In a previous post I referred to “air travel refuseniks” who frown upon leisure air travel on ethical grounds. Today I happened upon this article, Beware of ‘greenwash’, by John Cossham, Community Care’s ethical living expert. John is clearly an air travel refusenik. After casting doubt on “carbon offsetting” schemes, the punchline of his article reads:
“Most so-called ecotourism isn’t. It is ordinary aeroplane-based holidaying which takes you to a log cabin rather than a hotel. It’s “greenwash” from businesses desperate to keep you flying. “
In that previous post I also struggled with the dilemma of flying to ecotourism destinations (such as in sub-Saharan Africa) when we should be reducing carbon emissions. However, I have two problems with John’s statement:
- He seems to be saying that ecotourism that involves flying is not “ecotourism” and that businesses (like ecoAfrica) that promote such travel are knowingly and deliberately misrepresenting themselves and their product. Contentious to say the least….
- But more importantly in a world of burgeoning, poor populations, the sad fact is that unless wild places and protected areas “pay their way”, they are going to disappear. This is the situation in Africa. In many places ecotourism is the only hope for some of the world’s remaining wilderness – and vital to some communities. And these places are far away from the home countries of ecotourists. Flying is often the only realistic and practical means of visiting them.
It’s a dilemma that I have yet to resolve for myself. But at present I am convinced that bringing people to visit Africa’s wilderness and wildlife is still the right thing to do. It’s infinitely better to losing them.
Loading ...
Thanks for the article – I too have been reading some bad press on ecotourism of late, some of which I think is valid, and travellers should be discerning. But what I want to comment on is what a perfect opportunity a climate change induced desire/need to air-travel less (or do long-haul flights in particular) would present to explore our own country or continent. The positives are really worth considering if you feel that travel is important for reasons such as cultural exchange, wealth distribution, natural resource conservation and people-appreciation. As Africans (and I would assume this is applicable anywhere), a sense of community is important and what better way to cultivate this than to experience your neighbour’s home? When there are floods in Mozambique, or tyranny in Zimbabwe (can I say that on the internet?!) then these things have a face. Of course its important for the whole world to care, but my point is how about three quarters of our travel being done a bit closer to home?
Debating the merits of flying or not flying to me is like debating if I should get up on the left or right side of my bed. The problem is that I have to get up, just as travel is something we do. We just can’t suddenly stop traveling. What we should be debating or brainstorming is alternative means of travel or fuel. That is more constructive to the issue than debating if we should or should not fly.
Hello Ralph, I have read both your entries on this subject, and nowhere do you define ‘ecotourism’. If you were able to, I’d be able to say whether a particular holiday or trip was indeed ecotourism. [Ralph: a partial response]
In your previous post, you succinctly describe the huge fossil fuel footprint of a typical safari, with planes, four-wheel-drives, demands on local resources such as food and water and more.
My definition of ecotourism would include something about the possibly sustainable level of carbon emissions per person per year, which has been suggested by some commentators as 2 tonnes. The average UK Citizen emits 11 tonnes per year, this being due to car travel, home heating, meat eating, flights, electricity use, electronic gadgets, etc etc. Although I don’t live in a cave, careful and considered lifestyle choices have meant that the carbon footprint from this household is about 1.6 tonnes per year, 2 adults, 2 children.
We do not fly, eat meat, own a car. We heat the house using 2 smokefree woodstoves, highly efficient, flat topped and can cook on them, heat bathwater. All our holidays are taken by train (Norfolk, Wales, Lake District, one per year) and we have day trips and overnighters to the North East Coast or interesting places like Bradford or Sheffield.
We find this is sufficient to be happy and ethical, low impact.
I agree with AJK that we have gotten used to travelling, but I’d ask is it our ‘right’ to travel if it is at the expense of future generations’ ability to survive on this planet? I agree we should be researching new sustainable fuels, more importantly, in the meantime, we need to travel less.
I do not agree that the future of Africa, or anywhere else for that matter, depends on tourism. Local communities are perfectly capable, so long that environmental conditions allow, to support themselves. One of the big problems is that some countries feel obliged to grow cash-crops to earn money to pay back developed country’s loans, and although some loans have been removed, many still exist.
I am not anti trade, and purchase quite a few ‘Fair Trade’ products where I feel it is neccessary or desirable to have those type of products. I would miss my coffee and chocolate, but I do not consume much of either, hopefully within sustainable amounts.
My hobbies of composting, growing food, cycling and juggling do not use resources and have a small C footprint. I hope others will follow my example and that future generations will look back at ‘deep greens’ and thank them for what they tried to do.
