compilation C

2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.

anti_771 antixml-als.cls (1994/07/13 v1.2u Standard LaTeX document class) 4-17-2010 :859

756 Antipode

that lots of elephant-riding experiences were popping up in southern

Africa but they were run by people with little or no experience of

animal training or working with elephants.27

While the stakeholders involved in the elephant-trekking industry

see elephant-back safaris as highly successful, some interviewees in

Botswana said that they thought African elephants are unsuited to close

work with people because of their unpredictable temperament.28 It is

often during the period when mahouts are changed when elephants

can become unsettled and dangerous.29 For example, one interviewee

who worked with trained elephants in Botswana stated that they were

concerned it would only be a matter of time before a tourist was killed

by an African elephant due to the absence of experienced mahouts. One

of the criticisms levelled at the elephant-riding industry in Botswana is

that it is an industry driven by profit and not by concerns about elephant

welfare and conservation. In particular, an interviewee stated there was

a perception that you could make “big bucks” from elephant riding in

part because of the high prices charged by the lodges in Botswana; and

that this has drawn in private operators who have little appreciation of

what it takes to work with elephants in the longer term. These concerns

about animal welfare led to the creation of the Elephant Management and

Owners Association to draw up standards for the elephant-back safari

industry. This was regarded as particularly pressing after undercover

footage was released which exposed cruelty during training of young

elephants.30

While elephants have an important cultural status in Thailand, there

are concerns that they will not be looked after once they are unable

to earn a wage. One interviewee explained that a mahout abandoned

his elephant at the elephant hospital in TECC because he believed it

would no longer be able to work for a living.31 However, it is important

to point out that mahouts are not intentionally cruel to their elephants,

the animals are the main source of income for mahouts, and they may

live together for many decades. One mahout commented on the street

wandering elephants that it was desperation which drove mahouts to

take their elephants to beg in urban areas and tourist resorts; they were

aware that the elephants found the environment stressful, but felt they

had no choice and did it to survive.32

The cross comparison between elephant riding in Thailand and in

Botswana highlighted some important issues. On the surface, it may

appear that the use of captive elephants in Thailand and Botswana is very

similar. The practice was created in both areas to find a use for elephants

that were in undesirable situations such as begging on the streets in

Bangkok or performing in a circus. However, there are also significant

contrasts between the two cases. Although Botswana (along with the

other African range states) have held a few elephants in captivity (eg in

2010 The Authors

Journal compilation C

2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.

anti_771 antixml-als.cls (1994/07/13 v1.2u Standard LaTeX document class) 4-17-2010 :859

Neoliberalising Nature? 757

zoos) the actual practice of training elephants to carry humans is not a

traditional activity in Africa, and it is usually undertaken by foreigners.

This is quite unlike Thailand where elephants have been used as working

animals for thousands of years. Botswana has seen the introduction of a

new practice, whereas Thailand has merely altered an historical practice.

As such, the captive elephants in Botswana and people’s relationships

with them have undergone a far greater transition where they have been

re-packaged in order to become a global tourism product. Thailand’s

elephants, on the other hand, were already employed in work and used as

a source of labour: they have merely changed who they and their mahouts

work for, and shifted from being public sector (logging) to private sector

(tourism) employees. In addition to this, Botswana’s captive elephants

only exist as safari elephants because there is a market demand for them,

whereas Thailand’s captive elephants would exist regardless because

they had already been taken out of the wild in such large numbers.

Elephant trekking in Botswana has created a completely different way

in which their elephants can be valued since they can now be valued as a

source of labour. In this way, Botswana’s elephants are more conducive

to the principles of neoliberalism: the development of elephant trekking

has allowed the re-regulation of elephants in privately owned elephant

camps. Thailand’s elephants are more easily acquired as private property

than they are in Botswana. The owners of elephants in Thailand have

other (albeit limited) options regarding the way they choose to use their

elephants. Although the majority of elephants in Thailand are restricted

to tourism, there is also demand for elephants to be used in other ways,

which include informal forms of transport (particularly in the hills) or in

a government-registered logging plantation. Therefore, the application

of neoliberalism through the global tourism industry in Thailand has

transformed traditional ways in which elephants were used in order to

create new products for the tourism industry as well as offering a way in

which Thailand’s captive elephant population can be conserved. These

new ways in which elephants can be used exist alongside traditional

values (they do not displace them), but tourism demand has created

new practices. The two cases demonstrate that the implementation of

neoliberalism adapts to existing circumstances.

