How Far Would You Go?

The Royal Scottish Geographical Society (RSGS) host a series of talks through the winter, and the two that I have managed to attend this year have been both totally inspiring and a little overwhelming. Inspiring in the challenges that they undertook, but overwhelming for the same reason. They were both focused around the idea of doing something ‘big’ to raise awareness for environmental issues, although neither of the speakers really started off with that focus. They got me thinking about how far I would go for the cause?

The first I attended was called “Swimming on top of the World”. Having spent 7 summers on the Arctic island of Svaalbard, Lewis Pugh observed first-hand the devastating effects of global climate change on ice cover and decided that he needed to do something about it.

As a swimmer, Lewis decided that he would swim in vulnerable ecosystems to raise global awareness for his plight. He wanted world leaders to sit up and take notice of the devastating effects of global climate change. So, where better to start that the North Pole, which as a rule should be frozen over? In a literal sense, he went to the limit - geographically, physically and mentally in order to raise awareness for a cause that he believed in. The water temperature was a staggering -1.7°C and Lewis swam 1km in just under 20 minutes, earning himself the nickname “The Human Polar Bear”, which is also in reference to his ability to increase his body temperature before he undertakes these swims. The water was so cold that the cells in his fingers froze, causing his hands to swell so that he couldn’t move them, and it took 4 months to regain full feeling in them.

Lewis pushed his body and mind to the end and beyond comfort zones, so why are the rest of us sitting comfortably watching our world suffer beyond belief? Personally I think that it’s because the problem of global climate and environmental change feels so big and beyond our control that we can’t possibly do anything to change it. And if I think about the problem for too long I can feel pretty pessimistic about the whole thing. But Lewis gave me hope for the first time in a long while. Global leaders listen to him, he’s got power! But should we have to put ourselves through the ultimate challenge in order to make politicians sit up and listen? Why don’t they see it as a big enough problem already? The video was made to raise awareness of this and I highly recommend watching the other videos available on TED, even if only to catch a glimpse of the power of Lewis’ story-telling.

Aside from the environmental plight of his cause, this man’s mentality and physical endurance is incredible. As a motivational speaker, his engagement and take-home messages are truly inspiring. I might not be able to gain the global recognition that Lewis has, but I can do my bit so that I don’t regret not trying. However, I have read his first book (also highly recommended) and am waiting for the upcoming UK release of the second. Maybe I can pick up some tips. . . Whether our actions are big or small, I believe we all have the power to make a difference. World, look out, I’m coming to get you!

Shona Marsh
@shona_marsh23

Tourism, Conservation and Communities

The village conserves its sacred grove, national conservation authorities plan within their own state boundaries, while international bodies concern themselves with world heritage sites

Kingdon 1989

The vocabulary, perceptions and interest of the three have very little overlap even if they share a common interest in conserving wildlife. Much of conventional conservation, although it may seek to involve local interests, is centralized and imposed  and conservation, like tourism, can only be successful in settings where the affected local communities obtain tangible economic returns and cultural incentives for its implementation.

During the colonial era in the first half of the twentieth century, management of protected areas in West Africa shifted from traditional to state-run systems. This followed an internationally established system of national parks and reserves sanctioned by international conventions such as the Society for the Protection of Fauna of the Empire which emphasised the need for national parks and drew heavily on a scientific approach to the environment and its management. This is a trend which has continued into the post-colonial period, with large areas gazetted as national parks and other such protected areas. 

This model was heavily influenced by western science and conservation organisations, and often local communities find themselves marginalised, facing restrictions from an outside authority that denies them the right to use the resources they have depended upon, in a coercive form of protectionism that ignores the needs of the people and often excluded them from protected areas. This is a symptom of programmes not only in West Africa, but across the continent.  

Community-based conservation (CBC) came as a response to both alienating protectionist policies of the past and to the economic concerns that many rural people face. Advocates of CBC argue that the approach can be effective because it relates back to pre-colonial African conservation practices that used community-based constraints to regulate resource use, and it is a means by which rural Africans can benefit materially from protecting wildlife. CBC programmes follow a ‘bottom-up’ rather than ‘top-down’ approach, and have three major aims: (1) allowing people living near protected lands to participate in land-use policy and management decisions; (2) giving people proprietorship or ownership over wildlife resources; and (3) giving local people economic benefit from wildlife conservation.

