This story has been amended since its original publication.
African tourism destinations risk losing out in the “flight shaming” debate unless they can clearly demonstrate the economic, social and conservation benefits of long-haul travel.
The term “flygskam” (Swedish for “flight shame”) became popular around 2018 as travellers grappled with aviation’s carbon footprint. With aviation responsible for around 3% of global emissions, long-haul and leisure travel came under scrutiny.
Post-pandemic, attitudes shifted as people resumed travel. Last year, Sweden’s Minister for Infrastructure and Housing Andreas Carlson said flight shame is now irrelevant given aviation’s adoption of more sustainable technologies.
The airline response
While newer aircraft and sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) contribute to reducing emissions, industry experts warn against unrealistic expectations. During his final speech to the Board of Airline Representatives of South Africa, outgoing CEO of Airlink Rodger Foster said: “Climate change and how we manage it requires realistic solutions not pie-in-the-sky fashionable political promises.”
He added: “SAF’s only environmental advantage is in the production process. Any emissions savings are quickly wiped out by shipping and logistics to get it from the point of production into the aircraft.”
To reap the most impact, South Africa needs to focus on “meaningful local investment in SAF production” and a plan is needed for its distribution and security, said Foster. SAF can only be used on current generation aircraft and engines when blended with Jet-A1. Additionally, long aircraft production delays mean that older, less efficient aircraft are being kept in circulation longer.
Changing tourist behaviours
As aviation evolves, travellers are adjusting their behaviour with flight shaming posing a challenge for Africa’s long haul-dependent tourism sector.
Speaking in a recent AviaDev podcast, Tim Harris of Helm Growth Advisors and former CEO of Wesgro, said South Africa and almost every other African country are long-haul destinations for their major source markets. As a result, he said, they’re vulnerable to flight shaming.
The continent needs to show that “taking a long-haul flight into Africa is a net positive in terms of your contribution to development and conservation in Africa,” he said.
“Right now, we’re not even close to winning that argument. I don’t even think we’re making it properly,” he added.
Tourism impact beyond carbon
In South Africa, tourism has not yet returned to pre-COVID levels but contributes 8.8% to GDP and supports nearly 1.7 million jobs, according to World Travel & Tourism Council estimates.
Duncan Pritchard, Director of carbon footprint consultancy ETC Africa, says eco-tourism can help mitigate the significant impact that climate change presents to local livelihoods.
“There’s a very strong case for eco-tourism as a strategy for climate change adaptation. This, of course, is reliant on tourists travelling to these areas for it to be a successful strategy. So, in many respects, by being a conscientious eco-tourist in Africa, you can actually support climate change adaptation in these areas.”
According to pre-pandemic data from UN Tourism, a United Nations specialised agency, 80% of annual trips to Africa were for wildlife tourism, which generates US$48 billion across 8 400 protected areas. In 2023, South Africa welcomed over 907 000 wildlife tourists (91% from Europe and the Americas). These visitors spent three times more than average tourists, contributing R28 billion (US$1.5 billion).
“We should encourage long-haul travel for the purposes of nature-based tourism activities or eco-tourism simply because the benefits of mitigating climate change, and biodiversity conservation in general, far outweigh the cost. Spending your money in a protected area in a developing country, regardless of the comparatively paltry carbon footprint, should be considered the responsible thing to do,” Pritchard said.