Conclusion

To conclude, the case of the elephant-back safari industry in two

different contexts demonstrates the ways that the tourism industry acts

as a driver of the neoliberalisation of nature, but it also reveals the

contours and boundaries of actually existing neoliberalism (Brenner

and Theodore 2002). First, it shows how the global tourism industry

is not simply reflective of global neoliberalisation, but is a critically

2010 The Authors

Journal compilation C

2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.

anti_771 antixml-als.cls (1994/07/13 v1.2u Standard LaTeX document class) 4-17-2010 :859

758 Antipode

important constitutive element that expands and deepens processes of

neoliberalisation. Second, the elephant-back safari industry in Thailand

and in Botswana revealed that the tourism industry is one means by

which nature is neoliberalised. Through the creation of new work

elephants in Botswana and re-regulation and re-packaging of working

elephants in Thailand as a tourist spectacle, the industry has provided

an opportunity for neoliberalism to target and open up new frontiers

in nature (Castree 2008a:141; 2009). Third, examining the ways

trained elephants are used in the tourism industry in Thailand and

Botswana allowed for comparative research on the same “product”

in two very different contexts; in turn this meant it was possible to

analyse the variations in “actually existing neoliberalisms” (Brenner

and Theodore 2004). The analysis of the commonalities and differences

between elephant riding in Thailand and Botswana revealed that the

effects were not unremittingly negative (Castree 2008b:166). This

is especially important when we consider the case of unemployed

elephants in Thailand following the 1989 logging ban; the tourism

industry provided a very important alternative source of employment

for elephants and their mahouts. Fourth, the comparative analysis of

Thailand and Botswana highlighted the ways that neoliberalisation

adapts to context-specific processes, values, ideas and institutions.

The elephant-back tourism industry demonstrates that processes of

neoliberalisation of nature through the global tourism industry produces

a kind of “palimpsest” effect; it brings new values and uses for nature

that are compatible with its use in international markets, but in Thailand

it does not completely displace existing ways of valuing, using, owning

and approaching nature. It is clear that neoliberalism, through tourism,

reconfigures and redesigns nature for global consumption; the elephant-

riding industry is an excellent example of how tourism remakes the

nature in an acceptable image to appeal to international clients. In sum,

the growth of elephant-back tourism is an example of neoliberalised

nature because the animals are trained, repackaged and developed for

consumption by the global tourism industry.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the ESRC for funding this research, grant reference RES-000-22-

2599, Neoliberalising Nature? A Comparative Analysis of Asian and African Elephant

Based Ecotourism. We would also like to thank three anonymous referees for their very

helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. This paper was originally presented

to a Symposium on Conservation and Capitalism, 9–10 September 2008, Manchester

University, and we are grateful to the participants for their comments. Finally, this

research would not have been possible without the support of the International

Tourism Research Centre and the Harry Oppenheimer Okavango Research Centre at

the University of Botswana, the Thai Elephant Conservation Centre and Maetaman

Elephant Camp.

2010 The Authors

Journal compilation C

2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.

anti_771 antixml-als.cls (1994/07/13 v1.2u Standard LaTeX document class) 4-17-2010 :859

Neoliberalising Nature? 759

Endnotes

1http://www.unwto.org/index.php (accessed 15 August 2009).

2Interview with the Principal Tourism Officer, Department of Tourism, Gaborone, 9

October 2008.

3Ministry of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism, Draft Elephant Management Plan

for Botswana.

4Interview with researcher, Maun, 23 October 2008.

5Interview with District Wildlife Co-ordinator, Department of Wildlife and National

Parks, Maun, 31 October 2008.

6African Odyssey Programme of Tourist Activities, Chobe Marina Lodge, Kasane.

7Pers. comm., Dr Susan Keitumetse, Okavango Research Centre, University of

Botswana/Botswana Tourism Board, Maun, 26 May 2008; also see Mbaiwa (2004).

8http://www.abucamp.com/Abu%20Camp.htm (accessed 15 July 20008).

9Elephant Back Safaris Media Pack, Elephant Back Safaris, Private Bag 332, Maun,

Botswana.

10 http://www.abucamp.com/Abu%20Camp.htm (accessed 15 July 2008).

11 http://www.sanctuarylodges.com (accessed 13 July 2008).

12 http://www.livingwithelephants.org/index.htm (accessed 15 July 2008).

13 Interview with Sandi Groves, Living with Elephants, Maun, 28 May 2008.

14 http://www.livingwithelephants.org/project.htm (accessed 15 July 2008).

15 Pers. comm., tour guide, Kwara Safari Lodge, Okavango Delta, 30 May 2008; also

see Mbaiwa (2004) for further discussion.

16 The original five members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN),

which were Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines and Indonesia.

17 Observations from Maetaman Elephant Camp, 7 April 2008; Mae Sa Elephant Camp,

10 April 2008; and TECC, 13 March 2008 and 10 April 2008.

18 Interview with Somchat Changkarn, Mahout Training School, TECC, Lampang, 20

March 2008. Interview with Pat, Theerapat, Patara Elephant Farm, Chiang Mai, 6 April

2008 (see also Scigliano 2004).

