$1.5 billion City of Arts and Sciences museum complex in Valencia, Spain

Top European tourist destinations such as Greece, Italy, and Spain are among the worst-hit by the economic crisis that has been tormenting Europe since 2008. Many people have been evicted from their houses and have lost their jobs. Yet even though the situation might seem hopeless to some, others see new opportunities and are trying to overcome the crisis by turning to new forms of tourism.

Entrepreneurial residents of the Greek islands are seizing the economic crisis as an opportunity to make career changes and launch tourism projects that are new to the islands. Their aim is to move away from mass tourism packages to novel alternative activities such as Greek cooking classes, biking and trekking tours, geotourism, and meditation holidays. Alex Christou, until recently an IT professional in Thessaloniki, is among those launching innovative projects such as Green Corfu, an online network to promote alternative tourism in Corfu, with members such as organic farms, holiday retreats in the wetlands, and even a microbrewery.

Meanwhile Italy is set to start renting out historic monuments such as castles and monasteries to luxury hotel chains for development and use as niche resorts, in the hopes that this will help to pay off some of its large debt. “It is a project to promote the effective management of Italian cultural heritage which includes properties that are rarely used or have fallen into disuse,” Italian state property firm L’Agenzia del Demanio told RT. This initiative aims to not only alleviate the Italian debt but also to revitalize the Italian tourism industry. Because of a lack of financial resources, some of these sites are in need of urgent restoration and maintenance, which they will receive once they are leased.

One of the most remarkable initiatives is taking place in Valencia, Spain, where tourists can join a guided tour called the “Ruta del Despilfarro” or “Route of Wastefulness.” The tour visits sites where, according to the tour leaders, large amounts of public money were wasted on major projects -nicknamed “black holes” because of their excessive construction costs – which contributed to making Valencia the most indebted region in Spain. Stops on the tour include the US $1.5-billion City of Arts and Sciences museum complex, the $83-million marina upgrade built for the America Cup’s race, and the $388-million half-built soccer stadium. The tour also passes by trailers where children attend school because their government cannot afford to repair existing buildings. Its organizers include professors and journalists who have lost their jobs because of the economic crisis, and who say they started the tour not only to make money but also to raise awareness on the city’s corruption. Although launched fairly recently, the tour has become a huge success, already attracting over 1,000 visitors.

In several other European cities, similar “corruption tours” have sprung up, with the goal of showing tourists the causes of the current situation: the fraud and waste that lead to indebted governments. In the Czech Republic, travel agency CorruptTour recently started a tour in Prague that passes by luxury villas owned by the city’s wealthy few, a railway placed in a totally illogical location, a massive concrete mausoleum and an empty meadow hosting an Olympic stadium that was funded but never built. As with its Spanish counterpart, this tour was an overnight success. The travel agency even sells ironic corruption-themed souvenirs, such as anti-wiretapping devices.

It just goes to prove that no matter how dire the economic situation, there is still room for innovative ideas. In troubled European tourism hotspots, creative entrepreneurs are finding new ways of looking at their destinations – and perhaps a ray of hope for the future as well.

With all this development on the agenda, however, there’s an impetus to learn from the mistakes of previous coastal development programs. Previously, most coastal tourism projects operated along essentially the same lines, creating functionally the same types of destinations. Now, experts are questioning whether that model still works.

In his keynote presentation at the recent Executive Symposium for Innovators in Coastal Tourism, Jonathan Tourtellot of National Geographic showed an image of a female tourist lounging on a white sand beach in front of an anonymous, boxy hotel. “Where is this?” he asked the audience. No one could identify the location. “It happens to be Florida, but it could be anywhere,” Tourtellot said. “There’s nothing here to tell you where you are.”

Highrise resort hotels on a Florida beach. Photo by Innisfree Hotels used under a Flickr Creative Commons license.

This, Tourtellot indicated, was a huge problem. Tourists may be attracted by sunshine and beaches, but sun-and-sand destinations are numerous and largely interchangeable. Unless a destination has something unique on offer – something that no other destination can provide – travelers will look for the cheapest sun-and-sand option, without a preference for a specific place. A classic example of this is the Mexican city of Acapulco. The destination of choice for wealthy foreigners during the 1950s, Acapulco now receives almost no international tourist visits. Because Acapulco had nothing in particular to distinguish it from any other party town on the beach, it was easily replaced when other “it” beach destinations were born.

Because of this pattern, which has been repeated in many places all over the world, Tourtellot emphasized the need for coastal tourism destinations to focus on their most unique attributes in order to attract and maintain traveler interest. Even today, coastal development tends to be almost cookie-cutter in its uniformity, often destroying distinctive elements of the natural and cultural landscape that could and should be the destination’s greatest assets. There are plenty of beautiful beaches in the world. But beautiful beaches with coral reefs, coastal forests, rocky cliffs, towering sand dunes, or majestic wildlife? Beautiful beaches with centuries-old ruins, colorful villages, seaside monasteries, seasonal festivals? Suddenly they become less interchangeable – which is precisely the point.

