Click on the photo to view the encounter on YouTube

Touched by a Wild Mountain Gorilla

There can be little doubt that the tourism, aviation and transport sectors are particularly at risk both from direct effects – such as sea-level rise, changing ecosystems, species extinctions, extreme weather events, etc. in the case of tourism – as well as from attempts to mitigate climate change by cutting carbon emissions. Regulated reductions in travel-related carbon emissions, carbon taxes and rising fuel prices precipitated by the looming oil crisis will all conspire to seriously crimp long-haul tourism (bad news for ecotourism) and air travel, assuming that substantive goals are agreed on at Copenhagen. Even if the world’s politicians lack the courage to agree to substantive emissions reductions, as might be the case, “peak oil” will eventually force what we fail to do voluntarily.

KPMG's Risk Preparedness Framework (Source: KMPG IT Advisory: Find your shade of green. Copyright KPMG 2009 All rights reserved)

KPMG’s Risk Preparedness Framework, reproduced here (click to view full size), shows the transport, tourism and aviation sectors in the “danger zone” where risk as a result of climate change is perceived to be greater than preparedness. What might “preparedness” mean? Prepared to mitigate (or prevent) climate change as the designers of Copenhagen envisage? Or prepared to adapt to the inevitability of climate change?

Should Copenhagen fail we all enter a brave new world of adaptation to climate change, where we place our trust in geo-engineering technologies and where, without massive transfers of technology and resources to developing nations, they will be cut loose and left at the mercy of the elements. Failure at Copenhagen will amount to a vote for vested interests – and some of those interests may include the airline industry, economies dependent on mass and growing tourism, etc.

The language in the World Tourism Organization’s (WTO) Davos to Bali declaration suggests that adaptation is the preferred and expected course for most of its members. Developing countries, it seems, have resigned themselves to adapting to the “inevitability” of climate change. Consider the Indian delegation’s statement at the Ministers’ Summit on Tourism and Climate Change in London in 2007:

…we must significantly shore up our abilities to cope with and adapt to climate change. To be able to do so, we need development, which is also the best form of adaptation. … we need to …. see what can be done to adapt to the inevitability of further global warming.

One wonders whether “development” will be enough when a 100 million Bangladeshi climate refugees stream into India as they flee their flooded delta?

Brazil’s delegation also weighed in with a plea for assistance with adaptation:

Assist developing countries where the tourism sector is particularly vulnerable to the adverse effect of climate change, in order to allow them to meet the related costs of adaptation.

Never mind that the continuing assault on its Amazon rainforests contributes massively to climate change, or that the country is banking on exploiting recent deep-sea oil finds.

Australia, a developed country which has distinguished itself by failing to ratify the Kyoto Protocol along with the USA, and probably informed by its economic vulnerability as a long-haul tourism destination dependent on air travel, put a different spin on it:

The tourism sector … should not be disadvantaged through the imposition of a disproportionate burden either on tourism as a whole or on vital components such as aviation.

The tourism-sector-as-victim argument.

If all else fails however, reach for the jobs/poverty alleviation/economic growth arguments – as the WTO Secretary-General did in Bali. The message seems to be: yes climate change is potentially catastrophic, but don’t touch tourism (and by extension, air travel) as it creates jobs, grows economies and benefits the poor in far-off destinations (Australia excluded).

I have also wrestled with the dilemma of the climate implications of long-haul travel versus the dependence of biodiversity conservation on ecotourism, especially in Africa. This is however not an environmental-socio-economic trade-off, but an attempt to weigh ecological alternatives. One could, however, argue that biodiversity is doomed by climate change over the long-term, notwithstanding short-term attempts to mitigate biodiversity destruction… And when biodiversity goes, species, livelihoods and the ecosystem services that sustain all life will follow in short order.

