In what has been described as an important victory, Ecotourism Australia has been granted a number of interlocutory court orders by the Queensland Supreme Court, to protect both intellectual property and also the public from potentially misleading environmental marketing.
Ecotourism Australia found that an uncertified operator was using its ECO Certification Logo, without permission. The Eco Certification Program provides accreditation to successful eco and nature tourism applicants in Australia and is now being exported as the International Ecotourism Standard.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD has worked in industry and government. She is currently researching a novel technique for long-range weather forecasting funded by the B. Macfie Family Foundation.
This is far from unusual.
Green groups protest against people with money, and then offer to “certify” their products.
Certification costs money, of course.
It’s the ol’ Green Mafia Shakedown. No way is this news.
Sorry Shiller, you are a bit off target with this one.
The public certainly need protecting from improper environmental marketing. Some years ago a government agency sent us a flier from a safari outfit marketing eco-tours to places of interest. Most were on National Parks, off-limits to the public, and certainly without permission from the relevant agency. One place was on our property, and we certainly had not given permission for this. So we wrote to that outfit promising trespass action against any of their staff AND CLIENTS we found on our property. That is one way in which the public need protection from opportunistic eco-marketing.
While I have no interest in starting an eco-tourist venture, I support Ecotourism Australia’s efforts to protec their brand name.
Helen,
You’ve struck me as a reasonable person.
Tell me–who will make money off the green certification scheme?
And will they be green?
This is the same as the IPCC scam. Follow the money, and you’ll discover the rest.
Shiller, Australia is a big country, with a lot of interesting stuff in the remote areas, where there are too few people to protect it from the love-it-to-death public.
This stuff is in National Parks and on private property. National Parks have real trouble protecting stuff firstly because many people regard National Parks as public domain, and secondly because the Parks have far fewer people on the ground than is the case with privately held land.
While biotica is important, most if damaged, can regenerate. The big problem is with non-biotica, like aboriginal paintings and rock carvings, and geological formations like caves and fossils. One these are damaged, the damage is permanent. Then there is the just plain beautiful country, including coastline, where some anong the hordes of free-riding visitors trash it, leaving clean-up costs behind them. For many landholders with these issues, shutting out the public and getting on with primary production is their preferred (and best) option.
But there is a robust market for eco-tourism, and some businesses are meeting this, often on their own land. Eco-accreditation implies an environmentally sustainble operation, where the natural assets are protected, and the impact of visitors minimised. If such businesses can make a profit, then good on them.
By providing environmentally sustainable experiences for tourists, they are helping to divert those tourists from land where the natural assets cannot be adequately protected. They are actually doing a double conservation job, so the personal ideology of accredited eco-tourist operators is irrelevant to me.
My support for accreditation, and for protecting that accreditation, for eco-tourism, probably comes down to bloody-minded self-interest.
Helen,
I honor and admire your honesty–it is too rare.
May you enjoy the upcoming holidays.