Highlighting the uniqueness of a destination feeds directly into the destination’s sustainability—economic, environmental, and cultural. Capitalizing on environmental treasures necessarily means reducing water, energy, and pesticide use, because anything that damages the environment interferes with business. Capitalizing on cultural treasures necessarily includes training and hiring local people to work in the destination, because supporting the local economy and engendering pride of place are vital to the destination’s continued health. Focusing on destination uniqueness and sustainability can create a virtuous circle by which business, environment, and community can all flourish. And lest this all sound overly idealistic, Sonu Shivdasani, founder of the award-winning Six Senses and Soneva resorts, used precisely this philosophy to catapult his “barefoot luxury” resorts to success.

Emphasizing the uniqueness of emerging destinations is a new model for the tourism industry to get used to, but ultimately it is the right path to take. Speaking alongside Tourtellot at the Executive Symposium for Innovators in Coastal Tourism, Dinda Elliott of Condé Nast Traveler said, “Sustainability is about the survival of tourism as an industry.” By making sure that emerging and extant tourism destinations develop along sustainable lines that capitalize on the uniqueness of each destination, we ensure that there will be no more Acapulcos. Travelers and travel professionals alike will breathe easier, secure in the knowledge that the destinations we visit will remain beautiful for years to come.

The program, which the NSW government calls “Supplementary Pest Control,” targets pests including rabbits, hares, wild dogs, pigs, goats, deer and foxes. It is currently expected to go into effect in July, although the start date remains under discussion. Similar schemes have been introduced in Victoria and South Australia.

A 2009 report by the Invasive Species Council of Australia stated that “it is likely that greater harm than good has resulted from recreational hunting of feral animals” and that “evidence indicates that recreational hunting is not effective as a major or primary method of feral animal control.”

A NSW parliamentary paper published the following year cited recent studies indicating that “professional, targeted feral animal control is much more successful than recreational hunting.”

Bushwalking in Kosciuszko National Park. Photo by Michael Jordan, used under a Flickr Creative Commons license.

Last month, an opinion poll revealed that the majority of NSW residents are opposed to the new laws. Alex Greenwich, the Member of Parliament who commissioned the poll, said this shows how concerned the community is about these proposed changes.

“The community is gravely concerned about the impact this will have on the families, ecotourists and bushwalkers who value the safety of our national parks,” he said. “National parks should not be turned into shooting grounds where hunters kill and maim animals for fun while ruining peace with gun shots and putting visitors at risk.”

The National Parks Association of NSW echoes this sentiment. “The results of this poll are a reminder to the Premier that his choice of actions around the hunting in national parks issue are politically motivated and do not serve the majority of NSW residents,” said Justin McKee, Campaign Coordinator for the organization. “No one disputes that there is a pest animal problem, but the Premier is failing to deal constructively with the issue. Recreational hunters have not achieved any real conservation gains through hunting in State Forests.”

Russ Nelson, President of the Brisbane Catholic Bushwalking Club, believes that while the government should act to minimize feral animal populations in national parks, the implementation of such processes needs to be carefully considered. “Such action should be properly resourced and managed and at the same time minimize the risk to people with in the vicinity of such action,” he said.

“We’re worried, a lot of bushwalkers are,” David Trinder, president of Bushwalking NSW, told news.com.au. “It’s a common conversation topic; bushwalkers are afraid that the native animals might be shot and that they’ll cop a stray bullet as well.”

One experienced bushwalker who frequently visits national parks in northern New South Wales said he will be staying away from tracks there once the new hunting rules take effect. “I won’t be walking there anymore,” said the bushwalker, who prefers to remain anonymous. “People will die.”

He added that “rangers working across the proposed national parks have expressed concerns for their safety.” During a recent walking trip, rangers told the bushwalker that they were asking for flak jackets and other safety equipment once the new laws come into effect.

“The risk of serious injury or death to park visitors and staff from accidental shooting is very real,” said another ranger, who also wishes to remain anonymous.

In New Zealand, where recreational hunting in national parks is legal, approximately one person is killed every nine months. In 2012, Alexander McDonald was killed when a member of another hunting party accidentally shot him in the head, and school teacher Rosemary Ives was killed during a camping trip when she was mistaken for a deer and fatally shot. In the majority of cases, the accidental shootings are due to human error – failing to properly identify the target before firing.

The NSW Government Game Council has proposed several safety measures, including a required Restricted Game license and a mandatory code of practice. Only time will tell whether or not these measures will be successful in minimizing fatalities.

