The Downside of Ecotourism

The term ecotourism has been around for decades but the misunderstanding and overuse of the term has led to a lack of environmental success in a CO2 sucking industry. Places like Machu Picchu now receives over 6,000 visitors a day during peak season, making it hard to properly conserve the historical site.

According to the World Travel and Tourism Council, tourism as a whole makes up 10% of global GDP and supports over 319 million jobs. That is a huge industry but it also has a huge environmental impact. Air traffic alone accounts for 5% of CO2 emissions globally and the number of air passengers is expected to only grow, reaching 13 billion by 2030. In addition, tourists often use more resources than locals, eating at restaurants, using more water, generating more waste, and driving rental cars. Often desired tourist destinations are ones of natural beauty, with high densities in coastal, mountain, and lake areas. These environments are more susceptible to environmental degradation and increased traffic to protected areas can affect conservation efforts. A potential solution: eco-tourism. 

Ecotourism was defined in 1990 by the The International Ecotourism Society (TIES) with a focus on, “responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves the well-being of local people”. It has good intentions: natural conservation and benefiting locals. Often eco-lodges do have greener accommodations but they can often be in remote locations, therefore requiring more carbon emissions to get there. Human presence in isolated areas will always have effects on the local land and wildlife no matter how much it is tried to be controlled. The more popular eco-tourist destinations become, the harder it is to limit the impact. 

A great example of this is Machu Picchu. Tourism is the second largest industry in Peru. Machu Picchu specifically is a highly sought-after tourist destination. The tourism there has had a huge impact on the environment. UNESCO recommended the Peruvian government to limit numbers to 2,000 a day to reduce the degradation. Instead, the government switched the ticketing process to half-day tickets, effectively increasing daily numbers from 2,500 to over 6,000, with an additional 500 a day on the Inca Trail. The lack of infrastructure supporting these numbers leads to an even higher impact. There is only one bathroom at the entrance and human waste is a huge problem. The closest village, Aguas Calientes, has resorted to pumping human waste into the Urubamba River. Increases in garbage, especially plastic water bottles, on the Inca Trail also contributes to uncontrolled waste. Jobs provided to locals are seasonal, often poorly paid, and have a huge physical cost. Machu Picchu had the potential to be a great eco-tourist site but overcrowding and mismanagement has led to a lack of conservation and hurting local communities. Yet, it still viewed and even advertised as eco-tourism. 

The term ecotourism is now over used. It has been stretched from its original purpose to encompass any nature-related travel and to many is synonymous with sustainable. This is far from true and with companies using greenwashing, consumers are not sure what they are paying for. Greenwashing is when organizations falsely advertise through an environmentally-friendly lens. In tourism this is often increased by inconsistencies in certifying bodies. Or in something as simple as have a sign in the bathroom promoting water conservation. This has a huge impact on the effectiveness of ecotourism when people who are trying to be environmentally conscious end up supporting the wrong businesses. Eco-tourism also tends to draw from a wealthier demographic, with 57% of people making over $150.000 saying they would book an eco-tourist trip, compared to 16% at $34,000. This is largely influenced by the higher price of eco-tourist trips. If ecotourism is to decrease the large environmental impact of tourism as a whole, it has a lot of work to do to limit greenwashing, overcrowding, and transportation effects while increasing affordability, minimizing local impact and supporting local communities. 

DEVIN O’DONNELL

Devin’s interest in travel was cemented by a multi-month trip to East Africa when she was 19. Since then, she has continued to have immersive experiences on multiple continents. Devin has written for a start-up news site and graduated from the University of Michigan with a degree in Neuroscience.

Zimbabwe’s Mining Ban: A Potential Empty Promise?

The government of Zimbabwe now bans mining in its national parks, but environmentalists argue that the prohibition is hardly adequate. 

An elephant at a watering hole in Zimbabwe’s Hwange National Park. BARMCD. CC BY-NC 2.0.