A common problem in community-based conservation programmes is that often the needs of local people are considered primarily as a strategy to gain their acceptance of the conservation aspect. This kind of situation can create difficulties in long-term sustainability as enough money must be generated for local people to receive significant financial gain indefinitely. It is questionable whether sufficient employment and revenue can be generated to prevent exploitation of natural resources. There is also often doubt as to whether the economic return to rural people from CBC programmes can be high enough that people will not eventually look for economic alternatives. Simultaneous achievement of social, economic and conservation goals is a challenge. 

By their nature, protected areas are attractive to tourists, through whom significant contributions to conservation costs can be obtained. However, if communities are excluded, they see no benefit from conservation or tourism, and are often even be forced off their farming land by the expanding boundaries of ‘successful’ conservation initiatives, forcing many into poverty or to turn to other less sustainable livelihood options such as poaching.  

For CBC and tourism to succeed they must be flexible enough to cope with a growing number of extremely poor people who depend on a subsistence existence and whose greatest goal is to gain economic security. Policies that restrict responses to changing circumstances, “forced primitivism” and can lead to poverty traps, may be a problem when the needs of wildlife and wildlife watchers are emphasized over the needs of people. 

 Corinne Doff

Summit to think about... Has tourism on Everest peaked?

The recent revelation of the number of permits to climb Mount Everest (Chomolungma) this spring, an increase of 28% on last year’s allocation, made me think about the classic question: how do you prevent tourists destroying the very place that attracted them in the first place?

While it took 30 years for the first 150 climbers to reach the summit of Everest, this was exceeded in a single day in May 2010, with 169 climbers making the top, and with them come the problems associated with increased accessibility to the world’s highest mountain.

Its growing reputation as “the world’s highest garbage site” describes what is arguably the most notorious issue; litter from the hundreds of people leaving oxygen tanks, food packaging and tents in their wake. But this is not the only problem affecting the sustainability of ecotourism on Everest, which is part of Sagarmatha National Park UNESCO World Heritage Site.

Successful management of ecotourism is defined as creating a relationship between people, resources and tourism, in which each can contribute positively to the other.

In terms of socio-economic benefits, the permit alone, which allows entry to the Everest area from the south via Nepal, costs between $10,000 and $25,000 per person. There are approximately 2,500 Sherpa people living within the national park, who rely on tourism to make their living and whose cultural heritage is also valued under the park’s UNESCO World Heritage status. Reducing visitor numbers would compromise their livelihoods, but is it right that they should continue to endanger their lives for the increasing number of less experienced climbers attempting to conquer the mountain?

A recent article in The Guardian also brought up concerns over the “overcrowding” of Everest. Every May, several hundred inspired people will try for the summit in one of the weather windows, resulting in dangerous bottlenecks packed with climbers, the reality of which was sadly demonstrated by the death of four climbers in May, raising the question: has the mountain become too accessible?

We are often told to “take only photographs and leave only footprints”, but is that actually one of the problems here? Besides the rubbish left behind by climbers, the degradation caused by increased footfall is also evident, threatening biodiversity as well as the aesthetic value of this area of “stunning natural beauty”, as described by Sir Chris Bonington.

Where to draw the line? Balancing tourism and conservation.

Not everyone believes huge numbers of visitors will be detrimental to Everest: “Unquestionably Nepal wants the money and locals want the money - they want people to come” (George Martin, EverestNews.com). Indeed, small scale tourism elsewhere has been found to be inappropriate or unsustainable socio-culturally in the wrong circumstances. For example in the Tufi region of Papua New Guinea, inter-clan balance was disrupted when one clan began to profit materially from the operation of traditional-style guest houses. Conflicts intensified further when well-meaning foreign agencies provided the operators with motor boats and other aid. In contrast, large scale tourism may in some circumstances prove sustainable. Some of the major European tour operators, for example, successfully endeavor to ensure that their clients do not contribute to negative socio-cultural and environmental impacts in the destinations that they visit.

Carrying capacities can be raised through appropriate management and some believe that the best strategies are those which concentrate large numbers of visitors in a small area. In South Africa’s Kruger National Park, for example, the 700,000 annual visitors are restricted almost entirely to just 4% of the land. Although limiting visitor numbers by permit undoubtedly prevents wide-spread degradation, concentrated visitation to the prime sites used in ecotourism often still results in an unacceptable level of degradation. The absence of adequate environmental assessments and site audits can lead to “self-destructive ecotourism”.

“The assessment of a particular tourist product as good or bad does not depend on scale, but rather on the effectiveness of the management practices that are applied to the circumstances of each individual destination”

(Weaver, 2001)

Corinne Doff

@CorinneDoff