Photo: Travelers Against Plastic (TAP)

Purchasing a plastic bottle of water or two while traveling may not seem like a huge deal on an individual level, but multiply that by the number of travelers crisscrossing the globe every day and the impact is massive. On a global scale, 2.7 million tons of plastic are used annually for water bottles. Of the billions of single-use water bottles consumed in the United States every year, 86 percent end up as litter or in landfills; in many countries this number is even higher. For local communities stuck dealing with the waste, plastic bottles can be a big problem.

Yet the environmental impact of plastic bottles goes beyond the question of garbage. PET plastic is made from crude oil, with toxic emissions 100 times those of glass production. In the US alone, more than 1.5 million barrels of oil are consumed annually to produce plastic water bottles – enough to fuel 100,000 American cars for a year. Add to that the fuel consumption and other transportation costs of hauling all those bottles around – often over long distances – and the energy use becomes truly astounding.

Plastic bottles littering a beach. Photo: TAP.

Most responsible travelers recognize that buying disposable plastic water bottles is bad for the environment – not to mention expensive – but that awareness doesn’t always translate into widespread behavioral change. In many cases, what’s holding travelers back is not a lack of will but a lack of awareness of how to eliminate their reliance on bottled water.

“I see responsible travelers who would never buy a plastic water bottle at home, but as soon as they travel abroad it’s a different story,” says Chris Mackay, co-founder of Travelers Against Plastic – appropriately shortened to TAP – a new campaign that aims to get rid of plastic water bottle waste by educating travelers and promoting simple solutions for safe drinking water on the go.

TAP organizers estimate that US travelers alone discard up to 3.5 billion plastic bottles worldwide on an annual basis. Many travelers buy bottled water simply because they don’t know what else to do, but Mackay points out that there are many viable alternatives. To make things as convenient as possible for travelers, TAP has partnered with Klean Kanteen and SteriPEN to offer a quick and easy way to treat water. Klean Kanteen makes durable metal water bottles that can be reused over and over again. SteriPEN is a simple gadget that purifies water using UB light technology, destroying more than 99.9 percent of bacteria, viruses, and protozoan cysts such as giardia and cryptosporidia. One SteriPEN will clean as many as 8,000 liters of water.

“The mission of TAP is just to get people to stop using plastic water bottles. I don’t care what system they use, but we’re just making it easy by suggesting something right off the bat. I’ve used just about every method out there to clean water, and I’ve found that SteriPEN is easy,” says Mackay. “It’s not something that requires people to think really hard and make a challenging choice. It truly is easy. And it’s cheaper than buying all that bottled water, too.”

TAP co-founder Chris Mackay with her reusable water bottle. Photo: TAP.

Mackay is co-founder and executive director of Crooked Trails, a Seattle-based nonprofit tour organization and a leader in educating people and communities about responsible travel. “We have always required that people who travel with us come prepared to clean their own water so we don’t leave a trail of plastic water bottles behind us,” Mackay explains. The idea for TAP grew out of Mackay’s desire to see other travelers follow suit.

Mackay enlisted the support of fellow Seattleite Kurt Kutay, founding president of Wildland Adventures and director of the nonprofit Travelers Conservation Trust. A sustainable tourism pioneer, Kutay was immediately enthusiastic about TAP, signing on as co-founder of the campaign and bringing the energy and talents of Wildland’s marketing and communications team to the effort.

“It is our responsibility as tour operators to educate our clients that simple steps like bringing reusable water bottles and a SteriPen or filtering system will make a huge difference to the communities we visit and even sends a message to local residents that they can do the same thing,” Kutay says.

TAP officially launched on March 22, 2013, and the response has been enthusastic and global. “We’ve had tour operators from Russia, Colombia, Sri Lanka, Ecuador, Panama, Canada, and the USA all sign on already,” says Mackay. “We’ve also had well over 100 people already sign the pledge as individual travelers.”

SUPPORT TAP: To demonstrate your commitment to stamping out plastic, visit the TAP website and take the pledge to avoid buying bottled water. You can also purchase SteriPENs and Klean Kanteen bottles with the TAP logo. For all purchases made directly through the TAP website, Klean Kanteen and SteriPEN will donate five percent of their profits to the TAP campaign. TAP also welcomes donations and volunteers to help with the campaign’s educational efforts.

Tour operators are invited to join TAP by adding a TAP logo to their websites, spreading the word about the campaign, and supplying their travelers with pre-departure information about how to avoid bottled water.

Reusable TAP water bottle on a beach. Photo: Jonathan Burnham, Wildland Adventures.

