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.

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.

 A number of lodges have sprung up in the reserve over the years as the Parks Board have tendered out sites.  They range in price from SAR 1,000 to SAR 5,000 per person per night.

What impressed me most was how the authorities interact and engage with all the private sector stakeholders.  Monthly meetings are held between all the authorities e.g. park, police, tourism and each one of the following private groups:  guides, managers and owners/investors.  This is a working example of how issues can be nipped in the bud and provides a regular forum for problems to be discussed.

One such potential problem has been admirably solved.  That is the number of vehicles at a game sighting.  The rule, which all guides adhere to, goes like this.  No more than 3 vehicles are permitted at a sighting.  The first one there is “in charge” of the log.  That person allows 2 more vehicles in.  Any further vehicles must wait on standby.  When the first vehicle leaves he/she hands over the log to the first one on standby, who comes into the sighting.  And so it goes on.  Everyone is in constant communication over the radio so everyone knows who’s where and when, and how many are waiting etc. 

And it works.  We saw African wild dog, and understandably there were a lot of vehicles wanting to see them too.  Even though it would have been nice to stay longer watching them, everyone did manage to get good photos and all the other lodges got their guests in to the sighting. 

Another example of this excellent co-operation between all parties was the following.   A fresh eland bull carcass had been found by a guide.  It was apparent that another eland bull had killed it in a territorial battle.  The guide was dutifully reporting the death to the Park Headquarters.

Several lodge concessions have been leased to communities living on the boundary of the park.  And, once again, sound management principles are in place.  Communities own the lease, and where skills have not yet been developed in those communities an external company is brought into provide the operational and marketing expertise with a view to training the local communities up to those functions.  Agreements are in place that communities derive direct employment opportunities at the various lodges. 

To enrich the wildlife experience there is a lot of history in the area too; from early Bantu settlers pushed north during the Difiqane wars to the Boers, who also trekked north to escape repressive authorities.  Marico is an Afrikanerisation of Madikwe and all South African literature lovers will have reveled in the tales of Oom Schalk Lourens of the Groot Marico. 

In line with progressive conservation practice the Parks Board has gone a long way in the planning stages of a corridor-park between Madikwe and the Pilanesberg NP.  This Heritage Park will add another 167,000 hectares to the existing conservation areas and will open up much need migratory routes to the larger mammals.

All in all, Madikwe and the future plans for the area are totally impressive, innovative and exciting.

When you Google in North West Parks Board you’ll find it comes up as the North West Parks and Tourism Board.  The two are inextricably linked.  Now this is ecotourism. 
 

The article’s conclusions are particularly interesting, given the prevailing wisdom in the tourism industry that tourists to Africa are only interested in seeing the “Big 5″ – leopard, lion, elephant, rhino and buffalo. Just recently we have been debating this issue in ecoAfrica, so the research is timeous and topical for us. I for one have always been loathe to accept that only the Big 5 holds any attraction to travellers to our continent.

By way of a brief background, ecotourism is regarded as vitally important to the continued survival and efficacy of protected areas and wilderness – whether owned by the state, private persons or communities – in most African states simply because it promises economic incentives for nature conservation and preservation. Although making conservation dependent on a fickle industry like tourism is extremely dangerous, the reality is that many poor African countries, faced with the developmental demands of burgeoning human populations, lack the funds to meet biodiversity conservation targets.

As the authors point out, if ecotourism is so vital, but simultaneously only caters for tourists’ narrow preferences for viewing “charismatic mega-fauna”, then it potentially skews conservation priorities. Savanna habitats, rather than woodland, deserts or mountain landscapes, would be conserved. Furthermore, only a few protected areas that conserve the Big 5 in adequate habitats would earn the bulk of tourism revenues. This is certainly the case in South Africa, where the Kruger National Park virtually finances the rest of the national park system. Mega-fauna are expensive to conserve, which means that only state protected areas have the resources and the ranges to sustainably maintain their populations. Community conservation areas, for whom ecotourism is touted as an economic solution, would thus be eliminated as viable ecotourism destinations.

Based on scientific surveys of tourists to a few of South Africa’s state and private protected areas, the authors come to some surprising – and hopeful – conclusions:

•  While first-time visitors do have an understandable fixation on the Big Five and the big cats, the more experienced (in viewing wildlife) visitors are, the more they seek the unusual and smaller species and appreciate the greater web of life, the ecosystems.
• Older guests show a greater interest in bird and plant diversity, scenery and rarer species such as wild dog, sable, hyena, cheetah, etc.
• The same holds true to an even greater extent for “African” tourists (here I presume that “African” means local residents and does not refer to ethnic origin). This point perhaps underlines the importance of promoting ecotourism locally and not depending solely on the foreign market.
• 73% of visitors to the Kruger Park are South African, while 34% of respondents in the surveys had visited wildlife areas more than five times in the previous five years.

It is perhaps fortunate that once the Africa bug bites, it gets into your blood. It seems that it is our ancestral landscape and that “nostalgia”, that inexorable pull, keeps bringing people back. We at ecoAfrica see it in the numbers of return visitors over the years, and the numbers of clients who return multiple times.

For us it is important to know that greater experience in nature travel in Africa implies a need to have a “deeper” experience of Africa. ecoAfrica should be able to “track” this depth of experience and ultimately satisfy it by providing deeper and richer experiences of Africa’s unmatched diversity.