19 Interview with Pornsawan, Pongsopawijit, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Chiang

Mai University, 31 March 2008; anonymous interview, researcher in Chiang Mai, 18

April 2008.

20 Interview with Prasop Tipprasert, Elephant Specialist, Forest Industry

Organisation/Chief of the Training School for Thai Elephants and Mahouts, TECC,

Lampang, 20 March 2008; pers. comm., Pornsawan Pongsopawijit, Faculty of Veterinary

Medicine, Chiang Mai University, 17 March 2008.

21 Interview with Prasop Tipprasert, Elephant Specialist, Forest Industry

Organisation/Chief of the Training School for Thai Elephants and Mahouts, TECC,

Lampang, 20 March 2008; pers. comm., Pornsawan Pongsopawijit, Faculty of Veterinary

Medicine, Chiang Mai University, 17 March 2008; interview with the Manager Thai

Permanent Life exhibition, Thailand Cultural Centre, Bangkok, 25 March 2008.

22 Interview with Anchalee Kalampimjit, manager Maetaman Elephant Camp, owner

of the Elephant Life Experience Camp, Maerim, 7–8 April 2008.

23 Interview with Prasop Tipprasert, elephant specialist, Forest Industry

Organisation/chief of the Training School for Thai Elephants and Mahouts, TECC,

Lampang, 20 March 2008.

24 Pers. comm., Anchalee Kalmapijit, Maetaman/ Elephant Life Experience, Chiang

Mai, 13 March 2008; http://www.elephantart.com (accessed 8 April 2008).

25 “Elephant Back Safaris simply accidents waiting to happen, warns top tourism

insurer” on http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw_united_states/media_center/press_releases/5_

10_2007_41436.php (accessed 29 January 2009); “Elephants sent into safari slavery

from Zimbabwe’s world famous Hwange national park” posted 8 November 2007, http://

www.ifaw.org/ifaw_southern_africa/media_center/press_releases/11_8_2006_47671.

2010 The Authors

Journal compilation C

2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.

anti_771 antixml-als.cls (1994/07/13 v1.2u Standard LaTeX document class) 4-17-2010 :859

760 Antipode

php (accessed 29 January 2009); Humane Society of the US: “Judgement day finally

arrives in the Tuli elephant abuse case”, posted 17 April 2003, http://www.hsus.org/

wildlife/wildlife_news/judgment_day_finally_arrives_in_the_tuli_elephant_abuse_

case.html (accessed 29 January 2009).

26 Interview with Sandi Groves, Living with Elephants, Maun, 28 May 2008; also

anonymous interviewee, UK, June 2008.

27 Anonymous interviewee, UK, June 2008.

28 Interviews with two guides at the Lyia Guest House, Kasane, 21 October 2008;

anonymous guide, Kasane, 11 October 2008; anonymous interviewee, UK, June 2008.

29 Anonymous interviewee, Maun, May 2008.

30 Anonymous interviewee, UK, June 2008; also see http://www.africanconservation.

org/component/option,com_mtree/task,viewlink/link_id,89/Itemid,3/ (accessed 19

January 2009).

31 Anonymous interview, Maetaman Elephant Camp, owner, 7–8 April 2008.

32 Interview with mahout 1 from Surin, interviewed in Chiang Saen, 24–25 April 2008;

mahout 2 also from Surin, interviewed in Chiang Saen, 24–25 April 2008.

References

Bakker K (2005) Neoliberalising nature? Market environmentalisms in water supply in

England and Wales. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 95(3):542–

565

Bakker K (2009) Neoliberal nature, ecological fixes, and the pitfalls of comparative

research. Environment and Planning A 41(8):1781–1787

Bramwell B and Lane B (2005) From niche to general relevance? Sustainable tourism,

research and the role of tourism journals. The Journal of Tourism Studies 16(2):52–62

Brenner N and Theodore N (2002) Cities and the geographies of “actually existing

neoliberalism”. Antipode 34(3):356–386

Brockington D, Duffy R and Igoe J (2008) Nature Unbound: Conservation, Capitalism

and the Future of Protected Areas. London: Earthscan

Bulbeck C (2004) Facing the Wild: Ecotourism, Conservation and Animal Encounters.

London: Earthscan

Butcher J (2003) The Moralisation of Tourism: Sun, Sand ...and Saving the World?

London: Routledge

Castree N (2003) Commodifying what nature? Progress in Human Geography

27(2):273–292 Q4

Castree N (2008a) Neoliberalising nature I: The logics of de- and re-regulation.

Environment and Planning A 40(1):131–152

Castree N (2008b) Neoliberalising nature II: Processes, outcomes and effects.