Avaaz, an international advocacy and campaigning community, has recently realized this potential in a campaign in the Maldvies against an outdated law that has led to a 15-year-old rape victim being sentenced to 100 lashes. The Maldives rely heavily on tourism, and the fact that nearly two million people have signed this petition shows the potential power that tourists have. The Maldives’ former president Mohamed Nasheed recognized this potential when he asked for a tourism boycott last year, telling the UK Financial Times newspaper that tourists visiting the country would just be bankrolling an illegitimate government.

The idea of shunning a country is far from new. Burmese democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi called for a tourism boycott of her country in 1999, arguing that tourism is “a form of moral support for [the military regime]…they seem to look on the influx of tourists as proof that their actions are accepted by the world.” This decade-long boycott was declared ”over” in late 2010 following a statement from the National League for Democracy, the Burmese political opposition party led by Suu Kyi. In 2011, Survival International called for a boycott of Botswana following the closure of a local waterhole essential to the Bushmen at the Central Kalahari Game Reserve. This boycott was only lifted when the Bushman won the legal case and the borehole was reopened after nine years.

Sometimes the proposed tourism boycott is just for a particular area or a particular company. Environmentalists are calling for a tourist season boycott of a New Jersey shore town in the USA over the local council’s decision to use tropical hardwood to rebuild their boardwalk. Harpseals.org pushes for a Canadian tourism boycott in a bid to end seal hunting. British tourists are being asked to boycott Thai elephant camps, something international animal activist group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animal (PETA) has strongly supported. Dutch journalist Jos van Noord called for a boycott of Egypt and other Arab countries last year in order to stop violence against local Christians. However, Arab-West Report argues that this tourism boycott will only hurt Christians, saying the international travel community should instead be working to promote and reinvigorate tourism in the Middle East as so much of the local economy relies on this trade.

Last year’s arrest and conviction of the first gay hotel owners in Granada, Nicaragua, has “prompted some members of the gay community to boycott Nicaragua tourism,” according to The Nicaragua Dispatch. The authorities claim that the Belgian men were exploiting minors; however supporters insist that the foreigners were targeted because of their sexual orientation. The town has already seen a drop in local tourism, although it is unclear whether this is a result of the boycott or of fear.

Back in the Maldives, recently dismissed Chinese employees of the Beach House Iruveli resort have claimed discrimination against staff and tourists from China. Initial reports suggest that, following an eruption of such claims through Chinese social media networks several potential tourists from that nation are concerned and reluctant to make reservations – not just with the resort but in the Maldives in general.

But do tourism boycotts actually achieve anything?

Corporate Ethics International’s Michael Max argues that “boycotts don’t have to reduce the number of tourists to be successful…The reality is that the mere awareness of a boycott causes the target constituency and its supporters to attend more to criticism of their government’s or companies’ policies and inevitably they become more aware of the legitimacy of the criticism.”

Travel consultant David Beirman, however, told Australia’s The Sydney Morning Herald in 2007 that boycotts can be counterproductive as they hurt local people who rely on an income from tourism. This argument was widely used during the Burma boycott; Lonely Planet co-founder Tony Wheeler was particularly vocal in encouraging travel to the insulated nation over the past decade.

Should travelers adhere to calls for boycotts? 

Travel, particularly ethical travel, is a highly personal journey. Traveling exposures us to new ideas and concepts. By opening ourselves to these experiences, we will undoubtedly be faced with difficult moral and ethical decisions. Ethical travelers have a duty to make themselves aware of these issues and to act both appropriately and responsibly.

The best advice is to ensure that you are well informed of the political, social, and economic contexts of your destination before you travel, and make your own decision about whether you want your hard-earned cash to support that particular institution or regime. Wherever possible, try to support local businesses.

“We live in a wonderful world that is full of beauty, charm and adventure. There is no end to the adventures we can have if only we seek them with our eyes open.”

- Jawaharlal Nehru, first Prime Minister of India

“Never before has there been such an abundance of evidence demonstrating that socially and environmentally responsible travel has now entered the mainstream. It crosses age and income groups, different types of tourism, and destinations around the globe,” CREST Co-Director Dr. Martha Honey said in a press release.

At the consumer level, numerous pieces of market research indicate that the desire for greater social and environmental sustainability is a growing trend among travelers. This coincides with a drive to get away from “cookie cutter” vacations in favor of travel experiences that are unique, authentic and meaningful. CREST’s meta-analysis shows that travelers are not only seeking out unique and ethical experiences, but are also prepared to pay for them. In addition, the rise of traveler’s philanthropy programs and volontourism indicate that consumers increasingly desire to give back to the communities that they visit as tourists. These twin desires for unique and ethical experiences along with “giving back” have placed increasing pressure on tourism suppliers to improve their social and environmental responsibility.

