Volunteer Latin America is proud of its green credentials and ethical policy. With that in mind we thought it was about time to examine the various carbon offsetting schemes we mention in our voluntary work information packs. Consequently, we now recommend international volunteers only consider buying offsets to minimise the negative impacts of travel as a last resort.

Carbon offsetting should not be a relatively pain-free way of tackling climate change. This course of action can also detract people from the real issues such as forcing through legislation to cut emissions and develop alternative low-carbon solutions (low carbon economies). Carbon offsetting can also lead people into a false mindset – I’ve offset my carbon so it’s alright to fly from A to B. We also have some concerns over the credibility of some of the offset projects (e.g. tree-planting schemes), the science behind them, and the lack of accountability and regulation within the industry.

Rather than sending your hard-earned cash to offset companies, we believe people should examine their lifestyles and consumptive behaviour. We must all do what we practically can to cut down or avoid carbon emissions before signing up to some carbon offsetting scheme. Purchasing offsets can be seen as a way to avoid real behavioural change by individuals in reducing their carbon emissions. Shortcuts are not the answer.

We need to take personal responsibility for the environment (e.g. acquire a carbon consciousness) and directly offset our own emissions. This includes reducing emissions at source by looking at energy conservation and efficiency measures (e.g. making our homes energy efficient, switching off appliances, changing to a ‘green’ supplier of electricity, using solar heated hot water, etc). Carbon dioxide emissions from the housing sector accounts for at least 27% of the UK’s carbon footprint.

We must make the effort to purchase products that have been made with minimal harm to or exploitation of humans, animals and/or the natural environment. Ethical consumerism is practiced through ‘positive buying’ and is a very effective tool in reducing carbon emissions. For example, make a point of buying produce that is sourced locally, is organic and/or fair trade. Think holistically about what you buy – how was it produced, where has it come from (supermarket food travels on average 2,500 km before it gets to you), what networks were required to sustain its production. By favouring ethical products you directly support progressive companies.

Nothing highlights the importance of addressing the consequences of our actions as consumers more than what is happening in the Amazon. Every year large areas of the Amazon rainforest are being destroyed by agribusiness corporations to grow hundreds of thousands of tonnes of soy beans. These companies then export the high protein soy to Europe and China for use as cheap animal feed (90% of soy exports are fed to animals raised for meat – primarily chickens and pigs). Factory farming for meat and dairy is at the heart of a hidden chain that links the food on our plates to rainforest destruction in South America. To make them grow quickly and produce high yields, animals in factory farms are being pumped full of imported soy crops – creating demand for vast plantations that are wiping out forests and forcing indigenous communities off their lands. The UK imports over two million tonnes of soy each year from South America to feed animals and spends £700 million of taxpayers’ money to prop-up intensive meat and dairy production in England.

Although soy is one of the main drivers of Amazon destruction the cattle industry is the single biggest cause of deforestation in South America. The Brazilian cattle industry is the leading cause of deforestation and it is estimated that cattle ranchers destroy at least one acre of Amazon rainforest every 8 seconds. Over the past decade more than 10 million hectares – an area about the size of Iceland – was cleared for cattle ranching as Brazil rose to become the world’s largest exporter of beef. Brazil is currently the fourth biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, 75% of which stem from deforestation.

Forests are vital to stabilizing the world’s climate because they store such large amounts of carbon. It is estimated that the Amazon alone stores somewhere between 80 to 120 billion tons of carbon. If the Amazon were destroyed, it would release some 50 times the annual greenhouse gas emissions of the United States. A fifth of the Amazon rainforest has been lost since 1970.

As the destruction of the Amazon rainforest is linked to a handful of the world’s largest food companies and commodity traders, you can help protect it and combat climate change by refusing to purchase factory farmed and imported meat products from supermarkets, fast food restaurants and other outlets (the UK is the second largest importer of processed Brazilian beef in the world – 50,000 tonnes in 2008). This will put pressure on supermarkets and high-street brands to clean-up their supply chains. You should also boycott goods made from cattle that have been linked to rainforest destruction (e.g. leather products and cosmetic ingredients) and the multinational corporations (global brands) behind these products. Better still, why not switch to a vegetarian or vegan diet as what the soy and cattle industry demonstrates more than anything is that meat consumption is bad for the environment and simply not sustainable. Switching to a vegetarian diet would reduce your carbon emissions by a colossal 50% and going vegan results in an even greater reduction.

