A Definition of Ecotourism
"Ecotourism is environmentally responsible travel and visitation to relatively undisturbed natural areas, in order to enjoy and appreciate nature (and any accompanying cultural features - both past and present) that promotes conservation, has low negative visitor impact, and provides for beneficially active socio-economic involvement of local populations" (Ceballos-Lascurain, Tourism, Ecotourism and Protected Areas, IUCN, 1996)
Here is a discussion of this definition:
Subject: [iye2002] IYE2002 Ecotourism Definition discussion AGAIN??!!!
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 07:51:22 -0500
From: "Arq. Hector Ceballos-Lascurain (PICE)" <ceballos@laneta.apc.org>
To: iye2002@yahoogroups.com
Dear colleagues,
I have been swamped with work over the last few months (coordinating a 12-country UNEP/UNDP/GEF/BPSP Study on Biodiversity/Tourism) and have just been peering occasionally into your very interesting discussions.
I see that the old problem of arriving to an accepted definition of ecotourism has come up AGAIN!!! I think I have attended twenty meetings in the last two years on this subject (and will soon be attending another one - the CBD meeting in Santo Domingo next month!), and my experience has been that after discussing for hours and days we seem to arrive to an agreement, and then again the Tower of Babel sets in! Frankly, it's becoming too repetitive.
Since I am widely blamed for having coined the term "ecotourism" and its preliminary definition back in 1983, I would like to express my thoughts on this subject.
Exactly a year ago, Ron Mader kindly asked me to act as moderator/facilitator
for the "Definitions and Applications Group" of the
Sustainable Ecotourism in North America On-line Conference, hosted by Planeta.com
between May 8-19 2000, which had a total of 45 active participants. After much
discussion it was agreed (not unanimously, I must add) that the most appropriate
thing was to accept a universal definition of ecotourism as an international
framework (in order to understand what we are talking about), and that the official
IUCN definition (which is my own) should be accepted. Since IUCN is (arguably)
considered the institution with the widest coverage and influence of all the
international conservation organizations (especially as a think tank) , it was
also considered a practical thing to do.
The IUCN definition is: "Ecotourism is environmentally responsible travel and visitation to relatively undisturbed natural areas, in order to enjoy and appreciate nature (and any accompanying cultural features - both past and present) that promotes conservation, has low negative visitor impact, and provides for beneficially active socio-economic involvement of local populations (Ceballos-Lascurain, Tourism, Ecotourism and Protected Areas, IUCN, 1996)".
I will cite some of the comments and conclusions of our on-line forum:
"The IUCN definition (widely recognized as containing all the main elements
of ecotourism) received criticism from some participants as being “too
wordy”. However, when attempting to provide alternative and ‘streamlined’
wording, in several cases the proposed definitions contained more words than
the original definition or produced only minor, irrelevant changes. It was commented
that IUCN’s definition was reached after long discussions (lasting more
than four years) in many fora in various
countries around the world, having received the input of very many people and
institutions. The proposed definition was discussed at the First World Conservation
Congress organized by IUCN in Montreal in October 1996, which was attended by
well over 1000 participants from more than 100 countries. IUCN officially adopted
this definition during the Congress by means of Resolution CGR 1.67 'Ecotourism
and Protected Area Conservation'. To propose a new definition that would have
a similar worldwide acceptance would probably be unpractical. Also, to propose
to IUCN modifying their official definition would probably take another four
years to discuss and maybe at the end it would not be resolved upon".
"There was wide consensus (in our on-line discussions last year) that the main components and issues that should be considered in defining ecotourism are, broadly speaking: nature, local community, economics, conservation, culture, and interpretation.
>In a more detailed way, it was agreed upon by most participants that ecotourism
should be characterized by the following standards:
>1. Tourism activity is carried out in a relatively undisturbed natural setting.
>2. Negative impacts of tourism activity are minimized
>3. Conserves natural and cultural heritage
>4. Actively involves local communities in the process, providing benefits
to them
>5. Contributes to sustainable development and is a profitable business
>6. Education/appreciation/interpretation component (of both natural and
cultural heritage) must be present"
End of quote. Another reason for advocating the adoption of IUCN's definition is that (to my most updated knowledge), over 30 countries around the world, as well as important NGOs (including The Nature Conservancy) have already accepted this IUCN definition and apply it every day to their projects and programmes.
I generally agree with Andy Drumm's comment on Oliver's suggestion: "As for revisiting definitions, lets not get bogged down in that again, I think Oliver's suggestion about defining principles for each interest group may be more productive." Yes, but before that I think it is indispensable to have a universal adopted definition of ecotourism as a general framework, and then from there have every interest group define their own specific, local principles. But, let's let them do their own thing.
So, I would respectfully ask everybody if we could center (at least for a moment) our discussion on the abovementioned IUCN definition. Is it appropriate? Does it lack something? Is there a better definition out there?
>I completely agree with Bob Ryan's closing remark in his most recent
>e-mail: "Surely there is enough good will available to agree a
>definition. Please don't tell me it is too hard."
I am travelling in a few minutes to Sonora (northern Mexico), but will get back to my computer on this weekend.
Thank you!
Best regards!
