In the Greater Mekong Sub-region, the rise of eco-branded tourism has exposed a persistent problem: without standards, sustainability is easy to claim and hard to prove. Clear standards are needed to hold tourism stakeholders accountable, particularly in destinations where communities carry the costs of tourism’s ups and downs.
Few individuals have worked more persistently on this challenge than Masaru Takayama. A longtime advocate for authentic ecotourism, Takayama is the founding chair of the Asian Ecotourism Network (AEN) and has played a formative role in shaping both regional and global sustainability standards.
As trainer and auditor for sustainable tourism standards for multiple international frameworks, Masaru-san’s career has bridged grassroots practice and policy – from running ecolodges in Japan to advising governments and regional bodies across Asia on how standards can work on the ground, not just on paper.
“I think it is a very good thing for the nature-based tourism industry – who till now are self-proclaimed as ‘eco-friendly’ – to measure themselves against ecotourism standards to justify their sustainable self-branding,” Masaru-san explains. “Standards exist to make sure that, if the financial beneficiaries of the destination meet those standards, the destination’s locals can live sustainably.”
In this conversation, we spoke with Masaru-san about the role of standards in Mekong countries, the limits of self-proclaimed sustainability, and why bottom-up approaches remain essential to the future of ecotourism in the region.
You mentioned that your scuba experiences inspired you to work in the ecotourism field. In your view, what sets Southeast Asia and the Mekong countries apart in their approach to ecotourism?
Yes, scuba diving is still my best hobby to date since I was 20 years of age; I intend to enjoy it as long as my physical condition allows me to dive. Our mother Earth is a beautiful planet, but the land we live on only represents 30% of her. The rest is a vast majority of the Earth – but as a scuba diver, we’re only able to visit less than 1% of the ocean.
We tend to talk about how nice nature is, but it is based on what we have witnessed. We live in such a small world and we see only a fraction of what Mother Nature is offering us.
So, as much as I enjoy the community-based ecotourism and terrestrial wildlife ecotourism, I am always inspired by the bodies of water such as lakes, rivers, marshes, and ocean; I make sure that any tourism activities do not impose negative impacts environmentally, and ensure healthy and happy livelihood of the surrounding communities.
Southeast Asia and the Mekong countries have been my gems for ecotourism activities. However, in the last few decades, I see uncontrolled and uninvited negative impacts due to irresponsible tourism, both mass and nature-based, in exchange for industrialization and “ego” tourism. Unfortunately, paradise is being lost due to our human activities and accelerated by climate change.
It is not only ecotourism that is expected to do right – everyone needs to be a part of the solution.
It’s been 10 years since AEN was founded. What’s changed in ecotourism from then till today – and what role has AEN played in making those changes happen?
We started off as a small NGO. AEN still is small, yet with a formidable mission to combat greenwashing and promote authentic ecotourism. We have grown the family, adding members with the same passion that drives them to walk the talk.
The first five years was quite an important phase. I was the only GSTC trainer in APAC at that time, and I volunteered to hold three official trainings for the board to bring us on the same page, to share the essence of the tourism standard for sustainability.
We developed our ecolodge standards, AESA, then we had more meaningful events and gatherings with training both in class and in the field. With the exception of the COVID years, we physically meet twice a year rotating within our member countries – that also brought us together. Every meeting has been a team-building exercise.
Now many of us are trained with the ecotourism and sustainable tourism standards; we also understand the basic needs of the communities and witness the drastic changes taking place in nature in our ecotourism fields. I see AEN as a think tank of ecotourism, a source of knowledge of ecotourism with the equivalent of hundreds of years of experience in Asia and beyond.
By all accounts travelers are getting more conscious about sustainable travel – how do you feel about this trend, and how do you feel tourism providers in Southeast Asia are keeping up with this demand? Are most providers undergoing the necessary “paradigm shift” you mentioned here?
The trend is good, but being “conscious” is not sufficient. What good is it if you think about it, but don’t translate that thought into action? It is not just Southeast Asia – Japan and other countries are often the biggest contributors of the initial problems, but are not feeling responsible for what brought us here, the state we are in.
In ecotourism and any types of tourism with claims toward sustainability, there is one easy question you may ask to practitioners or even to policymakers: “What elements of this tourism activity contribute to enhancing sustainability?” The answer may be contributing to the local economy, but are often missing social or environmental aspects which are also deeply connected to the culture.
I would say more and more providers are aware of the issues, but the number of providers who can sincerely answer the aforementioned question are still few and far between. The paradigm shift is far from taking place.