We welcomed the ‘Meat Free Mondays’ initiative recently launched by Paul McCartney and his daughters (Stella and Mary) highlighting the impact of meat production on climate change. Cutting down or giving up meat is the single most effective act anyone can take to lessen greenhouse gas emissions. A ‘meat free’ diet is also better for your health. Fresh evidence from the largest study to date to investigate dietary habits and cancer has concluded that vegetarians are 45% less likely to develop cancer of the blood than meat eaters and are 12% less likely to develop cancer overall.

The evidence cited above clearly demonstrates that ethical consumerism and ‘green’ thinking can be a far more effective tool in preventing climate change than the carbon offset model. What is more, once consumer demand for ‘green’ goods and services increases, they will become more affordable to low and middle income people.

While boycotts and ethical consumerism campaigns are legitimate attempts to create market pressure to reform specific practices, while rewarding producers with favourable practices, they fail to address one of the most serious problems inherent in modern day societies – the mass production and consumption of goods. Whatever products you buy it takes energy to get them into your shopping basket (e.g. energy to mine raw materials, make the product and ship it). There will also be other hidden costs (e.g. the exploitation of humans, animals and/or the natural environment) infused in the production and sale of goods.

In order to live in harmony with our planet and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we need to go beyond ‘ethical shopping’ and try to divorce ourselves from shopping altogether. We need to simplify our lives, decrease consumption, and thus shrink our economic needs. In so doing, we limit the time that we must devote to waged labour, and regain control of our time, the most precious commodity in our lives.

Simplifying your life is one of the most beneficial things you can do for the environment and your carbon footprint. On a day to day level, it’s about reducing our consumption of the world’s resources, re-using items rather than throwing them away, recycling our waste, buying local foods (or growing your own food), walking and cycling more. Other examples include swapping your car for public transport (cars are responsible for 40% of personal emissions on average) and cutting back (or eliminating) the number of short breaks on cheap flights.

Living sustainably is not only about knowing how to make greener, more ethical, practical choices in our lives. It is also about valuing our health and wellbeing, our relationships and community above the need to consume and exploit.

Proponents of ‘sustainable living,’ ‘simple living’ (voluntary simplicity) and ‘downshifting’ realise that quality of life is much more important than quantity. Consumerism often leads to stress and dissatisfaction because it creates a society of individualistic consumers who measure both social status and general happiness by an unattainable quantity of material possessions.

In addition to the direct, self-conscious approach, it is also critical we pressure our governments for real action. Governments have a major role in fighting climate change because they can influence behaviour by sending out clear signals about what we need to do. They can introduce tough measures that cut emissions across all sections of society (e.g. transport, business, industry, etc) and provide incentives for everyone to reduce their emissions (e.g. energy saving grants for the home). We need to pressure our governments to shift towards an alternative low carbon economy and offer developing countries the technological and financial assistance to develop low carbon economies. Governments also need to channel more resources into preparing people for climate change (especially those most vulnerable) and deal with those already hurt by the lawless new carbon market. We must pressure our governments to support planet-friendly farming by shifting subsidies to help small farmers produce home-grown meat and dairy products. It is imperative we change the way meat and dairy are produced if we want to tackle the damaging environmental and social impacts of intensive production. We must demand that our governments take action to ensure that the airlines (not just a few enlightened consumers) take responsibility for their emissions (the polluter pays principle).

The role of government is particularly pertinent when you consider the number of people who don’t give a damn about climate change and will never voluntarily ‘do their bit’ for the environment.

There are many things we can all do to reduce carbon emissions and we cannot afford to be distracted by measures that at best only have a small role to play in providing the solutions to global warming. Buying offsets is not a ‘magic bullet’ to prevent further climate change or a solution to the growth in emissions. We must do all in our power to change our lifestyles and political systems and then convince others (individuals, businesses and politicians) to do the same. Even if you don’t have time to write to your government representative or campaign on the subject you should support an organisation that does.

If you have already taken action to reduce your carbon emissions it becomes much easier to justify air travel if you were thinking of volunteering overseas (e.g. you have given up or significantly cut down on meat consumption, the use of your car and short breaks on cheap flights, etc).