Partly based on this demand from consumers, a growing number of businesses are paying more attention to sustainable operations. In the words of Bruce Poon Tip, founder and CEO of G Adventures (quoted in the CREST report), “Sustainability is at the forefront of our business model because of customer demand.”

Embracing responsible business practices at the environmental and social levels has a number of benefits for businesses. In addition to meeting a growing consumer demand, responsible practices give a competitive advantage in terms of branding and product differentiation. Beyond these advantages, businesses can also reduce costs and improve efficiencies, meet emerging legal and regulatory requirements, and improve employee satisfaction by engaging staff in corporate social responsibility (CSR). Even more compelling, however, is that companies that adopted environmental, social, and governance policies in the 1990s outperformed those that did not, according to a 2011 report by the Harvard Business School. In other words, responsible business practices are not just good for public relations. They are actually a vital factor in predicting business success.

The strongest case for responsible practices in tourism, however, is the fact that the tourism industry as a whole depends on the health of the destination. Even beyond the scope of individual businesses, attention is now being focused on enhancing environmental and social sustainability within entire tourism destinations. Criteria for “green” destinations are currently being developed, most notably by the Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC), as well as by the European Union, National Geographic’s Geotourism Program, EarthCheck, and Green Globe. CREST also highlighted Ethical Traveler’s annual report on the World’s Best Ethical Destinations in this context.

Hand in hand with sustainable destination criteria, destination partnerships are emerging as a holistic, multi-stakeholder approach towards achieving sustainability. And since integrated ecotourism can return as much as 95 percent of revenues to the local economy, as opposed to about 20 percent for standard package tours, incorporating destination-wide sustainability goals can be a key force in achieving the maximum possible positive impact from tourist arrivals. Building on the success of the trends study, CREST is currently planning an Executive Symposium for Innovators in Coastal Tourism to bring together the movers and shakers of the coastal tourism industry.

The findings from the CREST study indicate beyond a doubt that responsible travel has entered the mainstream travel market, and that its influence is growing. “The tourism sector is embracing responsible tourism not as an option, but as a condition for its continuous growth,” Luigi Cabrini, director for sustainable development at the World Tourism Organization, said in the CREST press release. With the knowledge that sustainable tourism is backed by sound economic data using a triple bottom line, a move toward improved sustainability in all aspects of the tourism industry seems a reasonable expectation for the future .

French Guiana is a French territory in the northwestern part of the South American continent, and Saül is in the heart of the country. The secluded town is so far off the beaten path that it is accessible only by plane or helicopter. The town depends upon the Limonade for food and clean water and attracts scientists and ecotourists because of its biodiversity.

The decision to allow gold mining was made by authorities in distant Paris and is particularly controversial because Saül is located in Guiana’s only national park, Guiana Amazonian Park. Gold mining has been restricted in the area since the park’s inception in 2007.

Dr. Pierre Michel Forget of France’s National Museum of National History, Ecology and Biodiversity Management, stated in an e-mail that mining will destroy most of the river. He said Rexma plans to “regenerate the forest by planting trees, but it’s impossible to replace it as it was.”

Gold mining has already caused destruction elsewhere in rainforests of French Guiana. Photo by Sean McCann, used under a Flickr Creative Commons license.

Saül’s small population, which is approximated at 160, depends mainly on ecotourists. Forget added, “Surely it will impact the village people for years, not to say decades. It will also ruin the supply of clear water, and will impact and pollute the core of the national park.” The head of the river Limonade, where the mining would take place, is one of the many sources of the Grand Inini River, the principal river in the national park.

Tropical ecologist Sébastien Brosse, who works in the area, said local residents are strongly opposed to mining within 10 kilometers of their home. Brosse noted that Arnaud Montebourg, the French minister in charge of industry and mining, has received a report on the pros and cons of mining in Saül. However, as of February 20 Montebourg has not yet released any information about the specific arguments or the status of his decision.

Brosse added, “There is a gold rush in French Guiana. Ecological and human health consequences are of course important, as underlined by quite a lot of recent scientific studies.”

A 2005 article in the journal Environmental Studies and Technology reported, “Since the late 1980s, several studies have shown that human populations in the Amazon basin are exposed to high mercury levels in their fish diet.” Mercury aids in recovering gold from the soil and then contaminates the water, the article notes. According to Brosse, mining has not yet begun as Rexma is awaiting final authorization from French authorities.

Rainforest Rescue is running a campaign protesting the decision to allow mining in Guiana Amazonian Park. Please add your voice by signing a petition to the French authorities.

Rhino horns are used in a variety of traditional medicines, particularly in China and Vietnam. Despite significant scientific evidence refuting claims of the horn’s medicinal powers, the market is increasing in Asian countries. According to the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), which has been involved in rhino conservation and management in Africa for almost 50 years, rhino horn is not only being used as a cure for cancer and to treat blood disorders, but is also being used by some wealthy citizens as a hangover cure. The horn has also been used to make dagger handles in parts of the Middle East, particularly Yemen and Oman.

