Those of you who browse through other websites related to this topic will probably say: "Oh no, another discussion about this matter!". You are absolutely right and yes, there will never be a conclusion for a clear definition. All over the world organizations are debating about the criteria that should be considered and there is no international standard which is globally accepted.
Often the boards or organizations are founded by industrial support and therefore likely to be biased.
The carbon footprint of each tourist in Africa is immense and therefore, if we want to be precise, the word eco-tourism is already a contradiction in itself. Flying once around the globe for a quick glance at a lion or an elephant can not be environmentally friendly and self-drive or private safaris are not exactly the most efficient use of ressources either (Not to mention the countless domestic flights and helicopter transfers).
But even if we leave all the damage caused by means of transport away, will we be able to consider a camp or lodge ecologically friendly? Some of the most famous "eco-friendly" lodges are proudly presenting their projects as self attributed criteria to protect the environment. Solar panels instead of generators, grey water is recycled to water vegetable gardens, locals are employed to give the local community an (alternative) source of income, waste management, ...
It all sounds great and surely reduces the impact but is it really what it seems to be at first sight?
Maybe some of those camps are simply doing this because there is no other option? If water has to be delivered by trucks, wouldn't you try to recycle your water to reduce expenses? If you charge 500 US $ per head per night, you can not have a noisy and stinky generator running all night for electricity. If you don't want to build housing for staff from far away, take locals and call it "offering alternative income to - or involvement of - local communities". Today you can not simply dump your waste behind the camp, so either you drive truck-loads back to Nairobi for disposal or you recycle as much as possible to cut down expenses. If you have a child and live in the deepest bush, where will your child be educated? Build a school and call it "Education of the local community".
Not seldom the camps create Non-Profit Organizations for their projects. Aha - you might think - these people sacrifice and make all this effort without gaining any money from it. Nooooo, the definition of the term only means that at the end of the year they are not allowed to declare any profit, nothing else than the aim of any other commercial company, too. Nobody said that members of a Non-Profit Organization do not get paid for their job and if it is your own organization, you choose the salary you wish. In other words, as the owner of a camp you can advertise that a certain amount of each guests money will go to the organization (hence increasing your salary) whilst leaving people in the believe they are doing something good.
Maybe it is all just made up because the phrase "eco-tourism" sells well? It relieves the guilty conscience of those that realize the damage they cause and smart business people ride this wave for the big money they can make from calling themselves ecologically friendly?
I have thought of creating a ranking for eco-lodges many times but I always strand on this question. Should we consider a camp ecologically friendly even if their way of conduct is primarily for their own benefit? And what about luxury? Should luxury always be considered wastefulness or can we accept sumptuous use of available ressources?
Where would you draw the line for what you consider an ecological lodge or camp?