Some people may think it’s ironic that we encourage people to volunteer in Central and South America yet call for changes in lifestyles and consumptive behaviour to tackle climate change. It is also understandable why the green lobby and the tourism industry has brought into question the justification for volunteering abroad and why volunteers sometimes feel like they are caught in a conundrum.

Global warming is one of the most serious threats facing the world and some of the leading campaign groups have stated that the most ethical thing we can do for the environment is to stay at home. Whilst we can all agree that the best form of travel is to avoid flying, we should not stop flying altogether. That would send us back to the dark ages with massive unemployment (1 in 10 people work in the tourism sector), business recession, and increased poverty (deepening recession, increased unemployment and worsening poverty is not conducive to creating new lower carbon technologies and lifestyles, especially in the developing world).

There are many people who rely on tourism for their livelihoods and many natural habitats depend on visitors for their survival. If you want evidence of this you should look no further than Latin America. Tourism is a big contributor to the economy of many Latin American countries and the industry generated nearly US$2 billion in Costa Rica alone in 2007 (three-fifths of GNP). Tourism helps support some of Latin America’s most fragile natural habitats and if we stopped flying there many national parks and private reserves will lose their incomes, deforestation will increase and global warming will accelerate. Unless we support the people and communities now making money through ecotourism they have no other choice but to exploit natural resources.

Similarly, it is worth noting the importance of international volunteers to conservation efforts in the region. Without the commitment and financial support of international volunteers, many organizations would be unable to carry out their vital work. This is because there is generally very little governmental or outside support for these organisations and the projects which they manage. Your contribution as a volunteer could help ensure the long-term survival of a tropical forest or an endangered species. This is because you are actively participating in the conservation of that habitat or species. The participation of international volunteers also enables money to reach grassroots level of society and this can change a small communities perception of their environment or an endangered species.

The question of whether it is possible to be an ethical volunteer seems to largely rest on the ability to make informed choices before and during your trip. If you choose the right project, minimise the impact of your travel, maximise the benefits for local economies, and stay for a considerable period of time, then you can most definitely volunteer abroad with a clean conscience.

It is worth mentioning the importance of choosing the right project before setting off and the key message is – do your research if you want to so some really valuable work. Prospective volunteers must examine the work they will be doing and how it affects local people and the natural environment. Although there are some good placement companies out there, a do-it-yourself placement is the most ethical form of volunteering as you work directly with the host organization. You also have the assurance that all your money goes to the cause rather than paying for the marketing and administration expenses of a volunteer placement (sending) agency. If you opt to work through an agency please be aware that some of these agencies offer little more than glorified holidays and others are more interested in making money than helping the environment or providing sustainable and well-targeted help for local communities. No one benefits from these placements apart from the companies that organise them. An ethical volunteer ensures that as much of their money as possible reaches the grassroots level of society. Eco-conscious travellers should consider contributing to a project that helps reduce the impact of climate change and/or provides a hands-on approach to offsetting their own carbon emissions.

It is also worth mentioning the length of time volunteers spend overseas. You are clearly going to do more harm than good if you travel all the way to Costa Rica (a carbon-heavy 8,700km flight from the UK) to rescue sea turtles and stay for only a few weeks. To maximise the benefits for local communities and negate the environmental impact of your flight you need to contribute to a project for a much longer period of time. A long stay is more sustainable if travelling long distances as this will enable you to minimise the impact of your flight. The time spent as a volunteer is time not spent contributing to carbon emissions in your home country (i.e. non use of home appliances, zero emissions form you car, etc). A long stay also eliminates the need to take several shorter holidays throughout the year.

In reality, the dramatic growth in short breaks and cheap flights is a more pressing issue than questioning the justification for volunteering abroad, particularly if volunteers wish to devote their time and energy to do something positive for the environment. Those who want to stop us flying should focus more on the business and the leisure side of flying rather people wanting to make a difference (e.g. those that fly with a purpose). The destruction of the Amazon and other tropical forests around the world should also be a priority for campaign groups (e.g. air travel accounts for less than 5% of carbon dioxide emissions, clearing tropical forests for agriculture is estimated to produce 18% of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions – more than the entire global transport system). The cattle industry is the single biggest cause of deforestation in the world and is a disaster for the fight against climate change.