Another indication that the tourism industry has not quite come to terms with what sustainability might entail is a reference to the need for “tourism to grow in a sustainable manner” in the Davos Declaration after the Second International Conference on Climate Change and Tourism at Davos in 2007. Besides the incongruous proximity of the words “grow” and “sustainable” in that phrase, the methods of achieving this through mitigating emissions, adapting to climate and employing technology to improve energy efficiency are insufficient, although laudable. True (strong) ecological sustainability means that material and energy throughputs must be limited to what the ecosphere can sustainably supply (resources) and absorb (waste, emissions). Best effort mitigation and minimisation are not going to cut it.

Take as an example the need to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 60%-80% of current levels by 2050 in order to limit the average global temperature increase to 2^oC. Suppose air travel volumes and aircraft-miles were clamped at current levels and that all airline fleets were replaced with Boeing Dreamliners tomorrow. Even in this unlikely, zero-growth scenario aviation emissions would be reduced by only 20%, which means that tourism would not be contributing anywhere near its share of reductions. Outside of hoping for a technological silver bullet to come to the rescue, the implications for tourism are pretty stark and understandably nobody wants to really deal with them.

So, no – the tourism industry is not ready for climate risk.

Sanbona has brought elephant, herds of springbok, cheetah, hartebeest, white rhino, hippo and lion back, plus introduced some exotics such as giraffe. And some of the lions carry that rare white lion gene. They have recently been released into the wild and are hunting successfully despite being snowy white blobs on a brown canvas. Unfortunately, some of the prize cheetahs have have found themselves on the menu too. Yet, we failed to find them on the game drive, despite their lack of camouflage and despite the fact that they wear radio collars.

The small herd of elephants spends its days chomping its way through the reed beds above the Bellair Dam, while sizeable herds of springbok pronk across the stony flats. We happened upon a cheetah kill in the morning, where three cheetahs had downed springbok. We were able to walk to within twenty metres of them while they fed, as they are habituated to humans.

I would recommend Sanbona for a unique African wildlife experience in close proximity to Cape Town, for its remote silence and to sample the Little Karoo biomes that it protects like Montagu Shale Renosterveld and Quartz Vygieveld. The latter is a component of the southern extremities of the Succulent Karoo biodiversity hotspot, one of three in South Africa and one of eight in Africa. Sanbona also includes Cape fynbos vegetation types, and along with the Renosterveld it is a component of the Cape Floristic Region, another hotspot.

I preceded a week’s work in Lilongwe with a weekend on Mumbo, a place I have always wanted to visit since meeting Kayak Africa’s owners some twelve years ago. Kayak Africa runs island getaways and kayaking and diving activities on Mumbo and Domwe Islands in the Lake Malawi National Park.

More… including Google Earth kayak and walking track

I was fortunate to be in Holland at the time of the 1974 tournament that was hosted by the then West Germany and to watch in awe as Johan Cruyff’s total-footballing, orange whirlwind took the world by storm – “the best team never to win the world cup”. That team and its style is still the benchmark against which I measure football quality – a team seldom emulated and never bettered. All subsequent Oranje teams live with that legacy.

South Africa’s pride, the unfortunately nicknamed Bafana Bafana (“the boys, the boys”), don’t have much of a hope in 2010. They will do well not to be embarrassing the way things are at the moment. Our age-group teams have failed to qualify for most world championships and the Olympics in recent years, so the pipeline of talent is empty. The national game is at its nadir, riddled with corruption and endemic maladministration, lacking a development vision and stuctures. But at least if the Netherlands qualify, I will have a half-decent team to support, being of Dutch extraction. Of course, any other African team will also be enthusiastically supported – it is time for an African outfit to go close if not all the way. African teams play with a rhythmic and robust swagger that is still unique in an increasingly homogeneous footballing world.

It has always been my dream to attend a World Cup match and perhaps I will be lucky enough to watch a game or two in the new stadium taking shape below the Table Mountain massif, Cape Town’s icon.

