Why I’m Not A Fan Of “Leave No Trace” Outdoor Ethics

In the realm of outdoor recreation, Leave No Trace (LNT),  an outdoor ethics originated in America, have been upheld as the guiding principles for minimizing human impact on natural environments. However, as I navigate the diverse landscapes and cultures of the Philippines, it becomes evident that a one-size-fits-all approach to wilderness stewardship may not be applicable or appropriate. In this blog post, I'll explore my top three reasons why I'm not a fan of Leave No Trace Ethics in the Philippine setting and advocate for a more culturally sensitive and inclusive approach.

Despite the noble intentions of Leave No Trace Ethics, the reality is that the trash we collect from campsites doesn't magically disappear. Whether it's plastic wrappers, PET bottles, or tissue products, every piece of waste we picked up from trails and campsites is merely relocated, often to landfills or worse, to oceans and wildlife habitats, where it continues to pollute the environment and harm wildlife.

By focusing solely on 'Pack it in, Pack it Out Activity' without addressing the root causes of waste generation, LNT perpetuates an illusion of clean campsites. Instead, we need to adopt a more holistic approach that encompasses waste reduction, recycling, and sustainable consumption practices. This means advocating for policies that prioritize waste prevention and resource conservation, both in outdoor settings and beyond.

One of the most glaring oversights of Leave No Trace Ethics is their failure to acknowledge and incorporate the rich cultural heritage and traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples. For centuries, indigenous communities have inhabited and cared for these lands, developing sustainable practices that prioritize harmony with nature. However, LNT often imposes a Western-centric perspective on wilderness ethics, disregarding indigenous perspectives and contributions. By ignoring indigenous culture and wisdom, we perpetuate a narrative of environmental conservation that is inherently colonial and exclusionary. It's imperative to include indigenous voices in conversations about land management and conservation, respecting their rights and honoring their knowledge.

It's true that Leave No Trace Ethics advocate for minimizing one's impact on the environment. However, they often fall short when it comes to providing explicit guidance on sustainable practices. For example, LNT does not explicitly tell people to avoid using non-sustainable materials such as toilet paper or wet wipes. In wilderness settings, where resources are limited and ecosystems are fragile, the indiscriminate use of disposable products can have detrimental effects on the environment. By neglecting to address this issue directly, LNT misses an opportunity to educate and empower individuals to make more environmentally conscious choices. Instead, we must promote sustainable alternatives and encourage responsible behaviors that prioritize the long-term health of our planet.

In conclusion, while there are issues with the Leave No Trace (LNT) principles, they were established with good intentions. The American organization who created LNT has been actively working to improve and address areas where they could be more effective, particularly in its efforts to promote Western outdoor ethics in places like the Philippines, where there are differing perspectives on wilderness ethics.

However, in my view, it's time to move beyond LNT and embrace a more comprehensive and inclusive approach to wilderness stewardship—one that acknowledges the complexities of our relationship with nature, honors indigenous wisdom, and promotes sustainable practices for the benefit of all. Let's challenge the status quo and strive for a more equitable and environmentally conscious outdoor community.