WWF has expressed concern about the staggering number of rhinos being hunted and killed annually. South Africa is home to the majority of the world’s rhinos, and the number of these animals poached there each year has increased by more than 5000 percent since 2007. Black rhinos, the prominent species of rhinoceros in South Africa, are considered critically endangered.

Rhinos can currently be legally killed in and exported from South Africa as part of a “trophy hunt”; however, secondary sales and commercial trade remain illegal. Hunting fees are between 500,000 and 1,000,000 rand (US $55,000–$110,000), but experts believe that many of the permits are being used by underground international organizations as a cover for removing horns in cruel and dangerous ways. South African investigators estimate that there have been at least 300 instances in the past four years of rhino horns being exported as a result of fake “trophy hunts.”

Many of these “hunts” are believed to be conducted not by authorized visitors but by experienced game industry insiders who strip the horn from the carcass for export to Asia. According to TRAFFIC, a strategic alliance of WWF and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), rhinos are typically killed using AK-47 assault rifles or other high-caliber single-shot weapons. Recent trends include darting rhinos with M99, a tranquilizer also known as Etorphine that is often used to immobilize large mammals such as elephants. It is believed that many poachers in South Africa are now using this drug to bring down rhinos before removing their horns. The poached rhino is often still alive while the horn is removed, and the animal are left to bleed to death slowly and painfully.

Photo courtesy of Georgina Hockings.

Illegal wildlife trade is increasingly becoming an illicit global economy, estimated to be worth between US$ 5 billion and US $20 billion annually. Rhino horns are considered to be one of the most lucrative wildlife commodities, worth between US $50,000 and $80,000 per kilo. In late 2012, South Africa and Vietnam signed a Memorandum of Understanding in an effort to curb illegal wildlife trafficking between the two states, among other conservation targets. However, many organizations feel that without education in the countries with commercial demand and a recognition of the economic implications of the trade, efforts to curb trafficking in rhino horn will ultimately fail.

Several arrests have been made in recent years in an attempt to stop the illegal exports. In South Africa, 267 alleged poachers are currently facing charges. In November 2012 a Thai national was sentenced to a 40-year jail term in South Africa for illegally exporting more than two dozen rhino horns. Last month, a Zululand traditional healer was arrested and charged with assisting a rhino poacher to evade arrest. South Africa’s University of Pretoria has also recently developed a Rhino DNA Index System (RhODIS), which catalogues rhino DNA in a central database. This information provides vital evidence when prosecuting alleged poachers.

Georgina Hockings, who is currently studying zoology and ecology at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, spent three months in 2011 at the Moholoholo Wildlife Rehabilitation Centre, where she helped hand-raise a black rhino called Landela. Hockings is currently raising funds for the Rhino Orphanage, which cares for young rhinos who have often been orphaned by poachers. “Many baby rhinos are injured as a result of poaching,” she says. “They are either injured or abandoned when their mother is targeted, and with increasing numbers of rhinos being killed, the number of baby orphans is growing.”

There are safe ways to remove rhino horns, and this practice has been implemented by some conservation groups across southern Africa. Zimbabwe brought in the radical practice in 2011 as part of a multi-faceted conservation approach to save the endangered animals.

The solution is not, however, a permanent one. “The horns grow back in three to five years,” Hockings explains, “so the animals are still at risk.” In addition, de-horning still leaves a stub, and poachers have been known to kill rhinos for even this small piece.

Rhino horn is not generally carved to make products, so the practice cannot be fought in the same way that ivory has been targeted in past campaigns. Education about the absence of medicinal properties in rhino horn and awareness by travelers is the best approach. Conservation groups suggest avoiding game reserves in South Africa that farm rhinos for “trophy hunts” and conduct the kills themselves instead of hunters with permits. IUCN is currently developing a Green List aimed at recognizing well-managed protected areas; it is scheduled to launch in mid-2014. This list will include game reserves that are considered to be effective protected areas.

Individuals interested in joining the fight to protect these magnificent creatures are also encouraged to visit WWF’s Saving Rhinos page to learn about ways to help. Another option is to support Savingrhinos.org’s awareness campaign, “My Horn Is Not Medicine.” The campaign website has informational materials available to anyone who wants to help spread the word.

Although this article has focused predominantly on the plight of rhinos in South Africa, endangered rhinos across India, Nepal and Indonesia are facing similar concerns and should not be forgotten.

“The voices of people from South Korea and the entire world have been heard by the South Korean government,” Greenpeace East Asia oceans campaigner Jeonghee Han said in a press release. “The South Korean government’s decision to not take up scientific whaling is another sign that commercial whaling has no place in our oceans. We urge South Korea to abandon all commercial whaling activities in the future.”