It is estimated that some 400,000 foreign visitors will be attracted to the tournament. What many may find interesting is the diversity of playing conditions that the various venues will provide. It will be winter here (which is when football should be played to my mind), but what many don’t realise is that winter conditions differ markedly across the country. At the Cape blustery cold fronts bring rain and sometimes snow on the mountains, but are interspersed with pristine, azure days. It can rain for days on end though. The Europeans will feel right at home. Further up the east coast, Port Elizabeth will also be windy and wet at times, but less so. Durban is balmy and sub-tropical and it might even be possible to spend time on the beaches.

It is in the inland cities that foreigners may find that their preconceptions about winter are inverted. Johannesburg, Pretoria and Bloemfontein are located on the “highveld” where winters are sunny, dry and windless with frigid nights and warm days. When I played there as a student the fields were always rock hard and frost brown, but the playing surfaces will doubtless be lush, courtesy of modern technology. Altitude will be a factor especially in Johannesburg and Pretoria. Joburg lies at 2000m (6000ft) above sea level and the air is thin and none too clean. Inversion layers tend to trap layers of smog for most of the day.

Polokwane and Rustenburg are more rural, smaller cities located in what is known as the “bushveld”. The days will be warm and dry. One of the best venues may well be Nelspruit which lies in the “lowveld” where the days are warm and sometimes thirty degrees (Celsius), but never humid – great for spectators but maybe a bit tough for the players. Nelspruit is also the gateway to the Kruger National Park, giving the active fan the opportunity to combine soccer with a wildlife safari. For me that would be the best of all worlds.

Teams that finish second in their pools and have to move to other venues to play in the knock-out rounds may well find themselves having to adapt to wildly different conditions, “foreign” conditions almost.

World Cup 2010 will be characterised by diversity – a great diversity of teams and nationalities, a mix of cultures and playing and climatic conditions. Only the playing styles will be less diverse, because all the top players ply their trade at the top European clubs. It remains “the greatest show on earth”.

Ralph Pina is ecoAfrica‘s chairman and a lifelong football fanatic.

• Lodges, camps, restcamps and trails camps (book online)
• Transport: roads, distances, routes, gates, airstrips (plan a trip)
• Ecology: rainfall, biomes, wildlife census – all graphically represented
• History: how Kruger evolved and its borders expanded since 1884
• National park, transfrontier park and game reserve boundaries

So there’s something there for the traveller and visitor, as well as the scholar.

Travel layer: lodge and camp locations

Travel layer: game lodge information

Ecological layer: animal census

Ecological layer: biomes

Transport layer: roads, gates , airstrips, routes, distances

Let’s take the second question first: what is eco-travel? Without entering into a debate about eco-travel – or ecotourism – definitions, it is worth pointing out that ecotourism represents a travel ethic rather than a market segment or type of tourism. It is purposeful travel, where the salient purpose, besides experiencing Nature, is the preservation of Nature.

Two generally accepted definitions of ecotourism are:

Ecologically sustainable tourism with a primary focus on experiencing natural areas that fosters environmental and cultural understanding, appreciation and conservation.

Ecotourism Association of Australia

Responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves the well-being of local people.

The International Ecotourism Society (TIES)

One could write an academic article on just the differences between these two definitions e.g. “ecologically sustainable” versus “responsible” travel; and the one’s emphasis on “understanding” versus the other’s call to improve the “well-being of local people”. But let’s suffice by observing that there are usually three core elements in most definitions: preservation or conservation of nature; understanding of natural and cultural environments through education and interpretation, and benefits to local communities.

