Leap Local feels it is important to be open and transparent about its activities. We have clear aims and objectives, and if our approach fails to achieve these, or circumstances change so our approaches are no longer relevant, then we strive to correct ourselves. To do our job well we have considered a number of issues that are raised when discussing sustainable tourism. We won’t get things right all the time, but we will try.

People

We believe people have the right to opportunity and social mobility. Unfortunately many local guides and services from lesser developed countries who want to engage in tourism, have difficulty promoting themselves to tourists. Tourists, in unfamiliar environments, find it difficult to compare local guides and services and yet do not have the time or usual comforts around them to weather the risk. Leap Local addresses this problem.

Local livelihoods

When working in sustainable tourism, people voice concerns that tourism will replace other local livelihoods leading to an unsustainable local economy. However each country is different. Leap is working in countries where tourism already exists, yet where local economies are being left behind. In most countries tourism is inevitable due to globalisation. Tourism is a principle export for 83% of developing countries, and accounts for over 70% of exports of services. Leap does not prescribe what tourists find of interest when on holiday. Leap promotes diversity. And through promoting diversity we hope local livelihoods can be preserved and not destroyed. As well as hiking, and cycling, you can also visit local carpenters (e.g. Julio), local weavers (e.g. Paula), and try local foods cooked by locals in their homes (e.g. Lida).

Peru is a good example of a country already involved with tourism. Four year University courses are available for local people wishing to better themselves through a career as a local guide. For these people, other vocational careers are often not attainable, so a career in tourism is an aspirational goal. 

Shouldn’t Leap be demanding that people stop taking planes all together since pollution from planes contributes to global warming? Especially since local communities in lesser developed countries are likely to be most affected by climate change since they have fewer coping mechanisms.

Leap’s founder, Liles Dee, has just completed a PhD at Cambridge University on ‘Technology Management by Sustainable Energy Ventures’. She and the rest of the Leap team are all concerned about environmental degradation and its consequences. We too want people to limit their carbon emissions, and reducing the number of flights they take is part of this. We don’t however think that it is realistic to expect people to stop flying completely or immediately. Nor do we think that people who were not going to travel would take a trip because of what Leap does, so we don't think we are adding to this burden.

Instead what we do hope is people will plan their trips well, have enriching experiences, so that repeated trips back to long haul destinations are not required. This is where Leap fits in. We want people to have the best possible experiences when travelling, where they can experience incredible scenery and people with unique cultures, so they can make the most of ‘once in the lifetime’ travel experiences.

Leap also hopes to engage people in sustainable tourism through providing educational resources. We realise that sustainable tourism is not a mainstream term, but hopefully our users will realise its importance and help increase demand for better ways to travel. Technologies for cleaner travel exist but have not yet been scaled up. We hope to encourage the development of cleaner aviation.

In the meantime, Leap has looked at a number of ways people can manage their emissions from travel, including carbon offsetting.

Reducing your travel emissions

Unfortunately there are a lot of cowboys when it comes to carbon offsetting. Estimating emissions is as yet an uncertain science and no consistent regulatory standards exist for carbon offsetting, though methods like the gold standard are gaining interest. Some carbon offsetting has been done by buying up permits for the emission of carbon dioxide. However when this permit scheme was introduced, it was based on estimates of industry carbon emissions, which partly relied on estimates of emissions by industry. The idea was to then issue permits that were just under current emissions rates, so forcing industry to cut their emissions. This would drive a market for permits. However carbon emissions were over-estimated, so permits became almost worthless[1]. Carbon offsetting firms who had brought permits in the anticipation that this would force industry to cut emissions even more, ended up with worthless permits that had no impact on industry emissions. So firms selling carbon offsetting based on permits did not deliver their promises. Emissions trading and permits are now becoming better established so this situation is changing.

Other offsetting schemes have included planting trees which has its own problems. Delays in offsetting can occur since tree growth is required, yet tree growth and health is dependent on location, fertilizers and pesticides. Fertilizers and pesticides have their own environmental cost. Some tree planting projects have been poorly placed so disrupting local water supplies or evicting local communities from their land.

Yet more offsetting schemes have tried to introduce a variety of schemes abroad e.g. changing cooking stoves used in some communities in lesser developed countries so they emit fewer emissions. Such firms support a number of projects of the type usually undertaken by non-profit and charitable organisations. Firms that are administrating carbon offsets through managing such projects, should at least warrant their commission by providing a reliable and rigorous approach to ensure projects deliver carbon savings. But this typically hasn’t happened. For example one firm distributed free energy saving lightbulbs in Africa to find that another firm was already doing this. Firms cannot claim to help save carbon emissions through initiatives that would happen anyway. They should be creating initiatives that otherwise would not occur, a term known as additionality.

So what can you do about carbon emissions from flights?

1. When booking your flight, try and get as few flights to your travel destination as possible
2. Short flights, typically within country, have a particularly bad carbon footprint. When travelling, try exploring the local area thoroughly, and try other forms of transport other than flying if you want to cover bigger distances. See Ed Gillepsies ‘slow travel’ for some ideas [http://www.lowcarbontravel.com ].
3. Some carbon offsetting firms are better than others. They are not perfect, but they are striving to be better and the majority of their projects do save carbon emissions. We consulted with an expert who recently conducted a study on carbon offsetting who recommended the following firm (it’s not perfect, but is getting there): http://www.carbon-clear.com/
4. Give money to projects that you think are doing ‘good’ directly e.g. Oxfam, WWF etc.
5. We the consumer need to put pressure on the aviation industry to develop more sustainable forms of aviation[2]. Technologies already exist e.g. Boeing have worked with Intelligent Energy to build a two seater plane powered by fuel cells[3].
6. Try and minimise your own carbon emissions at home so reducing your carbon footprint overall (www.est.org.uk)

---

Add this page to your favourite Social Bookmarking websites: