Responsible Skiing

As the European ski season heads to the end of another year, it’s time for a post on the sustainability of the ski industry.  With climate change becoming an increasingly present reality, snowfall patterns are likely to change and the ski industry affected. We need to assess not only the impact of changing climates on skiing, but the skier’s impact on a changing climate. “Responsible Travel” has been a phrase used in the tourism industry for some time now. This encompasses more than just environmental responsibility, but ensuring that your travel is culturally and socially responsible too, as Responsible Travel put it; “travel like a local”. My visit to the Responsible Skiing Conference in October 2012 gave me a chance to explore this through the eyes of the ski industry.

Would it shock you if I said that nearly 75% of annual (2007) greenhouse gas emissions from Saint Martin de Belleville (Les 3 Vallées, France) came from tourists travelling to the resort? And that’s from flying. Whilst we would all assume that flying was the cheapest and quickest option, Snowcarbon would love to differ. So many people don’t even think about options aside from flying and sometimes driving. But what about the train? Not only can this compete on price, but also travel time, and you can often fit an extra days skiing in, as well as dramatically reducing your carbon footprint. Check out their most recent video for proof:

And now to the slopes. Don’t you just love those huge expanses of fresh white pistes, dotted with snow-covered trees? The environmental impacts of this are obvious; large-scale tree-felling, the loss of a natural carbon sink, machine grading of the land and all of the knock-on effects that come from the removal of trees. And then what about that continuous supply of snow that seems to appear even on those bluebird days? The long list of impacts of artificial snow-making include an excessive use of water, chemical inputs to natural ecosystems, alteration of water courses, and high energy use. With shifting climate patterns, it ensures a more reliable snow cover for the industry, and Scotland has recently dabbled in it for help. But it does still require low temperatures in order for the snow to form, so can it really work as a sustainable solution, especially with all of the impacts involved?

And then there’s your accommodation, which brings with it all the “normal” sustainability issues such as energy use, heating, food choices, water consumption, excessive laundry. . . The graph again shows that heating tourists’ accommodation is a huge chunk of the emissions within Saint Martin de Belleville. This is an area that has recently seen a shift in many European resorts. There is now much more recognition for “responsible” accommodation providers, which can be seen through companies such as Green Traveller, Responsible Travel and Much Better Adventures and cover a wide range of choices such as cross-country skiing, which places less pressure on the environment, “eco-chalets”, or staying closer to home in Scotland. If you prefer tour operators, then you can check out their sustainability policies which are usually widely available on their websites.

But it’s not all doom and gloom, there are ways to make your ski holiday guilt-free. You can make your entire resort selection based on environmental or “responsible” factors. For example, Austria has banned the use of chemicals in artificial snow-making, to maintain an organic farming area. Travel to Zermatt by train, and with cars banned in resort, look out for the silent electric buggies zooming around stacked with luggage. Or make simple choices such as eating in a locally-owned and run restaurant with local food specialities, choose not to have your towels changed every day in the hotel, or swap your skis for some snow shoes for a day to reduce your pressure on the environment.

 Obviously this doesn’t cover the whole area of Responsible Skiing, but it is possible to make some conscious decisions to make your holiday that bit more sustainable, and to give the European ski season a bit more longevity. Ultimately we need to protect the environment that we want to use.

Shona Marsh

@DuniraStrategy

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