How green is your holiday?
As ‘100% Pure’ New Zealand slips in environmental rankings, Thomas Bywater finds many destinations leave much to be desired
For the environmentally minded traveller, the green credentials of their next holiday are of great concern. With countries marketing themselves as guilt free escapes, the reality can often be far removed from the euphoric slogans. From Norway to Uzbekistan, the words “pure” and “natural” litter travel brochures. It's a positive sign that environment-minded travellers are already setting the precedent for tourism destinations.
However, often the environmental health of these countries has a long way to catch up with the promise. With greenwashing far easier than finding solution to the many environmental problems that plague holiday destinations, conscientious travellers may wonder who to trust.
Fortunately, for the past two decades American research students and the World Economic Forum have been diligently crunching the numbers for a concise, countryto-country health check. The Yale University Environmental Performance Index, or EPI, may be just what you need to set your travelling conscience at ease.
The biennial study releases rankings on countries' environmental impact. Its 2018 results rank nearly 200 countries in terms of ecofriendliness, placing the glacially pure Switzerland at No 1 and the uranium-mining republic of Burundi at number 180.
It ranks the countries for criteria including “environmental health” and “ecosystem vitality”.
As a deep dive into a country's environmental health, it peers beneath the self-appointed statutes of eco-destinations. And it seems some green credentials have been nothing but fig leaves.
The self-proclaimed “Naturally Irresistible” Uzbekistan and “Pure” Grenada fall to 146 and 118 on the rankings respectively.
The tourism agency for the Caribbean island of Grenada promotes an “untouched beauty” and a “lifestyle so pure and authentic that you feel instantly renewed”. Yet the results show this island nation has suffered a drop in regional fish stocks and drinking water quality, along with an increase in greenhouse gases.
As a tourist destination, New Zealand is in no place to criticise. Though still leading the Pacific for ecological health, it crashes out of favour on issues of “tree cover loss”, and the impact of agriculture saw it drop to 40th place for Ecosystem Vitality. That's a place below China and two below the desert state of Qatar.
Suitably, the announcement of this year's index was delivered at a summit in Davos – and it appears the epicentre of smugness has yet another reason to boast after Switzerland was ranked the world's most eco-friendly destination.
Now in its 20th year, the EPI has seen huge changes. In the past decade some countries have managed to turn around their fortunes and avert economic disaster. The Seychelles ranks as the most-improved country over the past 10 years, which the index attributes “largely to its commitment to combating greenhouse gas emissions”. The establishment of biodiversity areas and a commitment to sustainability have made this East African archipelago one of the greenest places to visit.
Among the success stories came warnings. The huge developing nation of India fell into the bottom tier of countries, at number 177, with huge repercussions.
For New Zealand the results were also a moment of reckoning. In the two years, we’ve fallen six places in the rankings — an apparent blow for a country that prides itself on its green reputation.
The news raises familiar questions. After almost 20 years, is it time to abandon the 100% Pure schtick?
Critics in the international media have long accused New Zealand's tourism board of greenwashing.
With filthy waterways and intensive agriculture transforming the vistas into a “cattle-wrecked land”, writers in The Guardian and The New York Times have, over the past year, called out our islands for exporting 100 per cent pure BS.
Dr Zachary Wending of Yale's Center for Environmental Law and Policy, was less pessimistic about the forecast for New Zealand.
“Scores from reports issued in different years are not directly comparable,” he assured the Herald. Though Aotearoa may have slipped down the rankings this is more likely to be a sign of other countries improvement rather than a slide back on standards.
“If anything, New Zealand is trending upwards,” he said. “Over the past decade, NZ has made great gains, especially in the establishment of terrestrial and marine protected areas, achieving a perfect score on the latter.”
Where New Zealand did struggle was in tree cover loss and agriculture, both of which he called “a global concern”.
Competitiveness is perhaps a national virtue; but we can allow countries like Luxembourg and Ireland to leapfrog us, as long as the goal and trend is towards global improvement.
Improving our image and our waterways at the same time. That’s worth a 100 per cent effort.
It seems some green credentials have been nothing but fig leaves.