Last night Wanderlust was in central London for the annual barbeque hosted by AITO, the Association of Independent Tour Operators. The food was top notch, but the conversation was not of organic burgers and sustainably-sourced cod, but of a different kind of grilling – the one given to eco-tourism in last weekend’s Observer newspaper.
Tom Robbins’ article took aim, in particular, at ResponsibleTravel.com – a much-visited web portal offering links to hundreds of supposedly ‘green’ trips supplied by vetted operators. The central charge was one that many AITO tour operators have previously voiced in private: that, through canny marketing, ResponsibleTravel.com gives the impression of being a guilt-free one-stop-shop for ethical holidays, whereas in fact it is a commercial travel agent selling trips on commission with companies that pay to be listed on the site.
An open and shut case? Of course not. Justin Francis, ResponsibleTravel.com’s founder, has penned a robust response to the article on his own blog here. And one imagines the Observer takes no small pleasure in attacking a company whose annual travel awards were first operated in conjunction with The Times and now with The Daily Telegraph.
But the bigger issue is, as the Observer article goes on to discuss, one of labelling. If nobody really agrees what a ‘responsible’ trip is, and there’s no objective standard or accreditation for measuring it, how is the consumer to judge?
Various labelling schemes, including Fairtrade, are being discussed. But for me, such schemes are always going to be superficial and subjective. The ethics of any trip are riddled with so many factors that no handy green label will ever be able to split the ‘good’ from the ‘bad’. Which is one reason that, despite being heavily involved in these issues, Wanderlust has never wanted to be known as a green / responsible / eco / ethical travel magazine – the terms are too cheap; the issues too complex.
Such labels are a compelling idea, though, because they take the responsibility for weighing up all these issues out of our hands. Ironically, I’d suggest, ResponsibleTravel.com has been so successful because it allows people to shrug off their responsibilities and jet off happily into the moral high ground.
If you really want to be a responsible traveller, you have to ask the probing questions, weigh up the issues, make the odd sacrifice. In other words, take responsibility. And nobody else can do that for you.
3 responses so far ↓
Clare Leon // July 9, 2008 at 8:32 pm
I was surprised to see RT slated and, as one of their very small eco-tourist businesses, would like to respond to the debate that has been opened by the Observer article. The first thing I’d like to put right is the idea that you have to pay a fee to be featured on the site. You do not. In fact, RT are the only accrediting/marketing body that I am a member of not to charge a fee up front. Instead I pay them a small commission on holidays that people actually take (NOT on bookings). As a small operator I’m happy to pay a commission to an organisation who finds me customers who are happy on my horsey vegetarian remote rural holidays. (Yes, when I set up my business I was also told that I was catering to too small a niche and it wouldn’t be viable).
I haven’t jumped on the ‘Green’ bandwagon. I have been committed to living ethically all my life. As far as green accountability goes, there isn’t a greenprint for how to run a green business. At the end of the day I take steps to minimise my carbon footprint wherever possible, depending on local circumstances. One major issue for me is waste disposal. There is no refuse collection service where I am located and the nearest re-cycling facility and landfill is 40 miles away. I’d love suggestions from readers as to the most environmentally friendly way of disposing of plastic and polythene food packaging (unfortunately it is not possible always to avoid it). Another dilemma you can help me with is whether it is on balance less harmful to make a one-off trip to the weekly farmer’s market held 10 miles away, or to shop for organic produce in the local supermarket in the village 3 miles away when I collect my child from school?
As the song says, in Ireland there are 32 counties and 40 shades of green. Please feel free to visit us (ferries and train services available) and to debate each and every one of those 40 shades of green …
Paul Bondsfield // July 10, 2008 at 8:53 am
Explore too got a bit of a jab in the Tom Robbins article, but we too are happy to debate this topic, understanding as we do that there are thousands of shades of grey (or should that be green?) and very little in the way of black or white.
The article told of one lodge we use in Brazil, which happens to be an add-on business to a cayman farm, run by a local vet. Two of our clients objected to having to stay on such a farm, on moral grounds, as is their absolute right of course. They objected to cayman farming or any farming of animals, presumably outside of the “traditional” species; cows, sheep, chickens etc.
Tom Robbins’ angle on this story was that any operator can fall into the trap of on one hand stating a position of travelling responsibly, whilst on the other, tacitly supporting irresponsible activities through no fault of their own – in this case he pre-supposed that Explore were mislead by our suppliers in Brazil. The truth of the matter is that we had, to our own satisfaction, researched and debated the ethics/morals of cayman farming, discovering that the activity had drastically reduced wild cayman poaching, whilst providing employment for the local community. Having used the property (a very nice one by all accounts) for well over a year, with no complaints or comments from our customers, we have to make the assumption that our decision to stay there was a correct one.
The issue is of course that cayman farming, or farming of any non-traditional animal, is always going to be a sensitive topic and will, from time to time, inspire debate. To say that Explore supports the exotic skin trade by providing income for an associated business is a simplistic viewpoint – in fact we neither support nor condone it.
What we try to do, wherever in the world we travel, is present the world as it really is and let our customers make up their own minds, and, as in the Wanderlust blog above, let them take responsibility for their own views & moral standpoints.
The world will not always conform to one set of ethical or moralistic rules and multiple shades are what makes it such a fascinating place to explore and discover. There are lines that we probably won’t cross as an organisation, but they aren’t set in stone and we’ll always debate their whereabouts, internally and externally, before making business decisions. After that, it’s up to others to decide.
Justin Francis // July 10, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Although many think labelling a quick fix I tend to agree with Wanderlust that actually what is needed are curious travellers who will ask their own questions and from their own views.
responsibletravel.com gives them the responsible tourism information on every trip, from which to form their opinions and questions. As such we give people the ability to make better, informed choices about the holidays they take.
I think the tourism industry gets confused about a business with an ethical positioning making money becuase they’ve never seen it before. Its not a problem in other sectors wihch are far more advanced in CSR – just think The Coop Bank, M&S, Ben & Jerry’s or even M&S..
We’ve always been very clear we are a business, there has been no canny marketing – just lots of hard work to build awareness of responsible travel as a concept…
I’d like to encourage Wanderlust to do even more to take forward the, admittedly complex, debates around responsible tourism….
Justin