Framing a Supermantra: Ecotourism, Engagement and Conceptualisations of ‘Good’ Development

Abstract

Ecotourism as a development strategy is often attractive – rather than exhausting natural resources, local communities can benefit from their conservation. Ecotourism-based conservation thus becomes conceived as a ‘win-win’ for local communities and narrative-based campaigns have emerged to promote it. This article investigates how a narrative of ecotourism and development is created and what social and political implications this has. Drawing on media studies and political ecology literature, this article looks at a global campaign, the Manta Ray of Hope (MRH), which utilises such a narrative to engender enthusiasm for the conservation of mobulids (manta and mobula rays) and to lobby for their protection. Multimodal analysis is employed to interrogate the MRH media materials, examining how threats to mobulids are framed. Through this framing a discourse is created, the discourse of the supermanta, which contains a win-win narrative asserting that mobulid fishing can be converted into ecotourism to the benefit of both fishers and mobulids. The supermanta is a supermantra: it presents a homogenised picture of diverse species and situations obscuring differences between the contexts and communities where mobulids are fished. This also hides the fact that any changes to resource usage will have winners and losers. This analysis shows that the supermanta reiterates the message of other, criticised, conservation campaigns. The article concludes by suggesting that conservation campaigns like the MRH utilise a more open, inclusive approach to framing, allowing a wider range of voices to contribute to the supermanta.

Keywords:

• ecotourism
• conservation
• fisheries
• supermantra
• sustainable development
• political ecology
• mobulids

Acknowledgements

A version of this article was presented at Sociologidagarna 2014. I am grateful to all who commented, particularly Mark Elam. Thanks are also extended to Jo Marie Acebes, Jenni Koivisto, Jim White, Michael Toomey, Rolf Lidskog, Andrew Mitchell and the two anonymous reviewers.

ORCID

Benedict E. Singleton http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1038-2412

Notes

¹‘Ecotourism’ is a term with numerous and elastic definitions (Campbell et al., 2008, p. 200; Carrier and Macleod, 2005, pp. 315–316; Fletcher and Neves, 2012, pp. 61–62) and considerable debate exists over the extent that ecotouristic practices can or cannot directly impact on the environment and communities and remain ‘ecotourism’ (Meletis and Campbell, 2007; Tremblay, 2001). Discussion of the nature of ‘genuine’ ecotourism is beyond the scope of this article. I refer to the practices advocated in the MRH as ecotourism because the campaign itself uses the term in its media (e.g. Heinrichs et al., 2011, p. 8) and because it advocates a type of consumption of nature in order to protect the environment and aid local communities (cf. Campbell et al., 2008, p. 200). I am grateful to Chris Parsons for first bringing this issue to my attention.

²This article only deals with English language content. At present, only part of the website is fully available in Chinese.

³The aforementioned documentary film and a short clip produced by Save our Seas Foundation.

⁴A fishery directly targeting mobulid species.

⁵Much of the same information is found on the website under a section entitled ‘Hope’ (MRH, 2015c).

⁶Or indeed between communities. As some mobulids travel large distances during their lives (Heinrichs et al., 2011, p. 14) it is possible that the community that is prevented from fishing for mobulids may not be the same one that benefits from tourism around them.

⁷One paper, by one of the MRH report's co-authors, which draws on MRH materials, acknowledges some places may not be suitable for mobulid-based tourism; in such places, mobulid fishing should still be curtailed (O'Malley et al., 2013, p. 9). This paper also acknowledges the costs of ecotourism in terms of infrastructure.

⁸To take an example from the history of whaling, Norwegian whalers reportedly only began to use cultural arguments for their activities in the 1990s – well after the moratorium had come into force (Kalland, 2009, p. 145).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Benedict E. Singleton

Benedict Singleton is a PhD student in environmental sociology at Örebro University, Sweden. His research focuses on complex environmental conflicts understandable from diverse perspectives. Previously, he has carried out fieldwork in Jamaica and Zambia (on issues relating to HIV/AIDS) and in the UK (among unpaid carers). He expects to complete his studies in December 2016.