Published by Hubert Den Draak under Travel

I had no idea how much of a buzzword “ecotourism” had become until I had to explain to a visitor what we do here at the Nolalu Eco Centre. Five minutes into my spiel about the many and various ways we had gone green here in northern Ontario, her eyes still looked glazed over. And then she got it: “Ah”, she said “You guys are into ecotourism!”

The dime had dropped for both of us: this lady needed only one key word to grasp what  we do out here, and I suddenly realized the power of the word “ecotourism.” Or green tourism. Or (in order of escalating political correctness): nature tourism, geotourism, alternative tourism, new tourism, soft tourism, sustainable tourism, symbiotic development, appropriate tourism… the list goes on, but “ecotourism” seems to be the one that sticks to the palate.

Definitions for this type of tourism abound, but the one that many people feel covers it best comes from the International Ecotourism Society (TIES): “Ecotourism is responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves the well-being of local people.” Simple, elegant, effective.

Thinking a little more about what this definition implies, I came up with a few salient points.  Such as:
– Minimal negative impact (of any kind).
– Positive experience for both visitor and host.
– Direct financial benefits for conservation and the local people.
– Sensitivity to the host’s political, social and environmental situation.
Or, to put it even more simply: by practicing ecotourism, the host, the visitor and environment all benefit. That’s a triple-whammy that makes perfect sense.

Okay, so it’s not so hard to see why the term ecotourism is taking off. But how come we don’t see it advertised in the glossy brochures, the tantalizing spreads, the slick TV ads?  Well, probably because big business and ecotourism tend to cancel each other out.

Let’s say a developer decides to build a big “all inclusive” resort on a blue lagoon on one of the Fiji islands. It stands to reason that this significant investment needs to pay for itself as soon as possible by loading up a maximum guest count in the least amount of time. So, acting under the assumption that 2-3% of those exposed to ads will respond, this resort will broadcast its presence to millions of people. Using those glossies, spreads and TV ads with which we are all too familiar.

And so far, this tactic has worked well. Most big resorts have proved very lucrative undertakings, as have big cruise ships, theme parks and Vegas-style tourist traps. The problem, of course, is that as the business venture succeeds, the environment suffers (good-bye untouched lagoon).

And that a lot more money leaves that island than stays there. Not to mention the larger world’s impact on the local culture, economy and social fabric.

Ecotourism operates in the exact opposite manner, and as more and more would-be trekkers are finding out, that’s not a bad thing. A study sponsored by the National Geographic Traveler showed that more than 75% of American travelers interviewed voiced their desire that their vacations not damage the environment. And – just as importantly – a large percentage said they would consider paying more in order to promote that environmental well-being. National Geographic dubbed this kind of travel “geotourism.”

Thing is, ecotourism (geotourism) can only work when applied in small doses: that is both ecotourism’s strength and its Achilles’ heel. Our mindset is such that “small scale” and “successful” don’t combine meaningfully in the same sentence. If only a handful of tourists comes out to visit a place, how can that venture qualify as successful when no serious bucks are being made in the process?

For most of us, a business venture can be called successful only if and when it attracts lots of people, and generates lots of money. But in the case of ecotourism, pretty much all of that money stays local anyway, benefitting the local economy, local culture and environment, right? Well, not really.

We’d all like ecotourism to be popular, but if this means more tourists’ visiting more fragile environments, it also means they will adversely affect the local ecology simply on account of the sheer impress of numbers. Ecotourism does not work when it gets so popular it destroys the very environment it seeks to protect. An interesting paradox…

I think the obvious lesson here is that we have to rethink ecotourism. In fact, we may have to reconsider our collectively accepted way of how we practice tourism in general. Do we really have to fly across continents in order to relax? Do we really need to travel in herds? Do we really value mere convenience over quality?

And while you’re mulling over all that, avoid the 12-storey resort on that blue lagoon somewhere far-away. Instead, check out those nearer places with familiar-sounding names, such as locally owned inns or cozy B&Bs: family businesses that have been around for generations against all odds.

Instead of snowmobiling, try dogsledding or snowshoeing. Instead of tearing around in a dune buggy, consider hiking. Instead of catching the latest glitzy nightlife numbah, participate in a native pow-wow.

I bet the memories and friendships you’ll take home from those experiences will leave the Joneses in the dust.