Hector Ceballos-Lascurain
Director General,
Programme of International Consultancy on Ecotourism
Special Adviser on Ecotorism to IUCN
Director General PICE
Program of International Consultancy on Ecotourism
Programa Internacional de Consultoría en Ecoturismo
Camino Real al Ajusco 551
Col. Xolalpa (Tepepan), Tlalpan
14649 Mexico DF, MEXICO
Tel: (52) 5 676 8734
Fax: (52) 5 676 5285
e-mail: ceballos@laneta.apc.org
Web site: http://www.ceballos-lascurain.com
Subject: RE: [iye2002] IYE2002 Ecotourism Definition discussion AGAIN??!!!
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 06:39:18 +1000
From: Bob Ryan <bob.ryan@bigpond.com>
Reply-To: iye2002@yahoogroups.com
Dear all,
"Ecotourism is environmentally responsible travel and visitation to relatively undisturbed natural areas, in order to enjoy and appreciate nature (and any accompanying cultural features - both past and present) that promotes conservation, has low negative visitor impact, and provides for beneficially active socio-economic involvement of local populations (Ceballos-Lascurain, Tourism, Ecotourism and Protected Areas, IUCN, 1996)".
The above definition, which has taken years to be agreed by a significant body, is a description rather than a definition. The question we must ask is "does this definition serve the required purpose". The problem of a universal definition is complicated by the different perspectives of people with different objectives (Conservation, community development or commercial tourism) from different regions with different needs.
"The term has eluded firm definition because it is a complex notion which ambitiously attempts to describe an activity, set forth a philosophy and espouse a model of development" (Ziffer 1989)
The above definition does not meet the needs of all people in all areas which
is why it does not serve as an internationally accepted definition. Others have
expressed the view that different regions should be left to develop their own
definitions; I agree. The objective of any definition should be that it has
sufficient measurable criteria and local support to be used to differentiate
between good and poor ecotourism operations in a court of law. Consider the
problems that arise when a successful operation grows to a point where the environmental
impacts are no longer sustainable without any change in the nature of the operation.
Protected area managers would seek to limit the operation and commercial operators
(or community operators) may not choose to see the impacts in the same light
as the land managers. How many times have we seen a contest between tourism
operators
and protected area managers where the political power sides with the commercial
or local development perspective?
We need to control access to the use of the ecotourism label. It is the only tool we have to manage the concept. With a spectrum of locally applied definitions what should be the role of an international body? Surely it is to provide leadership and ensure that the different definitions do not stray from the ecotourism concept. To meet that objective what is needed is more a mission statement than a definition and while I recognise that the above works better as a mission statement than a definition is still less than satisfactory. (What is responsible travel?)
With due respect to Ceballos Lascurain I believe the ecotourism concept was expressed before the term was coined. The beauty (and the value) of the term is that it sends a message that we all understand. Geraldo Budowski (1976) suggested that tourism and conservation could form a symbiotic relationship. I believe that the concept of symbiosis is the essence of ecotourism. We all know that natural areas (sometimes including indigenous communities) provide a resource for tourism. In a symbiotic relationship tourism also provides a benefit to nature conservation. The community development perspective is accommodated in the acceptance that poor rural communities and indigenous populations are an integral part of the natural environment.
I think I have said all I have to say on this topic. I acknowledge the frustration of those who have tried so hard to resolve the question of definitions. Their efforts are not wasted but the objective has not yet been achieved.
For my money a mission statement would be Ecotourism is a symbiotic relationship
between tourism and nature conservation. The criteria I would hope the various
definitions would meet are
* The activity must be nature based. This simple statement is subject to wide
interpretation. It does not imply that the setting must be pristine or unmodified.
It does not exclude settings that include exotic species or are substantially
or totally comprised of introduced species. It does not imply any specific level
of physical activity. It means that the motivation for undertaking the activity
in a particular setting is provided by expectations of satisfaction that are
directly related to the natural qualities of the setting.
* The activity must be environmentally sustainable. It is this criterion that
supports the contention that ecotourism is better
understood as a process rather than a product. To ensure environmental impacts
of tourism activities are sustainable it is necessary to have a process for
monitoring environmental impacts and the ability (and willingness) to limit
or mitigate the impacts of tourism and recreation within the limits of acceptable
change.
* The activity must make a contribution to nature conservation. With this criterion
it is possible to accommodate a variety of conditions to satisfy a range of
perspectives in different countries or regions. The economic, social and cultural
conditions in a region or country will influence how a positive contribution
to the environment is perceived. In countries with well managed protected natural
area estates and systems of social welfare to provide a minimum standard of
living the contribution to conservation may be identified by the environmental
education component of an activity. National agencies representing ecotourism
may detail how the educational component is to be evaluated.
In countries where poor rural communities rely on natural areas to maintain
a subsistence life style, the contribution to conservation may be measured by
the degree to which the impact of local communities is reduced. The contribution
to conservation may be made directly by the tourism related activities, or indirectly
by facilities provided with the funds generated
from ecotourism.
My contribution is complete. It is not intended to be divisive. I continue to promote the concept because, regardless of definitions, the application of the concept achieves good things.
Bob Ryan
22/6 Antis St Phillip, Canberra, ACT, 2606
Australia.
phone & fax (61) (02) 6285 0144
bob.ryan@bigpond.com