Climate change – Three reasons why you should fly to a remote wildlife area after the CoVid-19 lock-down, and feel good about it

Short-sighted activists will have you think that all air travel is bad for the planet. That is false: Air travel linked to wildlife tourism represents around 0.2% of global emissions, and yet tourism revenue is crucial to protect key ecosystems which are vital on the fight against Climate change.

As an investor in both, climate change related companies, and tourism, I am permanently surprised by the irrational stance of many climate activists against all international travel regardless of the reason for travel [1]. They seem to make a good case, until you look at the data in more detail. How can so many influential opinion leaders be so blatantly unaware of the basic maths around climate change?

Let me give you three key facts which explain why air travel to wildlife destinations is not only justified, but desirable:

1)     Nature is a key tool in the fight against Climate change. According to a report by The Nature Conservancy, natural climate solutions can provide 37% of the greenhouse gas mitigation required between now and 2030[2].  Conversely, nature-related emissions are one of the greatest sources of climate change related emissions: If deforestation was a country, it would be the third largest emitter in the planet[3], after the US and China.

2)     Nature conservation largely depends on tourism revenue. If you want a detailed explanation of the subject you can consult my previous article[4] on this platform. Tourism’s role in supporting conservation areas applies not just to emerging markets (where the dependency is extreme), but also to rich countries. For example, almost 70% of the US state wildlife agencies’ budgets are funded by park entry fees, concession fees, hunting and fishing rights[5]. To make things worse, unlike Europe or the US, governments of less developed countries cannot afford to cover the budget of their wildlife agencies for any length of time in the absence of tourists.

Furthermore, most of the wildlife habitat available for key species is outside of protected areas (e.g. according to carnivore conservation group Lion Landscapes close to half of the African lion habitat is outside of formally protected areas). These areas not only tend to depend on tourism income, they have higher levels of human wildlife conflict and lack of tourism – lion related income – reduces tolerance to wildlife.

Wildlife conservation is incompatible with many other income-generating land uses, the most important ones are intensive and extensive monocultures (irrigation crops, or cereals), and plantation timber production. Even potentially wildlife-compatible uses such as livestock husbandry require careful management and incentives to avoid a situation where biomass-units of wildlife are relentlessly replaced with livestock (e.g. in the Laikipia ecosystem, the ratio of wildlife-to-livestock has consistently reduced to less than half over the last twenty years).

If your safari tourists turned into irrational anti-air travel activists, the loss of revenue would quickly translate into deforestation and biodiversity loss en-masse. Carbon would be released at a high and most likely irreversible rate.

 3)     Commercial aviation linked to wildlife tourism accounts for less than 0.2% of global emissions[6].

While admittedly the travel and transport sector is an important source of CO2 emissions, we need to break that down. Not all transport is born equal. In Europe, 27% of emissions come from transportation emissions. Of those 79% are from cars, with aviation accounting only 14% (or 3.8% of total in Europe[7]). The figures at a global scale are much lower.

Some often misquote the total contribution of transport[8] to global climate-related emissions (14%) as the contribution of commercial aviation. However, if you dig a bit deeper, you will see that globally, commercial aviation represents a much smaller part of emissions, between 2%[9] [10] and 2.4%[11] depending on the source.

There is more, let’s use Africa, the main focus of Okavango Capital’s investment activity, as an example. As you know already, conservation areas are extremely dependent on tourism income. According to the UNWTO, 49% of tourists to Africa arrive by air. These travellers represent $60-70 billion of economic activity in the region, and account for 9% of exports (in cases such as Ethiopia, up to 46% of dollar export receipts)[12]. But more importantly, according to the World Travel and Tourism Council wildlife tourism represents nearly 4% of global receipts in tourism and travel[13] with a much larger percentage in Africa.

In addition, UNWTO indicates that 7% of global tourism relates to wildlife [14]. If we assume that tourism activity and emissions go hand-in-hand, this would translate into 0.14% of global emissions linked to air transport for wildlife tourism.

In summary, what some math-challenged activists are asking you to do is to put at risk the financial viability of millions of acres of critically important ecosystems – which help enormously in biodiversity, rural livelihoods and against climate change- all for the sake of reducing an activity that is marginal in terms of climate related emissions. Is this not a bit insane? I would say so.

What can you do? Start looking for your next holiday to a wildlife area during the lockdown. Explore cool destinations in remote ecosystems. Find ways to learn about and engage in conservation projects that protect wildlife and help humans coexist with nature. Focus on the positive economic impact your trip can have on rural livelihoods. Do not feel guilty, book that long-haul flight to a wildlife area as soon as you can.

You can start planning a safari at the heart of the Serengeti great migration area at Ndutu Safari Lodge, or many other equally relevant conservation destinations.

Photo: Elephants crossing the Luangwa river in Zambia, where BioCarbon Partners is protecting over 1 million hectares (10,000 km2) of pristine savanna forest in partnership with communities.

If you really want to make double the difference, you should offset your flight’s (and everyday life) carbon footprint. Our portfolio company BioCarbon Partners will help you do so while helping over 200,000 rural African citizens and protecting almost 600 million trees over 1 million hectares of key habitat for lion, elephant and other key species.

If you want to reduce your footprint, drive less, put on a sweater (and lower your house’s thermostat), consume less beef and more venison (or garden vegetables), switch your air conditioning off in hot climates. And yes, do think twice about commercial flying if all you want to do is go on a shopping spree in a big city, or attend a meeting you could solve with a Zoom videocall (a lot of those emissions we could live without!). Just do not stop visiting wildlife areas.

It is actually quite simple: if you care about the planet and wildlife conservation, make sure you visit wildlife areas as soon as the lock-down ends, and get your priorities about climate change right - focus on meaningful ways to reduce your carbon footprint. Reducing travel to wildlife areas is not a wise solution as it is likely to result in biodiversity loss and higher emissions due to deforestation, land use.

Until then, stay safe.

____________________

Josep Oriol is founder and managing partner at Okavango Capital Partners, an investment firm focusing on climate, nature conservation and rural livelihoods.

[email protected]

References:

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/21/travelsenvironmentalimpact.ethicalliving; https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/oct/16/responsible-travel-offsetting

[2] https://www.iucn.org/news/europe/201810/nature-based-solutions-are-key-achieving-europes-ambitious-climate-change-targets

[3] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/11/chart-of-the-day-what-if-deforestation-were-a-country/

[4] https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/four-reasons-why-covid-19-spells-trouble-wildlife-what-josep-oriol/

[5] https://www.npr.org/2018/03/20/593001800/decline-in-hunters-threatens-how-u-s-pays-for-conservation?t=1588076000754

[6] (Disclaimer) Calculation based on estimate of 7% of total tourism being linked to wildlife, and 2% of global emissions being linked to air travel. This is an inaccurate estimate, as wildlife travel could entail shorter or longer average flights. However, it provides a very clear sense of the magnitude of Wildlife tourism's air-travel emissions vs other types.

[7] https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/transport-emissions-of-greenhouse-gases/transport-emissions-of-greenhouse-gases-12

[8] https://www.wri.org/blog/2019/10/everything-you-need-know-about-fastest-growing-source-global-emissions-transport

[9] https://www.iata.org/en/policy/environment/climate-change/

[10] https://www.atag.org/facts-figures.html

[11] https://theicct.org/publications/co2-emissions-commercial-aviation-2018

[12] https://www.unwto.org/global-and-regional-tourism-performance

[13] https://travesiasdigital.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/The-Economic-Impact-of-Global-Wildlife-Tourism-Final-19.pdf

[14] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/22/the-world-needs-wildlife-tourism-but-that-wont-work-without-wildlife