Keep up your good work promoting the understanding of sustainability, and have a good think about whether any international tourism is truly sustainable. Oh and look out for World Responsible Tourism Day on 14th November!
yours
John Cossham
I think we have to be wary of applying Western thinking to African problems.
Much of Africa’s wildlife land is marginal and cannot be used for crop growing. In areas where livestock is farmed on the land it soon becomes desert. In fact the same disease that afflicts the environment in the West impacts Africa, albeit in a different form: human acquisitiveness. For the pastoralists of Africa their wealth is reflected in the size of their herds. Animals are not tethered to a tree near the homestead for what they can produce in milk etc. Herds are left to roam far and wide with attendant herdboys. Herds are viewed in Africa as we view our bank balance: the larger the better. And, like us, the health of the beasts is not a priority consideration; only the quantity!
We should learn from what has happened to the environment in the Middle East and North Africa over the centuries. Overgrazing has caused desertification, with extreme consequences for the human population. With global warming this will be further exacerbated making it a very real possibility that wars will be fought over access to water. Africa is at the first stages of the desertification process and predictions are that the continent will face some of the worst effects of global warming. So the preservation of virgin lands is crucial to Africa, now and in the future.
The best way to protect Africa from land degradation is to preserve the area for wildlife. And this is a win-win solution because wildlife tourism also provides jobs and creates development opportunities for Africans.
Now who in Africa wants to spend their recreation time in the wilderness? Not many indigenous people are wildlife oriented. For them elephants are those pesky creatures that rip up their subsistence maize fields. And lions eat their cattle and goats. Even if Africans are able to afford a holiday they are generally more interested in the glamour and glitz type vacations. But the majority of Africans can’t even afford to leave home.
So if wildlife areas are to remain protected by governments they have to hold their own revenue-wise and employment-wise against increasing populations’ demand for more land. If Africans aren’t the main source of the revenue then we have to look further afield.
Without the income that foreign tourism brings to Africa the protected areas would cease to exist. So I think it’s a mistake to see travel to Africa in purely consumptive terms.
If we can get past that issue that’s when we need to use Western thinking. How do we reduce our travel footprint? Both Airbus and Boeing promise lighter and more fuel efficient long haul planes. Living a simpler life at home allows for some “credits” to spend on travel. And so on. But to stop travelling at all is to ring the death knell of wilderness in Africa. This will not only impact this continent but will have a ripple effect on the rest of the world.
Brilliant analysis. You raise some excellent points and this is a topic that is clearly complicated, but not without some practical actions, particularly from those who are the forefront of ecotourism and responsible travel.
We have been talking about the environmental impact of transportation — http://forum.planeta.com/viewforum.php?f=20 — for years, but only recently has this grabbed the headlines.
Returning from a New Zealand ecotourism conference — http://www.ecotourismnz.com — it’s interesting to note a growing regional awareness that the growing eco mindset (not to mention development of labels such as ‘food miles’) may push Oceania away from travel planning of those in the Americas, Europe and Africa. It’s easy to see how this might affect Africa.
The question is … from the national tourism boards, ecotourism associations and other leaders, what message is being sent out? Are these institutions explaining to travelers why travel matters and how to make the most of their trip?
My personal view is that long-haul transportation needs to be supported and encouraged when it has a pro-social and pro-eco aim. It could even be supported without the loftiest of lofty intents, but we’d better be aware, conscientious, about the impact of our actions or inaction.
I want to comment on John Cossham’s entry, as I find his lifestyle pretty inspiring. I recently got married and moved to a farm in Ceres, South Africa. As many a young and educated girl (I would hope), I was terrified of the idea of being in part a “house wife” while actually being trained for the corporate world.
It is now one year later and although I’m still part time involved with the corporate world and run a small tourism business on the farm, I found that some of the most fullfilling things in my life, really are the basics. These include keeping a separate bin for organic waste to use as compost for veggies and growing a herb garden. Nothing really beats home grown fresh stuff in your food!
Although our house still uses way too much electricity, I really get such a kick out of simply swopping over to energy saver bulbs and making a point of switching off unused lights and appliances.
I know we still have so far to go, but bit by bit will probably get us there.
It’s a fact: Only tourism can save much of Africa’s wildlife and biodiversity. Absent tourism-derived revenues (more so, these days, shared with communities), alternative economic values will kick in – cattle herding, agriculture, timber harvesting, etc.
So, we had better stop debating flying, or not, and debate what is really the issue – how to get air travel more fuel efficient, and less toxic.
Towards a resolution of my ecotourism-and-flying dilemma