After mounting pressure from conservationists, Zimbabwe’s government has declared a mining ban in the country’s national parks. Reports have circulated that Chinese companies are scouting out coal mining sites in Hwange National Park, Zimbabwe’s largest national reserve. The park stretches over nearly 6,000 square miles and is home to about 50,000 of Zimbabwe’s estimated 86,000 elephants. Extensive conservation projects are conducted in the region to preserve its plethora of wildlife species, but the call to protect the elephant population has drawn the most intense focus.

The government’s new ban is the result of a case brought to the country’s High Court by the Zimbabwe Environmental Lawyers Association. The group argues that mining would destabilize the park’s biodiversity while injuring the fragile ecotourism sector. This case was first brought to the High Court after officials of Afrochine Energy and Zimbabwe Zhongxin Coal Mining Group were arrested for conducting illegal mining projects only to be released with special permission by Zimbabwe’s President. Outrage immediately ensued, and conservationists rode the wave of anger to action. 

The immense pressure on the government to implement change follows months of anger by environmentalists claiming that Chinese mining companies have already caused catastrophic damage in other regions of Zimbabwe. Environmentalists explain that the companies dump toxic waste, clogging precious dams and resulting in substantial drops in local wildlife populations. Locals also resent the presence of Chinese mining companies due to diminishing livestock populations and disrupted irrigation routes. 

Environmental groups also argue that mining will perpetuate the drought and overcrowding problems that have already killed hundreds of elephants. Local residents deal with regular poaching disputes and rely heavily on income from ecotourism; so, many fear that failure to hold off Chinese mining companies could cause  economic damage and increased levels of conflict. Furthermore, many Zimbabweans believe that mining in Hwange is only one piece of the bigger picture. Gold and diamond mining sites pepper other parts of the nation, causing equal degrees of environmental destruction to the over 1,000 species of animals that roam the country.

Tusks removed from a poached elephant. Sokwanele. CC BY-NC-SA 2.0.

For now, it seems that the government of Zimbabwe has yielded to the demands of conservation groups, but environmentalists appear far from satisfied. The government says that it is canceling current mining titles, but conservationists are doubtful that this is enough. Shamiso Mtisi, deputy director of the Zimbabwe Environmental Lawyers Association, states that the group is demanding an interdict, which is a legally binding prohibition. Pressure on the government to act quickly increased significantly in the past week as 11 young elephants died due to an unknown bacterial infection. Investigations are now proceeding to determine the cause of the elephants’ deaths, and whether poisoning may be linked to nearby mining activity. 

Although the High Court’s verdict is already known, but whether or not Zimbabwe’s government will take the necessary steps to save the country’s natural and economic resources remains a mystery.

Ella Nguyen

is an undergraduate student at Vassar College pursuing a degree in Hispanic Studies. She wants to assist in the field of immigration law and hopes to utilize Spanish in her future projects. In her free time she enjoys cooking, writing poetry, and learning about cosmetics.

Swimming with Whale Sharks in Mexico: Ecotourism or Exploitation?

The water was about 70 degrees. When we jumped in, I had forgotten to pull my snorkel mask down—it was still strapped to my forehead. This was a dead giveaway to the tour guide that I was inexperienced, and he swam over and yanked the mask down over my eyes.  He then guided me and one more novice snorkeler to an open area of the water, away from everyone else. Gently, he pushed our heads beneath the surface, and when I opened my eyes, I was staring at a fish roughly the size of the 38 Geary back home. This was a Whale Shark, the largest fish on the planet, and here in La Paz, the capital city of Baja California and a well-known hub for shark migration, such sights were fairly commonplace. Through Cabo Expeditions, the tour company that organized these trips,anyone with $140 could see these giants up close. There were other companies operating in the area as well, and midway through the trip, our guide directed our attention to a shark in the distance being flanked by another group of tourists. They were patting the animal’s sides while it tried to feed on plankton, and as excitement overcame tact, the patting turned into light slapping. Our guide took a moment to stress the importance of enjoying these animals in a respectful way.  It was the only black mark on an otherwise magical afternoon.

