"Green" Tourism: Paul Goldstein Says The Tide Is Turning
Paul Goldstein says "green" tourism is getting better - and you can help improve it more
Paul Goldstein - 16 April 2024
Twenty-five years ago I stood near the top of a rolling escarpment in Kenya, gazing down on a perfect scene of Rift Valley utopia. Sadly, the picture-book canvas hid the precarious nature of this wilderness and so many other Edens. But march the clock forward a quarter of a century and those fertile pastures are now the heartland of Mara North Conservancy: a poster child for ethical and sustainable tourism, with all stakeholders – two-legged and four-legged – benefiting.
Many people told me starting a safari camp in Kenya was foolish. But opening Kicheche (kicheche.com) was the best decision I ever took. Although a number of operators had been doing it quietly and effectively for years, green tourism only really took off around 20 years ago. But it was largely a cynical ploy to appeal to people’s conscience: “eco”, “sustainable” and “green” were the chief epithets, and promises of percentages (generally less than 1%) of holiday prices going to charitable concerns seemingly let the tour operators off the ethical hook.
As a sales ploy it was both effective and disgraceful, highlighting the world’s eco grievances but doing little or nothing about them.
For years, wildlife areas in Kenya were presided over by councils and government-controlled wildlife services. Some individuals decided a change was necessary, and the Mara Conservancies were born. They are the future, holding many advantages for safari enthusiasts over most parks or reserves anywhere on the continent. Firstly, there is a minimum 350 acres per guest; secondly, off-road driving is permitted; thirdly, there is a maximum of five vehicles per sighting, thus eradicating the unedifying sight of cheetah families being corralled by squadrons of minibuses. But the single most important factor is that a third of the income goes to the Conservancy. This money is properly audited, and even the most myopic of visitors can see the benefit: rangers have proper vehicles, roads are repaired, bridges and dams built and problem animals monitored.
Wildlife, particularly endangered species, are potential meal tickets for many. So the more prying tourist eyes there are, the less likely there is to be poaching. Unfortunately, in too many areas of the wildlife world an unholy trinity of bureaucracy, fiefdoms and corruption underwrite any potential gain.
The tourist dollar, pound or euro is not only a precious one but also a bountiful one. We may have lost a shameful chunk of our wildlife due to the incessant and iniquitous demands of traditional medicine and bush meat, but without tourism we would be running on faunal fumes.
It’s easy to spout platitudes about educating local people, but the successful ingredient is simple maths. Until local people feel a financial warmth from their overseas visitors they have no reason to be protective about their assets. This goes far beyond the wildlife. Are vast cruise ships and all-inclusive hotels really helping local economies? The money is kept in their own vertically integrated gluttonous food chains, denying local vendors, café- and restaurant-owners any of the pie. Smaller independent companies that have not sold out will almost always have greener credentials than vast corporate ones.
Don’t be hoodwinked by meaningless green emblems and absurd “artisan” guff like, “The nutmeg for our pancakes is sourced locally with the pods peeled underwater by Ecuadorian virgins”. This sort of nonsense is normally disguise. Any company that really cares, generally does not bray so loudly.
East African tribes often talk about leaving legacies for their children, realising their geographical birthright is an ecological tightrope. Pillaging the land and assets for short-term greed is catastrophic. (Likewise the British government loading taxes on airports and fuel: that’s just shamefully augmenting their own finances. There is little anyone can do about this except at the polling booth, but carbon balancing and paying extra in conservancy fees, or contributing to local grassroots projects, is money far better spent.)
The tide is turning. Large travel corporations realise that people are becoming more stringent in their approach. A large airline recently stated it would not offer or promote any captive animal-based attractions, namely zoos and aquariums. This lip service is at least a start, and may garner headlines, but most of these unspeakable menageries have been plying their trade for many years, so why has it taken so long? If businesses really cared they would actively campaign to close them down.
There is more information than ever to help aid holiday research, but people shouldn’t be seduced by odious “influencers”. These pimps have substituted knowledge with vanity, and pedigree with pretentiousness. Where do their ethical credentials reside?