Environment and Planning A 40(1):153–173

Castree N (2009) Researching neoliberal environmental governance: A reply to Karen

Bakker. Environment and Planning A 41(8):1788–1794

Clapham C (1996) Africa and the International System. The Politics of State Survival.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Cohen E (2008) Explorations in Thai Tourism: Collected Case Studies. Amsterdam:

Elsevier Science

Cox R (1996) Approaches to World Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Duffy R (2008) Neoliberalising nature: Global networks and ecotourism development

in Madagascar. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 16(3):327–344

Enloe C (2001) Bananas, Beaches and Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International

Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press

Good K (2008) Diamonds, Dispossession and Democracy in Botswana. Oxford: James

Currey

2010 The Authors

Journal compilation C

2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.

anti_771 antixml-als.cls (1994/07/13 v1.2u Standard LaTeX document class) 4-17-2010 :859

Neoliberalising Nature? 761

Harvey D (2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Heynen N, McCarthy J, Prudham W S and Robbins P (eds) (2007) Neoliberal

Environments: False Promises and Unnatural Consequences. London: Routledge

Heynen N and Robbins P (2005) The neoliberalisation of nature: Governance,

privatization, enclosure and valuation. Capitalism Nature Socialism 16(1):5–8

Hirsch P (1997) Environment and environmentalism in Thailand. In P Hirsch (ed) Seeing

Forests for Trees: Environment and Environmentalism in Thailand (pp 15–36). Chiang

Mai: Silkworm Books

Hoon P (2004) Impersonal markets and personal communities? Wildlife, conservation,

and development in Botswana. Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy

7:143–160

Hulme D and Murphree M (1999) Communities, wildlife and the “new conservation”

in Africa. Journal of International Development 11:277–285

Hutton J, Adams W M and Murombedzi J C (2005) Back to the barriers? Changing

narratives in biodiversity conservation. Forum for Development Studies Q5

Keitumetse S O (2009) The Eco-tourism of cultural heritage management (ECT-CHM):

Linking heritage and “environment” in the Okavango Delta regions of Botswana.

International Journal of Heritage Studies 15(2–3):223–244

Kontogeorgopoulos N (1999) Sustainable tourism or sustainable development? Current

Issues in Tourism 2(4):316–332

Kontogeorgopoulos N (2009) Wildlife tourism in semi-captive settings. Current Issues

in Tourism 12(5/6):429–449

Lair R C (2004) Gone Astray: The Care and Management of The Asian Elephant in

Domesticity. Bangkok: FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific

Liverman D (2004) Who governs, at what scale and at what price? Geography,

environmental governance, and the commodification of nature. Annals of the

Association of American Geographers 94(4):734–738

Mansfield B (2004) Neoliberalism in the oceans: “Rationalization”, property rights and

the commons question. Geoforum 35:313–326

Mbaiwa J (2004) The socio-cultural impacts of tourism development in the Okavango

Delta, Botswana. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change 2(2):163–185

Mbaiwa J (2008) The realities of ecotourism development in Botswana. In A Spenceley

(ed) Responsible Tourism: Critical Issues For Conservation and Development

(pp 205–223). London: Earthscan

McAfee K (1999) Selling nature to save it? Biodiversity and the rise of green

developmentalism. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 17(2):133–

154

McCarthy J and Prudham S (2004) Neoliberal nature and the nature of neoliberalism.

Geoforum 35(3):275–283

MCargo D and Pathmanand U (2005) The Thaksinisation of Thailand. Copenhagen:

NIAS Press

McGregor A (2008) Southeast Asian Development. London: Routledge

Melber H (2007) Botswana, Namibia, Zimbabwe—anything in common? In H Melber

(ed) Governance and State Delivery in Southern Africa: Examples from Botswana,

Namibia and Zimbabwe (pp 5–8). Nordiska Afrikainstitutet Discussion Paper 38

Moore L (2009) Conservation heroes versus environmental villains: Perceiving

elephants in Caprivi, Namibia. Human Ecology∗

O’Neill J (2007) Markets, Deliberation and Environment. London: Routledge

Peck J and Tickell A (2002) Neoliberalising space. Antipode 34(3):380–404

Peleggi M (1996) National heritage and global tourism in Thailand. Annals of Tourism

Research 23(2):432–448

Poteete A R (2009a) Defining political community and rights to natural resources in

Botswana. Development and Change 40(2):281–305

2010 The Authors

Journal compilation C

2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.

anti_771 antixml-als.cls (1994/07/13 v1.2u Standard LaTeX document class) 4-17-2010 :859

762 Antipode

Poteete A R (2009b) Is development path dependent or political? Journal of Development

Studies 45(4):544–571

Ribot J C (2004) Waiting for Democracy: The Politics of Choice in Natural Resource

Decentralizations. Washington: World Resources Institute

Scigliano E (2004) Love, War and Circuses. London: Bloomsbury

Taylor I and Mokawa G (2003) Not forever, conflict diamonds and the bushmen. African

Affairs 102:261–283

Twyman C (1998) Rethinking community resource management. Third World Quarterly

19(4):745–770

Twyman C (2001) Natural resource use and livelihoods in Botswana’s wildlife

management areas. Applied Geography 21:45–68

UNWTO (2003) UNWTO Assessment of the Results Achieved in Realising

Aims and Objectives of the International Year of Ecotourism 2002. UNWTO:

Madrid. http://www.world-tourism.org/sustainable/IYE/IYE-Rep-UN-GA-2003.pdf

(last accessed 5 July 2007)

West P and Carrier J G (2004) Ecotourism and authenticity. Getting away from it all?