Laz Paz, captial of Baja California. Az81964444. Public Domain

Three years later, while attending UC Berkeley, I stumbled into a showing of "Mexico Pelagico,” a documentary that followed a group of conservationists as they tried to protect various sharks in the Sea of Cortez. It got me thinking about my trip to La Paz. In the film, it was said that 97 million sharks were killed every year, with Mexico ranking 6th among countries participating in the slaughter. While greed and envy were contributing factors to overfishing, the main factor was poverty; For many, shark fishing was the only way to make a decent living. The film went on to examine the recent explosion of Whale Shark ecotourism in Cancun, with tour companies recruiting the very fishermen who killed sharks in the past as tour operators working toward their preservation. It seemed like a practical solution that addressed both the needs of the environment and those of the fishermen. However, thinking back to that poor shark being slapped by those tourists in La Paz still made me uneasy, and I began to wonder what alternatives were available to people who wished to see and learn about these animals.

After graduation, I traveled to China and visited the Chimelong Ocean Kingdom, currently the largest aquarium on Earth. The Ocean Kingdom had the finest display tank I’d ever seen, complete with two juvenile whale sharks. I also flew to Atlanta to visit the Georgia Aquarium, the second largest aquarium on Earth, and currently the only place in the US where one can see captive Whale Sharks. This aquarium had four adult sharks in a tank that was a bit smaller than its Chinese counterpart, but still gave the animals plenty of room to move around. Both aquariums had invested millions into the care of these animals and, as far as I could tell, both were deeply committed to Whale Shark conservation and education, but neither aquarium left the same lasting impression that my trip to La Paz did.  Not only were there more sharks see Mexico, but they also seemed more at ease in their natural environment. For me personally, there was a sense that I as a human being was participating in the local ecosystem, not dominating it or trying to replicate it somewhere else.

A pair of Whale Sharks. Elias Levy. CC BY 2.0

Is snorkeling with Whale Sharks beneficial? Is it exploitative? The evidence suggests it’s a bit of both. A study conducted between 2012 and 2014 on Whale Shark ecotourism in the Philippines revealed that over 95 percent of tourists touched the animals during their encounters with them, even though they knew It was not permitted and penalties included jail time. In Djibouti, scars from boat propellers have been observed on up to 65% of the local Whale Shark population. Now, the good news: In 2013, a group of researchers from the University of British Columbia determined that the annual revenue from shark fishing stood at $630 million and had been declining over the past decade, while the annual revenue from shark ecotourism was $314 million, a figure that was projected to increase to $780 million over the next 20 years.  These numbers suggest an inverse relationship between the rise of ecotourism and the decline of fishing. In the film “Mexico Pelagico,” it was said that Baja's’ fish biomass was projected to increase by 465% over the next 17 years. While there are benefits and drawbacks to snorkeling with Whale sharks, the former seems to outweigh the latter.   

A Whale Shark at the Georgia Aquarium. Zac Wolf. CC BY-SA 2.5.

Whale Shark Ecotourism is a booming business, and some companies are bound to be more or less respectful than others, but overall it seems like a step in the right direction.  If the shark at the mercy of those tourists back in La Paz suffered any discomfort, it was most likely temporary, as the shark was probably free to go about its business once the tourists had left. This is certainly a better fate for a shark than being hooked on a fishing line and chopped into pieces, or being confined to a tank for the rest of its life.  The fact that we are beginning to change our perception of sharks and recognize the importance of their conversation is a sign of progress- our approach can refine itself over time. In the meantime, I’m planning my next trip to La Paz.





JONATHAN ROBINSON is an intern at CATALYST. He is a travel enthusiast always adding new people, places, experiences to his story. He hopes to use writing as a means to connect with others like himself.