Given the importance of deforestation to climate change it would be perfectly reasonable to ask why we don’t just protect the world’s forests. But reducing deforestation is no simple effort. Forests are being destroyed as a consequence of global economic forces (e.g. demand for timber, beef, soybeans, palm oil and subsistence farming, etc). Slowing or eliminating deforestation means addressing these underlying drivers by making forests valuable as living entities, rather than solely for what can be produced when they’re cut.

One solution, known as Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD), is being pushed as a key element for a new global agreement to fight climate change after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. The logic underpinning REDD is fairly simple. At present, the short-term economic gains from deforestation outweigh the long-term good of forest conservation. By investing up to £7.5 billion globally per year into saving forests, the economic balance is believed to change in favour of the latter. This money would be paid in the form of carbon credits, worked out in relation to national deforestation rates – the more a country saves, the more it earns.

This might seem like a good idea but such a scheme is fraught with problems. REDD simplifies the function of forest ecosystems to that of a carbon store. This undervalues them as water catchment areas, habitats for biodiversity and as the basis of indigenous and local peoples’ livelihoods. Indigenous groups and forest communities are concerned they will not see benefits from REDD. Worse, some believe the mechanism could trigger a new wave of land grabs and evictions by parties seeking to capitalize on carbon payments. Indigenous groups and forest communities have long struggled against development interests seeking to exploit their traditional lands and resources. More than a billion people worldwide depend on forests for their livelihoods, so schemes such as REDD pose a huge threat to them if not managed properly. Another danger is that schemes to ‘avoid deforestation’ become a further means for rich countries to avoid responsibility for over-consumption and evade emissions cuts (e.g. they continue spewing emissions offset by ‘avoided deforestation’ carbon credits). There are also fears that a market-based mechanism for reducing greenhouse gas emissions would crash carbon prices by swamping the market with cheap credits (e.g. making it cheaper for polluters to avoid genuine emissions cuts). This would reduce investment in low-carbon and renewable technologies, and cause developing countries to lose out on a massive investment in low carbon technologies. In essence, low carbon prices could derail global efforts to tackle global warming.

It seems quite clear that an unrestricted carbon market won’t save the forests or stop runaway climate change. Forest conservation can be done much easier by a fund (e.g. Cool Earth) than by market cowboys racing around the world looking for cheap offsets.

What we need to examine are the factors driving deforestation, including the international trade in beef, soy and paper. We should first address those drivers rather than throwing money at companies cutting down trees, when we continue to give them incentives to do so. Financial incentives could also play a role, insofar as they support the recognition of land rights for indigenous communities or education projects. Such measures, which would cost far less than the proposed financing for REDD, could be of genuine worth in avoiding deforestation. But they are unlikely to show up on the balance books of a forest carbon-trading scheme whose main purpose seems to be providing Western countries with yet another escape from their responsibility to reduce emissions at home.

We must pressure our governments to drastically cut carbon emissions at home rather than buy offsets from abroad. We must encourage them to introduce stricter environmental policies that reduce the consumption of imported forest products (e.g. waste management strategies that reduce the consumption of timber and paper, setting higher targets and timetables for paper and cardboard recycling from the domestic sector). The UK is currently one of the world’s largest consumers of timber and paper products.

We must hold businesses accountable. Corporations need to know that the public will hold them accountable for business practices that are socially or environmentally destructive. If you feel that a company’s business practices are environmentally irresponsible, send the company a letter expressing your concern, or organize a boycott of the company.

We need better education across all levels of society. At the moment, many people are alienated from the knowledge of the consequences of their demands, and how their carbon heavy lifestyles contribute to deforestation and climate change (e.g. the excessive consumption of beef, paper and timber).

We need to look at the role of ecotourism and volunteerism. Although this results in more people trampling in beautiful places, it is a very forceful mechanism for conservation and also brings revenue to local people without selling their land for timber, cattle farming and soy production.

To conclude, rather than offsetting our carbon crimes, we believe the world would be a better place if we simply didn’t commit these offences in the first place. Instead of paying to rectify the damage once it’s done, we should take steps to reduce our own carbon emissions by taking personal responsibility for the environment, simplifying our lives, and addressing the consequences of our actions as consumers.

If you still determined to sign up to some carbon offsetting scheme despite what has been written above we recommend you only use a scheme with gold standard verification (a standard which ensures the project is genuine and really delivers useful benefits).