Eco-travel and sustainability

However, eco-travel is also a human economic activity and therefore has to be (ecologically) sustainable. And here we head into contested territory once more, because the concept of “sustainability” (and sustainable development) has been hotly debated since 1987 when the UN’s Brundtland Commission attempted to define “sustainable development” for the first time. I subscribe to the notion of strong sustainability, which basically means that human (e.g. people, knowledge, skills, etc.) and human-made capital (e.g. technology, goods, money, etc.) cannot substitute for natural capital (e.g. ecosystems, species, natural resources, etc.) ^[1] and that human and natural capital should be separately maintained. Eco-travel satisfies strong sustainability conditions as it is primarily concerned with the conservation (maintenance) of nature, with minimal trade-offs, if any. I would go further by arguing that nature should be conserved and preserved for its own sake, and not only because it has value to humans (ecotourism is a way of assigning human value to nature).

For eco-travel to be sustainable, the consumption of non-renewable resources should occur at a rate at which renewable sources can generate substitutes, and secondly, waste and pollution should be generated within the absorbtive capacity of the ecosphere. Eco-travel to Africa, which generally involves long-haul, air travel from the rich, developed countries, consequently has a problem on two counts:

1. Air travel is powered by non-renewable fossil fuels, and for air travel there is as yet no viable renewable fuel substitute;
2. Air travel greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, contribute a growing proportion of global GHG emissions, although the absolute amount is small. And as we know GHG emissions are probably influencing climate systems in unpredictable ways.^[2]

By these measures, even eco-travel fails the sustainability test. Does this then mean that we shouldn’t fly to Africa to experience its wild places? In the next section I will try to argue why one should.

Eco-travel makes a difference

Deforestation is the second largest source (20 to 25%) of anthropogenic carbon emissions globally. Conservation International has identified the miombo-mopane woodland and savanna of southern Africa as a global biodiversity hotspot, threatened by unprecedented deforestation. The vast wooded wilderness stretches from coast to coast, from Mozambique to Angola, spanning ten countries. It is the habitat for a diverse and vast collection of Africa’s animals, who live cheek by jowl with millions of poor, rural Africans, who use the woodlands and savanna as a natural resource and depend on its ecosystem services. One result is increasing deforestation. Zambia is a case in point where charcoal has become a major energy source and its production a livelihood for its rural peoples – and where the population is set to double by 2020.

So how does eco-travel contribute to avoiding deforestation?

It is fortunate that a large proportion of Africa’s charismatic mega-fauna occur here, making wildlife tourism a major economic activity. Eco-travel and wildlife safaris depend on, and occur most often, in protected areas. The miombo/mopane wilderness is reasonably well protected by national parks and reserves, and more recently the advent of transfrontier conservation areas (TFCA) and parks (known as peace parks) are stitching protected areas together to ensure the integrity of entire ecosystems. Traditionally, national parks and other formally protected areas exclude humans, and thus prevent deforestation. However, the TFCAs recognise that people are part of the ecosystem and national park policies are becoming more enlightened. Unfortunately, the reality is also that in many of these poor and under-resourced countries, protected areas’ continued survival is increasingly dependent on tourism – so that protected area security is at the mercy of global and local political-economic events and conditions and yes, the response of western tourists to calls not to fly…

While conserving biodiversity irrespective of its perceived value for humans is essential – which is what formal protected areas are meant to do – it is also clearly vital that local communities must benefit from conservation. Ecotourism is one way that they can. So it is important to vet tourism operations in these areas for the extent to which they invest in and help to develop local communities and establish sustainable livelihoods. Without a stake in the continued existence of wild lands and animals, it is understandable that locals will degrade the land in their efforts to survive.

In the final analysis, I suppose that it boils down to an ethical question: do I as a traveller heed the call not to fly to long-haul destinations in Africa because of concern about my contributions to carbon emissions and the depletion of non-renewable fuels, or do I rather continue flying in the knowledge that my visit will contribute to avoided deforestation, continued protection of wilderness, biodiversity conservation and sustainable livelihoods for and development of local communities?

I would argue that you should make the trip and buy the carbon offsets^[2], but be sure that the suppliers of the trip truly adhere to the tenets of ecotourism and that the suppliers of the offsets invest in projects that ensure true sustainability.