If holidaymakers ask more rigorous questions, though, it weeds out the chancers and charlatans. If you are prepared to pay a little more, if responsibility and sensitivity are your watchwords, there is a future. It’s still your holiday and it should always be a source of pleasure. But done with a degree of sensitivity, it might also be an ethical war chest for so many.
Many people told me starting a safari camp in Kenya was foolish. But opening Kicheche (kicheche.com) was the best decision I ever took. Although a number of operators had been doing it quietly and effectively for years, green tourism only really took off around 20 years ago. But it was largely a cynical ploy to appeal to people’s conscience: “eco”, “sustainable” and “green” were the chief epithets, and promises of percentages (generally less than 1%) of holiday prices going to charitable concerns seemingly let the tour operators off the ethical hook.
As a sales ploy it was both effective and disgraceful, highlighting the world’s eco grievances but doing little or nothing about them.
For years, wildlife areas in Kenya were presided over by councils and government-controlled wildlife services. Some individuals decided a change was necessary, and the Mara Conservancies were born. They are the future, holding many advantages for safari enthusiasts over most parks or reserves anywhere on the continent. Firstly, there is a minimum 350 acres per guest; secondly, off-road driving is permitted; thirdly, there is a maximum of five vehicles per sighting, thus eradicating the unedifying sight of cheetah families being corralled by squadrons of minibuses. But the single most important factor is that a third of the income goes to the Conservancy. This money is properly audited, and even the most myopic of visitors can see the benefit: rangers have proper vehicles, roads are repaired, bridges and dams built and problem animals monitored.
Wildlife, particularly endangered species, are potential meal tickets for many. So the more prying tourist eyes there are, the less likely there is to be poaching. Unfortunately, in too many areas of the wildlife world an unholy trinity of bureaucracy, fiefdoms and corruption underwrite any potential gain.
The tourist dollar, pound or euro is not only a precious one but also a bountiful one. We may have lost a shameful chunk of our wildlife due to the incessant and iniquitous demands of traditional medicine and bush meat, but without tourism we would be running on faunal fumes.
It’s easy to spout platitudes about educating local people, but the successful ingredient is simple maths. Until local people feel a financial warmth from their overseas visitors they have no reason to be protective about their assets. This goes far beyond the wildlife. Are vast cruise ships and all-inclusive hotels really helping local economies? The money is kept in their own vertically integrated gluttonous food chains, denying local vendors, café- and restaurant-owners any of the pie. Smaller independent companies that have not sold out will almost always have greener credentials than vast corporate ones.
Don’t be hoodwinked by meaningless green emblems and absurd “artisan” guff like, “The nutmeg for our pancakes is sourced locally with the pods peeled underwater by Ecuadorian virgins”. This sort of nonsense is normally disguise. Any company that really cares, generally does not bray so loudly.
East African tribes often talk about leaving legacies for their children, realising their geographical birthright is an ecological tightrope. Pillaging the land and assets for short-term greed is catastrophic. (Likewise the British government loading taxes on airports and fuel: that’s just shamefully augmenting their own finances. There is little anyone can do about this except at the polling booth, but carbon balancing and paying extra in conservancy fees, or contributing to local grassroots projects, is money far better spent.)
The tide is turning. Large travel corporations realise that people are becoming more stringent in their approach. A large airline recently stated it would not offer or promote any captive animal-based attractions, namely zoos and aquariums. This lip service is at least a start, and may garner headlines, but most of these unspeakable menageries have been plying their trade for many years, so why has it taken so long? If businesses really cared they would actively campaign to close them down.
There is more information than ever to help aid holiday research, but people shouldn’t be seduced by odious “influencers”. These pimps have substituted knowledge with vanity, and pedigree with pretentiousness. Where do their ethical credentials reside?
If holidaymakers ask more rigorous questions, though, it weeds out the chancers and charlatans. If you are prepared to pay a little more, if responsibility and sensitivity are your watchwords, there is a future. It’s still your holiday and it should always be a source of pleasure. But done with a degree of sensitivity, it might also be an ethical war chest for so many.