It is important to note at the beginning of this chapter that this research project was initiated with the view that ecomuseology is not a model created specifically for the development of tourism. More specifically, it was understood, based on the literature (Section 3.3), that ecomuseums are created with the notion that local people value and protect their heritage first and that development exists as a secondary effect. In other words, ecomuseums recognise the needs of society (e.g. economic development), but they are intended to act more as a supporting mechanism for development instead of the main instrument in and of itself. As the researcher engaged more with the data and literature, it became obvious that depending on the context, this does not appear to always be the case. Indeed, the complex relationship between heritage management and development has been a long and well-known cause for debate in the developing world (Timothy & Nyaupane, 2009) and ecomuseology continues this deliberation.
Heritage resources and tourism development share a linked and ambiguous relationship. Du Cros (2001: 166) has stated, “It is impossible to discuss cultural heritage tourism planning without mentioning cultural heritage management”. Is it possible that in some instances, it may be equally difficult to mention heritage management without heritage tourism? Of course the researcher understands that heritage management is conceivable without tourism, but for areas such as the Rupununi that depend on tourism as a primary source of income, there exists enormous potential for tourism development to act as the primary heritage management strategy. However, and as commonly seen in tourism development globally, it is crucial to ensure that the economic benefits from tourism do
196
not become more important than safeguarding the heritage resources, or the relationship becomes compromised (Section 3.5).
Heritage management is typically more difficult in developing regions due to several key factors including: the dominant funding deficiency; a lack of social and political will; urbanisation; and, modernisation (Timothy & Nyaupane, 2009: 20-21, 33). In their book on cultural heritage and tourism in the developing world, Timothy and Nyaupane (2009: 35) assert, “For developing countries, where the majority of the population is struggling to feed itself, heritage preservation is often not a high priority. There is a budget scarcity for policing and maintaining valuable heritage and cultural assets”. Poverty can be a major issue in the preservation of heritage, especially “...where low per capita incomes and other development indices tend to correspond with low levels of tourism and a lack of conservation efforts” (Timothy & Nyaupane, 2009: 248). As the poorest and least developed country within the Caribbean in terms of per capita income (Jordan & Duval, 2009: 197), Guyana, and the Rupununi in particular, represent a difficult situation in the relationship between heritage management and development.
Often in these situations, “economics” becomes the principal motivation for heritage conservation and preservation (Timothy & Nyaupane, 2009: 20). As a result, it is possible to understand how tourism and heritage management can share an inseparable bond in these localities. Tourism in itself becomes a primary tool in the safeguarding of heritage resources by encouraging an appreciation of the resources (Henderson, 2009: 73). Heritage tourism can assist with the empowerment of local communities, bring income for local people and improve local infrastructure; all of which encourage the protection of heritage resources to sustain livelihoods (Timothy & Nyaupane, 2009: 33- 34). Furthermore, heritage preservation can combine with modernisation to improve local economies and promote regional and local identities if properly managed (Timothy & Nyaupane, 2009: 29, 36). Despite the common cynicism of using tourism as a heritage management strategy, tourism can in fact present a beneficial and efficient structure in the long-term protection of heritage resources (Timothy & Nyaupane, 2009: 250). In this regard, there is a direct synergy between tourism development and ecomuseology which is discussed further below.
Due to their specific nature and focus on heritage, ecomuseums possess considerable potential for transforming heritage resources into tourism activities (Maure, 2006: 71;
197
Davis, 2011: 283). In fact, ecomuseums are considered to be one of the first campaigners of eco- , heritage and sustainable tourism (Babic, 2009: 243). Ecotourism and ecomuseums share similar characteristics in that they combine interpretation, education, ethics, conservation and community benefits (Davis, 2011: 284). Davis (2011: 281) states, “Interestingly, ecomuseums have often been created in places with a low tourist profile but which have aspirations to develop income by attracting more visitors while at the same time trying to assert their cultural identity”. Despite the opportunities for tourism development through ecomuseology, tourism is not always considered the main priority of many ecomuseums in the world and should be part of a balanced and long-term approach involving both the protection of heritage resources and economic development for the community (Cogo, 2009: 99; Maure, 2006: 71). Indeed, tourism can be viewed as an added value for many ecomuseums which are seeking both to safeguard heritage and improve the local economy, as seen in the Ecomusée du Creusot-Montceau-les-Mines (Sub-section 3.2.2).
Tourism can contribute towards many of the aforementioned goals of ecomuseum philosophy such as sustainability, protection of heritage resources and community participation. Graybeal (2010: 16) argues that ecomuseums and ecotourism are examples of alternative tourism, where tourists seek intimate and shared experiences with local culture and environments (see also Davis, 2011:282). In turn, this is mutually reinforcing in achieving sustainable outcomes by keeping tourism small scale and culturally responsible (Murtas & Davis, 2009: 160; Graybeal, 2010: 16). Tourism development and the commoditisation of culture often conflict with conservation agendas amongst a multitude of stakeholders (Lloyd & Morgan, 2008: 2-3). In these instances, the philosophical foundation of ecomuseums, with their focus on mediation and democratisation, can support a mutual structure through dialogue for all parties (Bergdahl, 2006: 107; Davis, 2011: 285). From the viewpoint of all stakeholder groups, sustainable tourism can be an advantageous objective for ecomuseums due to their ability to support its development.
Although the ecomuseum title has not been widely used, its philosophy has been adopted by heritage management organisations in a few developing countries in Latin America, e.g. Brazil and Mexico (Davis, 2004: 97). In these contexts, ecomuseums have often been created to assist marginalised communities and present local culture as active and vibrant in response to their colonial histories (Delgado, 1995: 12; Davis
198
2011: 268; Graybeal, 2010: 15). Heritage management projects in these contexts that follow ecomuseum philosophy represent more than the traditional western, Euro-centric model and need to both promote and protect heritage resources. De Blavia (1985: 229) had confirmed this notion nearly 30 years ago, stating, “There can be no question today in Latin America of a museum that is devoted only to the heritage; it must also be devoted to development”. Ecomuseology provides an opportunity to bring sustainable development to host communities in these contexts and other relevant stakeholders through the implementation of the 21 principles.
The Rupununi presents a unique case that fits into the debate on heritage management and development in the developing world. The region has a wealth of world-class natural and cultural heritage resources, but struggles with economic development and opportunities for local communities. On the relationship between heritage management and development, a voluntary sector member (Interview V1, 2012) argued that for host communities, “Once [they] see the value for [safeguarding heritage], they’re going to do it. They’ve got to see something tangible for doing it”. This again demonstrates that heritage management and development share a link in localities like the Rupununi. Although some of the heritage management practices in the region are independent of tourism development (Section 6.4), there remains a large majority which have direct links to the industry. Throughout the analysis of data, the researcher repeatedly asked ‘if tourism were not here, would these heritage management initiatives be taking place’? In some cases, the answers was ‘yes’. However, the question still lingers due to tourism being the main form of economic development for many communities in the region, with direct links to the protection of heritage resources. Therefore, it is the opinion of the researcher that most heritage management strategies in the region will need to be directly linked to development. This understanding guides the train of thought through the next two chapters. Moreover, evaluating the potential of ecomuseology to support sustainable tourism development in the Rupununi has involved giving equal consideration to ecomuseology, both as a heritage management model and as an economic generator. With this understanding, attention will now be focused on the principles of the ecomuseum ideal which are currently being practiced in the Rupununi.
199