If these conditions are met, then eco-travel does make a difference, not only in Africa, but also globally – and on various levels, including mitigation of climate change.

Links to ecoAfrica’s pages for selected protected areas in the miombo/mopane wilderness:

• Chobe National Park, Botswana
• Moremi Wildlife Reserve, Botswana
• Kafue Nationa Park, Zambia
• Luangwa Valley, Zambia
• Kruger National Park, South Africa
• Manda Wilderness, Mozambique
• Mana Pools World Heritage Site, Zimbabwe
• Lower Zambezi National Park, Zambia
• Liwonde National Park, Malawi

About the author: Ralph Pina is ecoAfrica’s chairman

[1] Weak sustainability would almost always countenance trade-offs between socio-economic benefits and ecological impacts. This would generally be the type of sustainability that the business and industrial sectors would subscribe to.

[2] Although there are ethical problems around buying carbon offsets to make your air travel carbon neutral, it does have value if the carbon offset scheme a) invests in renewable energy projects that would generate renewable energy equivalent to your proportion of the fossil-fuel energy used in your flights, and b) invests in projects that result in substantive reductions in emissions, because our emissions have already overshot what can be absorbed. See a previous post on carbon offsets.

Bear in mind that the “pristine” population of elephants in Africa is estimated as having been of the order of 20 million. As recently as 1979 there were about 1.3 million individuals, and currently there are about 470000 to 550000 left. (For facts on the African elephant’s conservation status, visit the IUCN’s African Elephant Specialist Group site.)

We compete for the same ecological space and both species are prolific breeders. Most elephants in Africa actually range outside protected wildlife areas and one NGO, Living With Elephants, is striving to establish harmonious relationships between the species by working with rural communities in Botswana.

Another strategy involves stitching together conservation and wildlife areas across the subcontinent to re-establish ancient migration routes and to allow “meta-populations” of elephant to move in response to environmental pressures and for the ecosystems to function naturally. The Peace Parks initiative is a visionary and ambitious undertaking in this regard.

Contained in the fortress of the Drakensberg and Maluti mountains Lesotho lies 1000m above sea level – close to God.

Like Desmond Tutu, the Basotho people under their founder, King Moshoeshoe, fought hard for independence and self-governance.  And, after conquering his foes, King Moshoeshoe remained generous and gracious in his exalted position.

The Basotho are justly proud of King Moshoeshoe .  His name, pronounced “Moshweshwe”  is onomatopoeic of the sound of an enemy being debarbed.  After all a man without a beard is no-man.  And as a young warrior he adopted this name to show what he could, and would, do to his adversaries.

Revealingly, the modern Basotho realize that his martial qualities were not the primary reason for his greatness.  His mentor,  Mohlome,  whom the Basotho hold in high esteem, is credited with moulding King Moeshoeshoe into the gracious and benevolent leader that he was.

Mohlome, was a great friend of Moshoeshoe’s grandfather and spent years coaching the young leader in statecraft.  At a time of great upheaval – the Zulu Difiqane wars sent waves upon waves of displaced people looking for refuge or conquest themselves all over southern Africa – Moeshoeshoe learned to value peace and became non-discriminatory under Mohlome’s tutorship.   He is known to have sent cattle and food to tribes that he’d just defeated in battle, to prevent them starving.

A little known fact is that Moshoeshoe’s mother was a leper.  He did not banish her to some godforsaken place but had her housed in a nearby cave with attendant women.  He regularly visited her in the cave and when the plateau of the great settlement was under siege from enemies, moved the Royal household into the cave with Mother. 

Lesotho still has a strong sense of tradition and both young men and women are sent off to initiation schools where they go through their rites of passage to adulthood.  The photos indicate the different garb they don for this. I can’t help but think the boys are a bit like male birds – lots of loud plumage!  Not that Desmond Tutu, dressed in purple robes, has that avian look … or does he?