Current Anthropology 45(4):483–498

Wyatt D (2003) Thailand, A Short History. London: Yale University Press

2010 The Authors

Journal compilation C

2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.

anti_771 antixml-als.cls (1994/07/13 v1.2u Standard LaTeX document class) 4-17-2010 :859

Queries

Journal: ANTI

Paper: anti_771

Dear Author

During the copy-editing of your paper, the following queries arose.

Please respond to these by marking up your proofs with the necessary

changes/additions. Please write your answers on the query sheet if there is

insufficient space on the page proofs. Please write clearly and follow the

conventions shown on the corrections sheet. If returning the proof by fax do not

write too close to the paper’s edge. Please remember that illegible mark-ups

may delay publication.

Query Query Remarks

Reference

Q1 Author: Please reduce the

length of the abstract to

around 150 words.

Q2 Author: Please check

the citation ‘Brenner and

Theodore (2002:349–355)’

as the page range in the

reference list is 356–386.

Q3 Author: Please provide full

reference details for Bakker

(2003, 2007), Brenner and

Theodore (2004).

Q4 Author: Please cite the

following references in

the text or remove from

reference list: Castree

(2003), Moore (2009),

Poteete (2009a).

Q5 Author: Please give volume

and page numbers for

the reference Hutton et al

(2005).

anti_771 antixml-als.cls (1994/07/13 v1.2u Standard LaTeX document class) 4-17-2010 :859

Behaviour and Welfare Impacts of Releasing Elephants from Overnight Tethers: A Zimbabwean Case Study

Article

Full-text available

Jul 2022

Within the southern African elephant tourism industry, chaining or tethering elephants is still a relatively routine practice, despite the known negative impacts. Cited reasons for chaining include fear of aggressive interactions between elephants when handlers are absent, or a general increase in expression of aggressive behaviours (both to other elephants and to their human handlers). In Zimbabwe, concerns expressed include the danger of elephants escaping and entering human-inhabited areas. Four male semi-captive elephants at a Zimbabwe tourist facility were taken off overnight (~12 h) tethers and were placed in small pens (‘bomas’), approximate sizes from 110 m2 to 310 m2), as part of a strategy to improve elephant welfare. Behavioural data were collected from overnight videos from December 2019 to March 2020, between 18:00 to 06:00, using focal, instantaneous sampling (5-min interval). Data were collected for three nights at three time periods: (i) Tethered; (ii) approximately four weeks post-release; (iii) approximately eight weeks post-release. Behavioural change over these time points was analysed using general linear models with quasibinomial error structures. Behavioural changes indicative of improved welfare were observed following these management changes, and no significant increases in aggression were observed either between elephants, or towards their human handlers. Proportion of time engaging in lying rest was higher in the first month after release from tethering (mean ± SD, 50 ± 14%) than when elephants were tethered (20 ± 18%) (p < 0.05). Additionally, although not statistically significant, stereotypies were reduced when elephants were no longer tethered (4 ± 6% observations tethered compared to 2 ± 2% off tethers), and positive social behaviour also increased (1 ± 1% on tethers, 2 ± 2% off tethers), with the greatest improvements seen in the pair-housed elephants. To improve elephant welfare in southern African tourism facilities we strongly advocate that less restrictive management practices which enable greater choice and freedom of movement overnight are implemented.

Private Wildlife Governance in a Context of Radical Uncertainty: Dynamics of Game Farming Policy and Practice in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

