“ECO-TOURISM” is one of those phrases that sounds great, but means very little to most people. Rather like other some other trendy eco-words like “re-wilding” and “green prescribing”. They all sound very laudable, but what do they actually mean?

Eco-tourism has been part of the UK psyche since the 1960s. The RSPB’s symbol of an avocet, was perhaps the first time a mainstream conservation organisation used the protection of a single species to make money. That sounds worse than it is. In short, many conservation groups came to realise that to bring in income, you need a really attractive bird, animal or flower on which to base your campaign. Then the public will give money to come and see the rare species and the rare species will get less rare as people pour in to see it. So “eco-tourism” involves bringing in money to the economy from effectively selling the value of nature.

There have been some big recent success stories that show how well this works. Take the ospreys at Loch Garten in Scotland or Bassenthwaite in the Lake District. Between these two sites alone, hundreds of thousands of eager wildlife enthusiasts have travelled to see these enigmatic birds. In doing so they have stayed nights in local hotels, eaten local food, donated to charity, joined organisations and become champions for the future of the sites and the birds. This is eco-tourism in action. A rare species, stunning view or incredible landscape are protected and in return people pay money to visit and enjoy. In some cases, like Costa Rica, the entire national economy may be heavily dependent on eco-tourists spending their money.

But is this a good thing? To an extent there is a valid argument for commodifying nature. In Hampshire we are attempting to bring back osprey by putting up nesting platforms and also encouraging white tailed sea-eagles to nest on the Isle of Wight. In both cases, success will bring in money from tourists wanting to see osprey and sea eagle. Nature-based charities will get more money and local councils will be delighted that conservation is supporting the regional economy.

But attempting to commodify landscapes and species is a very slippery slope. Sure, we want to see osprey, or red kite, sea eagle or beaver. Sure, we want to support schemes that will bring them back from the brink. But what of some commoner species for which there is no obvious financial value? Let’s take turtle dove. Once a common breeding bird in Hampshire and now on the verge of being wiped out. The reasons for their decline are numerous: climate change, hunting on migration routes, loss of habitat. But the way conservation works is also to blame. Turtle dove is not a high-profile iconic species; it is not a stunning view or brilliant place to walk…. It is a relatively unassuming bird with no obvious financial value. As such it is easy to dismiss it as of far less value than an osprey or a sea eagle. Therefore, not a lot has been spent on attempting to bring it back.

But eco-tourism sometimes makes another assumption. Nature is simply there for us to enjoy. Certainly, enjoyment of nature is a big part of why we like to get outside and spend money. But nature also has intrinsic value. It is worth something, just because it has the “audacity” to continue to exist despite every effort we make to wreck the climate and destroy its habitat. I do worry that many conservation organisations are getting so hooked on making money; that they focus far too hard on restoring the fortunes of a few high-profile species; at the expense of the many which will continue their inexorable decline.

Eco-tourism has its place. I am not saying that we should abandon osprey platforms or sea eagle schemes. I am saying though, that financial value is only part of a much bigger picture. We must be passionate champions of the turtle dove and house sparrow; the hedgehog and the water vole. Our efforts to support species with no obvious “value” must be as rigorous and determined as our desire to introduce and then go and see big apex predators like the sea eagle or osprey.