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.