The proposal needed to be submitted to the International Whaling Commission (IWC) by December 3, 2012, in order to be considered at the next meeting, currently set for June 2013. According to Greenpeace, once a “research” proposal has been submitted, the IWC can only comment on, not block, it. Had the proposal gone ahead, whaling could have commenced as early as mid-2013.

Photo copyright Jongmyung Park / Greenpeace

“In Korea hundreds of minke whales are killed every year and their meat is traded along the east coast, especially around Ulsan,” Han wrote in a recent blog post. “Whale counts are incomplete but what information there is suggest[s] that the minke whales, which are classified as protected, are declining 5 to 7 percent each year. “

The port of Jangsengpo, near the metropolitan city of Ulsan on the southeast coast, was Korea’s biggest whaling port during the 20th century, before whaling was banned in the area in 1986. Myung Ae Choi, a doctoral candidate at the School of Geography and the Environment at the University of Oxford, recently conducted extensive fieldwork on the effects of whaling in the Ulsan area, and found that many of the local residents miss the “glory” days. She says, “Many locals – whose majority is over middle-aged – miss the whaling period in 1960s and 70s with nostalgic sense as it was the heyday of the area. For the locals, resumption of whaling is the way to get the ‘glory’ back. But it is a bit pathetic as there is no significant whaling industry left except small-scale illegal whaling.”

Whale-based tourism, however, is still popular in the area. The local government runs a variety of tours, including whale-watching boat trips, and visits to a dolphin aquarium and a whale museum. Yet there’s also another element: at the end of their tour tourists can opt to visit a whale-meat restaurant. Whale meat has long been considered a local delicacy, and has traditionally only been available to wealthy individuals. Eating whale meat is therefore advertised as a “privileged experience.”

“There are over 30 restaurants serving whale meat,” Choi explains. “The price varies, but is approximately US $15 to 25 per person. Given that a regular meal in this area costs about US $8 per person, whale meat is quite expensive.” According to Choi, the majority of tourists who visit the region are Korean nationals.

As whaling is officially banned, whale meat is currently only supplied via “by-catch,” which is the unintentional death of whales entangled in nets. However, a recent Sea Shepherd Conservation Society editorial argues that South Korean regulations encourage “deliberate ‘by-catch,’ whereby whales are intentionally killed by netting or left to drown by fishermen when they become entangled in their nets ‘by accident.’”

Choi also reports allegations of increases of illegal whaling in order to meet the increased need for whale-meat. “So, strangely enough, the more whale-related tourism, the more whale sacrifice takes place,” she says.

Greenpeace’s Han says there has been no official announcement from South Korea’s government about withdrawing the scientific whaling proposal, due to conflicting interests, particularly those of local fishermen. Choi confirms that the situation in the area is increasingly complex, saying, “The strange coexistence of whaling and whale-watching tourism in this area is extremely complicated – it has (post) colonial relations with Japan, urban-local inequality, confliction between traditional-modern environmental thoughts and so forth.”

According to Human Rights Watch, these self-immolations highlight the failure of Chinese authorities to address Tibetan grievances. The Dalai Lama himself has acknowledged the protests as a response to the desperate conditions Tibetans face under Beijing control, stating at a news conference in late 2011 that “some kind of cultural genocide is taking place.” China recently banned human rights monitors from entering Tibet, also barring foreign journalists and others from traveling to certain regions of the country.

During the 1950s, the Chinese government enforced, through military occupation, a long-held claim on Tibet. From 1963 until 1971, during the establishment of the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) and the Cultural Revolution, foreign visitors were banned from Tibet. Since that time, particularly with the introduction of China’s “Open Door” reform policy, the drive toward modernization has made tourism in Tibet both desirable and more accessible. The China Daily reports that the TAR received a record 10 million domestic and foreign tourists in 2012 through November 30, showing a 33.9 percent increase in revenue in the tourism sector.

Tibetans celebrate the Dalai Lama's Birthday in Tawu, Tibet. Photo by Students for a Free Tibet (Flickr: SFTHQ), used under a Creative Commons license.

For many travelers, the question of whether or not to visit a country controlled by a regime with a record of human rights abuses, such as Chinese-occupied Tibet, has long been laden with ethical and moral dilemmas. The answer is rarely simple and those who decide to travel are likely to encounter cultural clashes and diverging perspectives. While many people both inside and outside Tibet remain strongly opposed to China’s presence and policies, Chinese leaders argue that their investments have brought economic benefits to Tibetans, with increased modern amenities and infrastructure, including improvements to roads, schools and hospitals.