Thesis

Full-text available

Jan 2023

Tariro Kamuti

Conversion from livestock and/or crop farming to game farming has been a notable trend on privately owned land in South Africa over the last decades. This change has been characterised by the fast growth of wildlife ranching, reflected in the annual increase in land enclosed by game fences and the high demand for wildlife which is being traded privately and at wildlife auctions. Key environmental and agricultural legislation has been passed since 1994 that impacts the wildlife sector, for instance, legislation on property rights, (re)distribution of resources, and biodiversity conservation in South Africa. The study sought to investigate the extent to which the state can impose effective controls over land use activities related to wildlife conservation on private land, and to explore in detail how governance processes actually work on the ground in the province of KwaZulu-Natal. The study explores how the private game farming industry positions itself with respect to existing agricultural and environmental regulations, as well as how the state is responding to the challenge of competing needs over land and wildlife resources that is posed by the game farming sector. The basis of the study was to unravel findings that show interactions, discourses, policy positions, and power relations of stakeholders in the governance of game farming. Realising the importance of the link between environmental governance and institutions, the thesis uses the idea of institutional bricolage by Frances Cleaver to explore the governance of private game farms through various institutional arrangements. Cleaver contends that formal institutions created through abstract principles are not the primary means through which tensions inherent in the use of natural resources are resolved. Greater focus was therefore placed on how rules, norms and shared strategies get stitched together through repetitive interactions by actors involved in game ranching. Critical realism was the guiding ontological philosophy for this study. Data was obtained through in-depth interviews with key informants from major stakeholder organisations and communities linked to the private wildlife sector in KwaZulu-Natal province. I also collected data through visits to game farms and private wildlife reserves, and acted as an observer at game auctions, workshops, and conferences. Documentary evidence collected also served as primary data. Critical discourse analysis (which in this study also incorporates political discourse analysis) was the major analytical framework. Evidence presented in this study points towards the fractured state in the governance of the private game farming sector. The state is not a homogeneous and monolithic entity uniformly applying itself to the regulation of the sector. There is no clear direction on the position of private game farming at the interface of environmental and agricultural regulations. The state lacks a clear vision for the South African countryside as shown by the outstanding land restitution and labour tenant claims on privately owned land earmarked for wildlife production. Instead, role players in the game farming sector are using the available governance arrangements to position themselves strategically for their own benefit, even though some of their activities cause tension. In that process, the private wildlife industry has completely changed the landscape of nature conservation in South Africa. In KwaZulu-Natal the long-standing cordial relations between conservation authorities and private landowners have worked to the advantage of the private landowners. The study argues that this transformation of the institutional processes mediating the governance of the private game farming sector has been a long and enduring arrangement emerging organically over time. Changes in the regulatory regime through new laws, amendment of existing laws and unbalanced implementation of existing laws creates an environment of considerable uncertainty for the game farmers who are the major role players in the wildlife sector, yet within this context private landowners do retain significant space for manoeuvre.

Private Wildlife Governance in a Context of Radical Uncertainty Dynamics of Game Farming Policy and Practice in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

Thesis

Full-text available

Jan 2023

Tariro Kamuti

Neoliberalism’s influence on recreation access provisions: Municipal recreation practitioners’ perspectives

Article

Apr 2022

This study examined neoliberalism’s influence on how access provisions are conceptualized and designed by municipal recreation practitioners. Specific attention is paid to how neoliberalism intersects with practitioners’ conceptualizations and administration of recreation access provisions for low-income citizens. Sixteen municipal recreation practitioners in Atlantic Canada were interviewed. Our findings indicated that practitioners viewed access to municipal recreation for low-income citizens predominantly in terms of financial resources and needing to break down several barriers. Further, four types of recreation access provisions for low-income citizens were administered by practitioners, including fee assistance programs, subsidies for all, one-off scenarios, and robust alternative supports.

Trans-paw-tation: on animal geographies and mobilities in South African cities

Article

Mar 2023

Astrid Wood

This paper contributes to the robust dialogue in animal geographies by adding a focus on mobilities. Trans-paw-tation establishes a framework for understanding animal mobilities by drawing on a range of epistemological and methodological approaches, all of which aim to better understand animals and their role in the world. It goes on to propose three approaches to trans-paw-tation and the theoretical possibilities of thinking across animal geographies and mobilities: first, by reflecting on the movement of animals and animals’ movements in both the historic and contemporary city; second by examining animal policies and the ways in which animals are included and excluded from urban mobilities; and third, by considering the metaphorical and symbolic associations between animals and mobilities. These deliberations are based in South African cities where both animal and transport geographies have been exploited as a mechanism for discrimination and control, and in the postapartheid context, offer opportunities for social and spatial integration. In so doing, this paper moves beyond anthropocentric approaches to mobilities by bringing animal geographies into conversation with African and urban studies and by offering a methodological contribution towards understanding trans-paw-tation.

Morality on holiday: inspiring ethical behaviour in animal-based tourism through nonmoral values

Article

May 2021

Despite the progression of animal welfare within the tourism literature and the industry itself, a significant change in public behaviour remains to be seen. Anthropocentric views of animals as objects are still widespread. This paper proposes a new approach to engaging the public in ethical behaviours by meeting visitors where they are in terms of their values and priorities. Drawing on Susan Wolf’s work, we propose a realistic line of attack to ethics that offers an opportunity for researchers and advocates to think more critically about the many ways that people might relate to morality, particularly regarding animals encountered in travel. We suggest that this approach may serve to better the lives of the animals by appealing to tourists’ nuanced ethical stances regarding animals.