How is this change in tourism demand driving the need to develop ecotourism standards in Southeast Asia?
Ecotourism has always existed in tourism plans and policies since the 1990s. I think people are paying more attention to the issue since COVID, as more tourists now appreciate the isolation of being in nature.
However, urbanites should not bring their city standards to the wild, nor try imposing city creature comforts and information accessibility to remote areas.
That’s sadly typical now for nature-based tourism, where you might enjoy all-you-can-eat buffets with wine from all over the world, staying in super-cooled aircon cabins with thick towels and big beds with big windows, allowing you to stay more or less like home but far away in the wild. This activity shows no respect to the surrounding biodiversity and the communities that live close by.
I think it is a very good thing for the nature-based tourism industry – who till now are self-proclaimed as “eco-friendly” – to measure themselves against ecotourism standards to justify their sustainable self-branding.
I sincerely hope that all nature-based tourism becomes more sustainable, and existing ecotourism providers aim even higher in their quality of sustainability. By working with all the ASEAN member state governments, we at AEN are serious about bringing positive changes.
In your opinion – what’s the value of regional standards like ASEAN ecotourism standard compared to more established, international tourism standards like GSTC? How does each standard fill a gap that the others miss?
I believe in working for the benefit of the ecotourism host destination and the communities. The industry as a whole may be important, but they have all reasons to be responsible practitioners. Locals living in the neighboring protected areas are often marginalized and do not get the full benefits of being in the heart of ecotourism.
So first, I believe that standards exist to make sure that, if the financial beneficiaries of the destination meet those standards, the destination’s locals can live sustainably.
The second is to protect the small and medium enterprise by meeting standards which may comprise the majority of the ecotourism industry. The GSTC ensures that the sustainability claims made by ecotourism businesses are transparent and fair – including how the evaluation of their claim is done.
What we need now is a bottom-up approach; and also involving more stakeholders, not to limit to the ones that are compliant with the certification scheme.
I personally believe that ecotourism standards should be used for education and training. For this reason, ASEAN ecotourism standards emphasize the bottom-up approach, while GSTC may be engaged with those that seek the third-party certification and be able to afford the scheme, a top-down approach.
With two sides engaging from both directions, we will eventually fill up all the gaps, theoretically. Therefore I sincerely hope that each ASEAN member state issues a target plan and maintains the private sector’s continuous engagement for recognition of their sustainability performance.
What’s it been like, traveling throughout the Mekong countries (Cambodia, Lao PDR, China PR, Thailand, Vietnam, Myanmar) to consult on ecotourism standards? How receptive are local tourism bodies to adapting to those standards?
We had multiple consultation processes with these member states. With the exception of China PR, we were able to discuss face to face what are the implications of the standard when it is introduced. Reading the standards and understanding what are required to fulfill the criteria are two different things, when implementing them to affect the management and monitor its progress and performance.
I think, in general, Mekong country officials understand the scope and what we are trying to achieve. However, I have a feeling that we may need more time to discuss and transpose the standards to work with local contexts, as many have not actually seen model ecotourism projects that are genuine and non-greenwashing.
Since Mekong countries share the same irreplaceable asset of the trans-boundary river, it might be easier to relate to the standard as a region, unlike the island and high-altitude destination countries.
What are the ecotourism success stories in the Mekong countries you feel that most people should hear about?
I wish I could answer this question more easily. What I do know is that many ecotourism projects are carried out on many levels from international to the grassroots. We as AEN learn from each other the need of creating a source of good practices in the region.
Look for the local NGOs that work directly with the locals and the protected areas that have a definite mission statement and/or vision of ecotourism. The international reports tend to get more recognition and they do show good statistics and stories, yet the consultants are often not the locals.
The long-term commitment and involvement of the locals is essential to the true success story of ecotourism in my opinion.
What future ecotourism projects/initiatives (either AEN or your personal ones) are you most excited about?
We are excited that the heart of Asia in ecotourism, Southeast Asia, is now going to work with the private sector on sustainability based on the standards and award the ones that excel their performance. In a similar way, Bhutan, the country with Gross National Happiness, has joined forces with AEN in setting the ecotourism standards for ecocamps and resorts; they’re setting standards this year.
This country sets a vision for regenerative tourism that proposes the visitors to do not just good but really well so that the destinations become better than before. We are excited to see all these countries do well, but we’re also looking forward to the ripple effect reaching out from wider Asia to beyond.
Many parts of the world already see that ecotourism is outdated, but new developments like these are showing that it’s actually starting on a whole new level.