International Galapagos Tour Operators Association – Making Tourism Part of the Solution

The Galapagos Islands face serious threats to their unique biodiversity. In 2007, the UNESCO World Heritage Centre placed them on their list of World Heritage Sites in Danger. In response these threats, the International Galapagos Tour Operators Association (www.igtoa.org) has launched a new education and funding program to help meet the challenge of lasting protection for the islands.

The program is designed to help travelers understand the serious issues facing Galapagos, and how travelers themselves can be part of the solution. Visitors to the islands can provide critical financial support for scientific research and conservation and follow best practices during their travel.

Whether you are planning the trip of a lifetime, a gap year abroad or just a holiday break, you can make a difference when you travel, not only for yourself but for the people and places you visit.

Being a responsible traveller means more than just offsetting your carbon emissions, it requires thought and preparation. Responsible travel is based on the principles of sustainability and it requires you to examine the environmental, social and economic dimensions of your trip. Thus, responsible travel is all about minimizing the impact of your travel and maximizing the benefits for local economies, environments and host communities.

Making informed choices before and during your trip is the single most important thing you can do to become a responsible traveller.

Give some serious thought to your packing list. Your hi-tech synthetic travel jacket might keep you snug, but is it also warming up the planet or exploiting the people you plan to visit? Your soap and shampoo may smell wonderful but are they biodegradable? Try and ensure your backpack contains as many ethical products as possible (i.e. environmentally-friendly, fair-trade, not tested on animals etc).

Travel lightly and leave any excess packaging at home (i.e. plastic wrapping) – your hosts shouldn’t have to deal with your rubbish.

Educate yourself about the destination you are visiting by reading guidebooks and travel articles: culture, religion, geography, politics, ecosystems and local customs.

Consider your carbon footprint when using air travel as your flight will do more damage to the environment than any other aspect of your trip.

Use public transport, hire a bike or walk when convenient – it’s a great way to meet local people and reduce pollution.

Try to support the local economy by buying regional products instead of imported goods. Use local services and businesses which employ members of the community, it is far more enriching and is mutually beneficial.

Help preserve local wildlife and habitats by respecting rules and regulations, such as sticking to footpaths or not standing on coral. Take care not to buy trinkets and souvenirs made from local flora or fauna. By buying products made from coral, starfish, shells, fur, ivory, hides, feathers, horns, teeth or eggs, amongst other things, you may be encouraging an illicit trade in endangered wildlife.

Animals are not here to amuse us, so do not support this trend by visiting circuses, festivals and carnivals where performing animals are used.

Respect local customs, traditions and culture – a responsible traveller doesn’t go abroad to force their world-view on developing communities. Always ask before photographing local people.

Think carefully about what’s appropriate in terms of your clothes and the way you behave. You’ll earn respect and be more readily welcomed by local people.

Respect local laws and attitudes towards drugs and alcohol that vary in different countries and communities.

Try to learn some words in the local language such as please and thank you, as this will be greatly appreciated and shows a respect for the culture.

Don’t be obsessed with getting the lowest price when haggling. What does a few pence mean to you compared to the seller?

When eating out, choose small local restaurants so you will benefit individuals instead of foreign companies. Drink local beer, wine and fruit juices rather than imported brands. Take a strong water bottle and boil or purify your drinking water, rather than buying bottled water.

Always try and use local energy and water as efficiently as possible and adopt a zero-litter policy.

When travelling or trekking in sensitive places use a solar powered battery charger for cameras, iPods or global positioning systems to avoid wasting batteries.

When travelling to impoverished countries do not give out medicine to alleviate suffering unless you are medically qualified. It is better to give your unused first-aid kits to local clinics or health charities rather than ‘experiment’ on local people.

If you intend to volunteer overseas try and choose a locally run organisation so all your money goes to the cause rather than paying for the marketing and administration of a volunteer-sending agency. Some foreign run agencies offer little more than glorified holidays and are often more interested in making money than helping the environment or local people. No one benefits from these placements apart from the companies that organise them.

The guidance above is for anyone looking to travel in a way that lessens their impact on the environment and provides genuine benefits for conservation and local people.

Changes in our attitudes to travel and tourism will help build the kind of world that can be enjoyed by our descendants in perpetuity.