The Political Economy of Protected Area Designations: Commercial Interests in Conservation Policy

Article

Nov 2022

Justin Alger

States have increased the pace and scale of conservation efforts in recent years as they strive to meet ambitious terrestrial and marine protected area targets. The ecological gains made in this push for protections, however, seem to be no better than if governments designated protected areas at random. Many critics point to states prioritizing quantity over quality of protections—rightly so—but this point does not fully explain the shortcomings of the global biodiversity network. The problem is more deeply rooted in the processes through which governments designate protected areas. Governments prioritize minimizing short-term commercial losses over maximizing long-term ecological gains in conservation policy processes, leading to two predominant types of protected area: residual and paper park. The causal mechanism driving these processes is how salient industry interests are in an area targeted for protections, which predicts government policy response, demonstrated here through case studies in Australia and the United States.

Intersecting identities and altered relations : Locating the material and symbolic factors shaping local engagement with ecotourism at India’s Corbett Tiger Reserve

Thesis

Jan 2022

Revati Pandya

The value of elephants: A pluralist approach

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2022

Biodiversity conservation strategies may prioritise certain values of nature over others. Whilst there will likely always be a need for compromise in conservation planning, the consequences of trade-offs depend on peoples' relative perceptions of values that are promoted or neglected. In practice, not fully understanding or taking into account the value systems of all stakeholders, including local people, leads to contention, social inequality, and ineffectiveness. Elephants provide an excellent case study to illustrate the need for multidimensional valuation systems as they provide multiple overlapping services and benefits in ecological, socio-cultural, economic, and spiritual dimensions. Yet, their conservation is often highly contentious and fiercely debated. Here, we present a pluralist valuation system that identifies the varied services and benefits of elephants, but which adds important dimensions missing from current frameworks such as that of IPBES. Two key additions: (1) incorporating moral values alongside the services and benefits, and (2) incorporating a feedback loop to promote mutually reinforcing interactions, will better support holistic and equitable conservation. Additionally, to aid the interrogation of the kinds of problems that lead to contention in elephant conservation, we mapped the types of trade-offs that occur when different values are at stake, which allows us to identify balanced conservation solutions that will lead to unity. This pluralist valuation approach, which is similarly applicable to other species and ecosystems, clarifies the necessity of properly accounting for stakeholder values in decision making, and promotes fairer conservation decisions that will generate broader buy-in and support, uniting people, and facilitating socially just and sustainable conservation outcomes.

Staging Privilege, Proximity, and "Extreme Animal Tourism"

Chapter

Full-text available

Mar 2017

Jane C. Desmond

Governance and state delivery in Southern Africa : examples from Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2007

Henning Melber

Africa and the International System: The Politics of State Survival

Book

Sep 1996

Christopher Clapham

African independence launched into international politics a group of the world's poorest, weakest, and most artificial states. How have such states managed to survive? To what extent is their survival now threatened? Christopher Clapham shows how an initially supportive international environment has - as a result partly of political and economic mismanagement within African states themselves, partly of global developments over which they had no control - become increasingly threatening to African rulers and the states over which they preside. The author also reveals how international conventions designed to uphold state sovereignty have often been appropriated and subverted by rulers to enhance their domestic control, and how African states have been undermined by guerrilla insurgencies and the use of international relations to serve essentially private ends. He shows how awkward, how ambiguous, how unsatisfactory, and often how tragic, has been the encounter between Africa and Western conceptions of statehood.

Approaches to World Order

Book

Mar 1996

Robert Cox's writings have had a profound influence on recent developments in thinking in world politics and political economy in many countries. This book brings together for the first time his most important essays, grouped around the theme of world order. The volume is divided into sections dealing respectively with theory; with the application of Cox's approach to recent changes in world political economy; and with multilateralism and the problem of global governance. The book also includes a critical review of Cox's work by Timothy Sinclair, and an essay by Cox tracing his own intellectual journey. This volume will be an essential guide to Robert Cox's critical approach to world politics for students and teachers of international relations, international political economy, and international organisation.

A Brief History of Neoliberalism

Book

Jan 2006

David Harvey

Neoliberalism--the doctrine that market exchange is an ethic in itself, capable of acting as a guide for all human action--has become dominant in both thought and practice throughout much of the world since 1970 or so. Writing for a wide audience, David Harvey, author of The New Imperialism and The Condition of Postmodernity, here tells the political-economic story of where neoliberalization came from and how it proliferated on the world stage. Through critical engagement with this history, he constructs a framework, not only for analyzing the political and economic dangers that now surround us, but also for assessing the prospects for the more socially just alternatives being advocated by many oppositional movements.

Africa and the International System: The Politics of State Survival.