One thing there seems to be little disagreement about is that the Himalayan plateau has been experiencing rapid development. Photographer Marieke ten Wolde has been photographing this transformation for the last decade. She told the New York Times, “Sometimes it’s very sad, because the beautiful things disappear, and sometimes they’re good things. But it’s always changing. Each time I return it’s like I’m going back to a different century.”

While travelers to Tibet will undoubtedly see evidence of the shift away from traditional lifestyles and the influx of Han Chinese settlers, the extent to which the Tibetan population is experiencing deepening religious and cultural repression may not be as apparent to an outsider. “From the outside, everything looks so pretty here, but on the inside, everyone is boiling,” a lama at a monastery in Rebkong, known for its elaborate thangka paintings, said in an interview with the New York Times. Asking for anonymity since talking to foreign reporters can lead to severe punishment, he added, speaking of the monks, “I don’t want trouble with the authorities, but I can’t control their rage any longer.” A recent National Geographic News article reports that repressive activities include the installation of security cameras in monasteries, the destruction of portraits of the Dalai Lama, the forced settling of nomads, and the marginalization of the Tibetan language.

Chinese guard at the Potala Palace. Photo by Erik Törner (Flickr: eriktorner), used under a Creative Commons license.

Traveling to Tibet under the current regime has many implications for foreign tourists. Practically speaking, the shifting political responses to the immolations and protests have resulted in area closures to foreigners, unexpected delays in obtaining visas and permits, and an increased military presence on the ground. But for those choosing to steer through the paperwork and unpredictability, preparing to travel conscientiously may mean addressing the following common concerns:

Does tourism provide legitimacy to an occupation and encourage oppression?

Geographic Expeditions (GeoEx), a pioneer in travel to Tibet, sees some truth to this concern on a strict dollars-and-cents basis. However, the company has given this issue extensive consideration, to the point of drafting an official policy document addressing whether travelers should be encouraged to visit countries with despotic governments. GeoEx concludes that they should, because “[d]espotic regimes work best in secrecy and in isolation from the world.”

Toni Neubauer, president of Myths and Mountains, another leader in Himalayan travel, feels that tourism in Tibet, when done well, is a critical link for the Tibetan people to the outside world. Referring to the figures noted earlier from the China Daily, Neubauer surmises that the increase in tourism revenue in 2012 – despite the closing of Tibet to foreign travelers for much of the summer – was due to an influx of Chinese tourists, a trend that is likely to continue.

GeoEx has asked Tibetans directly: Would it be better if the Chinese were the only foreigners in Tibet? The answer has been a resounding “no.” As reinforcement, the company’s policy document shares the view of John Healey, former executive director of Amnesty International USA: “We’re aware that human contact is one of the most powerful weapons against abuse. Renegade governments often clean up their act when they know the outside world is watching. Victims of oppression crave contact.”

Will most of the tourism dollars just go to enterprises supported by an oppressive regime?

While the majority of service enterprises in Tibet are Chinese-owned, particularly in centers such as Lhasa, it is still possible to frequent Tibetan-owned stores and markets, as well as choose a tour operator that works exclusively with Tibetan-run companies. Thoroughly researching tour operations is a critical factor in determining whether you will be given an accurate representation of what is happening on the ground, as well as understanding where and how your tourism dollars will be spent. A conversation with a prospective tour outfitter might include the following questions:  Do you hire Tibetan or Chinese guides and drivers? Will they be multilingual? Will they be able to provide accurate insight into the cultural relevance of religious monuments and artifacts (including identifying originals and replicas)?

Is it possible to travel without tacitly complying with the regime?

It is important to avoid traveling to Tibet with political or social goals, as protests and other actions within Tibet only do harm to Tibetans, who are closely monitored. As Neubauer notes, increased communication and contact with the local Tibetan population is one of the primary benefits of foreign tourism, but only if it is done in a way that mitigates the potential risks. In addition to refraining from political discussions, Free Tibet advises tourists to resist taking pictures of the Dalai Lama into the country as Tibetans can be detained for possessing them. Travelers should also be aware that drivers may be heavily fined if they are found giving lifts to tourists, and that departures from official trip itineraries can cause problems for the Tibetans encountered along the way.

According to Free Tibet, the Dalai Lama encourages foreigners to visit Tibet and inform others about their experiences upon their return. Neubauer urges travelers to “learn what you can and talk about it fairly and not emotionally.” This, however, may not be an easy matter; one recent first-time traveler to Tibet advises, “Be prepared for gut-wrenching questions and for a deeply uncomfortable sense of helplessness.”

Even amongst Tibetans, responses to the current situation and commitment to the Dalai Lama’s teachings of non-violence will vary. As the National Geographic News article concludes, “Young Tibetans, in particular, want to act. Among the majority who still cherish non-violence but lack the otherworldly patience of His Holiness, options are limited.”