Who's worrying about the "eco" in eco-tourism?

1 March 1999

If there's one positive vision South Africans seem to agree on, it is that tourism has the potential to be the economic saviour for our country. It is held up by economists, business people and politicians alike as the silver bullet which may help to kick-start and support the kind of growth in earnings and jobs which the government's GEAR strategy aims to achieve.

These hopes are endorsed by a recent report on the tourism industry: "SA, with its coastal beauty, wildlife, favourable climate, cultural heritage and sound infrastructure, has all the characteristics of a world-class tourist destination … International tourism to SA is projected to grow at a rate of approximately 12% per annum between now and 2000. Based on past performance, the goal of 7.5 million visitors is likely to be achieved, particularly with improving air access and growing formal and informal trade with neighbouring countries."

The buzz-word on everyone's lips seems to be "eco-tourism" - attracting visitors to experience the diverse natural beauty of SA. Whether it's Table Mountain, the whales or the pristine coastline and beaches of the Cape, the desert landscapes and brilliant flower carpets of West-Coast, the majestic grandeur of the Drakensberg mountains, or the wildlife-rich bushveld of the Highlands, the natural environment is one of SA's richest assets and strongest marketing features to tourists.

SA is not unique in realising this opportunity. For example, international studies have estimated that that eco-tourism is worth US$19 per ha in Cameroon, US$1250 per ha in Costa Rica and US$0.4-0.8 million in Thailand.

But the opportunity can quickly turn into a loss if the environment itself becomes degraded, due to pressure from industry and development. Will tourists continue to be attracted to Mauritius as its lagoons become polluted, the live coral reefs die and the beaches erode. Or to Cape Town for that matter, where the creeping, smoggy "brown haze" blankets the city whenever there is a temperature inversion and the "Cape Doctor" South-East wind does not blow?

The seriousness of this threat is recognised internationally. For example, the United Nations Environment Programme have worked closely with the World Tourism Organisation over the past few years to issue various guidelines and technical reports to secure the future of eco-tourism.

There is also the threat of destruction by heavy industry or mining of eco-tourism assets, in the name "investment" and "export-led growth". At the heart of this debate is the issue of economic value. How much income can competing land-use activities generate? In the past, industrial growth tended to hold the more convincing financial arguments, but this is rapidly changing.

With the roller-coaster fluctuation in commodity prices shaking the global economy today, the primary and secondary sector are no longer the secure investment they used to be. Instead, a more mobile, educated and "nature-deprived" population suggests far stronger guarantees for growth in eco- and cultural-tourism.

This trend will be reinforced as economists become more adept at valuing the natural environment itself. A study published in Nature magazine estimated the economic value of 17 of the world's ecosystems for 16 biomes at between $16-54 trillion a year, more than three times the global Gross National Product. Of more direct relevance here, the economic value of "elephant viewing" in Kenya has been calculated at US$25 million a year.

As these kinds of eco-tourism estimates begin competing with the financial projections of large proposed industrial developments, the balance may well swing in favour nature conservation. And, hopefully, the cross of "carrying capacity" will increasingly factor in today's euphoric messianic tourism talk.