Article

Oct 1997

Tourism and sustainable development

Article

Jan 2016

This paper presents the problem of interdependence and interconditionality of the concepts "sustainable tourism" and "sustainable development of tourism". The relevance of the topic chosen is associated with the problem of sustainability of tourism development in the conditions of global instability as the modern tourism is a rapidly developing social and cultural phenomenon which dynamics is based on a system of human interaction with the world. Being in the center of the research field, tourism is related to the modern global processes and is hardly exposed to their influence that is reflected in the change of its qualitative and quantitative characteristics. The tourism being one of the steadily developing branches of the world economy is the industry almost in all countries that has valuable potential opportunities in terms of creating a different kind of economic interests, and attracts more and more attention. The potential opportunities of tourism include: improving balance of payments, access to new investment resources, the increase in state revenues, creation of new jobs, development of public utilities, and others. The paper provides an overview of the literature on the issue of sustainable development of tourism. We give the principles and indicators for sustainable tourism development. The carried out analysis allowed us to determine some of the basic principles of sustainable tourism development taking into account the conceptual arguments in favor of development, sustainable development, and sustainable tourism development.

Sustainable tourism development

Article

Jun 1994

This paper looks at the development of the tourism industry from an economic, environmental, and social viewpoint. It also addresses the issue of sustainable tourism development and proposes a method of basing tourism development on acceptable levels of social and environmental change. The process begins with the identification of important social and environmental indicators, embracing a number of different viewpoints, such as, anthropologists, ornithologists and environmentalists. Once the limits of acceptable change have been established, using the Delphi technique to evaluate these results, planning goals can be set so that tourism development stays within these limits. To conclude, once a course of action has been decided upon, a cost-benefit analysis will determine if the project is economically feasible.

Thailand, A Short History

Book

Jan 2003

D.K. Wyatt

This highly acclaimed book, the standard history of Thailand for almost twenty years, has now been completely revised by the author. David K. Wyatt has also added new sections examining the social and economic changes that have transformed the country in the past two decades.

Facing the Wild: Ecotourism, Conservation and Animal Encounters

Article

Jun 2012

Chilla Bulbeck

What do wild animals mean to humans? Will they survive both rampant habitat loss and extinction caused by human encroachment and, as ecotourists, our enthusiasm for them? With ecotourism now the fastest growing segment of tourism, and encounters with wild animals - be it swimming with dolphins, going on safari or bird watching - ever more popular, these are critical questions. Yet until now little has been known about why people crave encounters with wild animals and the meaning for the ecotourism industry, conservation efforts and society at large. Facing the Wild is the first serious empirical examination of why people seek out animals in their natural environment, what the desire for this experience tells us about the meanings of animals, nature, authenticity and wilderness in contemporary industrialized societies, and whether visitors change their environmental perspectives and behaviour, as the custodians of wildlife parks would like them to. The book explores the contradictions and ambivalence that so many people experience in the presence of 'wild nature' - in loving it we may diminish it and in the act of wanting to see it we may destroy it. Ultimately the book makes a case for 'respectful stewardship' of a 'hybrid nature' and provides insight for both practitioners and ecotourists alike.

Diamonds dispossession & democracy: In botswana

Article

Jan 2008

K. Good

Is Botswana still ‘an African miracle’? Thanks to diamonds the country's growth rate was the highest in the world into the 1990s, and regular parliamentary elections judged free on polling day have been held since 1965. However a duopoly of presidentialism and ruling party preponderance has stimulated arrogance, complacency and corruption among the country's rulers. What is ‘perpetual democracy’? The ruling BDP is kept in perpetual power by the first-past-the post election system. The President in Botswana is empowered to do whatever he pleases. President Mogae has amended the constitution to ensure the automatic succession of the Vice-President General Ian Khama, the son of Seretse and Ruth Khama. A new Directorate of Intelligence Services provides closer control of power. Why are the Khoisan confined to ‘a gulag of special settlements’? The expulsion of the San from Central Kalahari Game Reserve was relentlessly enforced in 1997 and 2002. A multi-cultural coalition asserts that the government is implementing ‘a philosophy of cultural genocide on the non-Tswana tribes’. How can the gift of diamonds be turned to reform? Professor Good asserts the need to strengthen and democratise the electoral and voting systems. He sees diversification as essential to reduce the dependency on diamonds. He urges the use of mineral wealth to reduce the gap between rich and poor; half of the population are at present in poverty in a rich country. KENNETH GOOD was Professor of Politics at the University of Botswana when he was expelled from the country. South Africa: Jacana.

Neoliberalising Nature? Elephant‐Back Tourism in Thailand and Botswana

Abstract

Recommendations

Marine Ecotourism: Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea

Is Ecotourism Sustainable?

Multi-sensory tourism in the Great Bear Rainforest

Developments in understanding tourism policy