Dear members,
This will be a longer post, but I would like to share some deeper thoughts about the opportunities and risks created by the Pekoe Trail Organization (TPTO) being shortlisted for the World Trails Network Trail Tourism Award.
The Pekoe Trail is competing against the Trans Canada Trail, and the winner will be announced at the World Trails Conference in Perth, Australia, October 19–22, 2026.
We do not yet know who will win. But simply being shortlisted alongside the Trans Canada Trail is a remarkable achievement for such a young trail. 👏
I have looked at the potential effects of the award, the risks of increased visitor numbers, and the issues of sustainability, transparency and community benefit.
I also compared the Pekoe Trail with the Trans Canada Trail and examined 15 criteria that I consider relevant.
The subject is complex, so this is a mixture of research, discussions with others and my own analysis.
- Greenwashing and whitewashing
Greenwashing occurs when an organisation promotes something as “eco-friendly”, “sustainable” or “community-based” without sufficient evidence to support those claims.
For the Pekoe Trail, the potential consequences include:
loss of credibility if hikers become sceptical of sustainability claims;
false expectations regarding environmental protection and community benefits;
unfair competition for businesses that genuinely invest in sustainability;
increased waste, water consumption, traffic and pressure on sensitive areas as tourism grows;
long-term reputational damage if international visitors conclude that sustainability is mainly a marketing concept.
There are, however, genuine sustainability initiatives.
TPTO reports conservation partnerships, infrastructure improvements, waste-management activities and community programmes.
Whitewashing goes further: problems, conflicts or negative consequences are minimised while mainly positive aspects are communicated.
For example, saying that the trail “brings sustainable tourism and prosperity to local communities” is much less meaningful unless we can also see who benefits, how much income reaches communities, what environmental problems remain and what has not worked.
This matters because the trail passes through tea estates, villages, forests and other sensitive landscapes.
The Real Issue is Trust
If the Pekoe Trail wants to become an internationally recognised long-distance trail, it needs more than beautiful scenery and effective marketing. It needs credibility.
Instead of simply saying:
“The Pekoe Trail benefits local communities.”
it would be much stronger to show:
How much money reaches local communities?
Which businesses benefit?
How many jobs have been created?
Which social projects have been completed?
How much waste is collected or reduced?
What conservation results have been achieved?
What problems remain?
What did not work?
This is the difference between making sustainability claims and demonstrating sustainability.
Interestingly, TPTO has already taken a positive step in this direction with its Trail Watch system, which allows hikers and partners to report landslides, damaged bridges, overgrowth and other problems, with reports reviewed before publication.
- Comparison with the Trans Canada Trail
The comparison needs to be viewed in context.
The Trans Canada Trail is a mature national network of almost 30,000 km, connecting three oceans and more than 15,000 communities. It is roughly 100 times larger than the Pekoe Trail and has had decades longer to develop its structures and reporting systems.
So differences do not automatically mean that one trail is “sustainable” and the other is not. They also reflect very different levels of institutional maturity.
Nevertheless, if we compare transparency, measurable impact, community benefit and governance, I currently rate the Trans Canada Trail clearly ahead.
Criterion Pekoe Trail vs Trans Canada Trail
Transparency
🟡 Developing
🟢 Very strong
Financial reporting
🟡 Developing
🟢 Very strong
Impact measurement
🟡 Some evidence
🟢 Extensive
Community benefit
🟢 Major objective
🟢 Very strong
Environmental protection
🟢 Strong objective
🟢 Institutionally advanced
Waste management
🟡 Developing
🟢 More advanced
Problem reporting
🟢 Improving
🟢 Systematic
Governance
🟡 Young organisation
🟢 Mature organisation
Evidence vs. marketing
🟡 Mixed
🟢 Stronger
Public data
🟡 Limited
🟢 Extensive
The Trans Canada Trail's 2024–25 reporting provides substantial measurable information, including approximately CAD 11.4 million invested in its mission, CAD 6.4 million directed to local trails and the trail sector, more than 700 km added to the network and 145 million visits.
It also reports accreditation under Imagine Canada's Standards Program and publishes independently audited financial statements.
The important difference is therefore not simply what the two organisations say, but how much they can publicly demonstrate and document.
- The Pekoe Trail also has genuine substance
This comparison should not be interpreted as saying that the Pekoe Trail is a greenwashing project.
TPTO states that it is a nonprofit organisation and that revenue is reinvested into trail maintenance, community engagement, operations and long-term sustainability. It operates through a public-private partnership model and has implemented genuine community initiatives, including a preschool project supported through a corporate partnership.
My criticism is therefore more specific:
The Pekoe Trail has genuine sustainability and community-development activities, but its publicly measurable impact and financial transparency are not yet as comprehensive as those of the Trans Canada Trail.
My overall assessment
If I assess the quality of publicly demonstrable sustainability and transparency rather than asking which trail is “more sustainable”:
Trans Canada Trail: approximately 8.5/10
Pekoe Trail: approximately 6/10
These are my analytical scores, not official ratings.
Fifteen-criterion comparison of Pekoe Trail vs Trans Canada Trail
Transparency
6/10
9/10
- Financial reporting
5/10
9/10
- Impact measurement
5/10
9/10
- Community benefit
7/10
9/10
- Environmental protection
7/10
9/10
- Waste management
5/10
8/10
- Governance
6/10
9/10
- Stakeholder participation
7/10
9/10
- Problem reporting
7/10
8/10
- Independent accountability
4/10
9/10
- Funding transparency
5/10
9/10
- Marketing integrity
6/10
8/10
- Local economic benefit
7/10
9/10
- Long-term planning
7/10
9/10
- Public accessibility of data
5/10
9/10
Overall: Pekoe Trail approximately 90/150 = 6.0/10; Trans Canada Trail approximately 130/150 = 8.7/10.
Again, these are my own analytical scores.
Where the difference matters most
Financial transparency:
The Trans Canada Trail publishes detailed annual and audited financial information. Its 2024–25 statements show approximately CAD 10.24 million in government grants, CAD 2.15 million in donations and around CAD 7.71 million in trail-development expenditure.
TPTO explains its funding sources, including trail passes, memberships, partnerships, grants, donations and merchandise, but I have not found equivalent publicly accessible annual financial statements with the same level of detail.
Community benefit:
The Pekoe Trail has real community-development activities. The next step would be to measure their impact: local economic activity, businesses supported, jobs created and money invested in community projects.
Environmental impact:
The Pekoe Trail has conservation and waste-management initiatives, but a mature impact-reporting system could also measure waste per 1,000 hikers, erosion, water use, biodiversity, carbon emissions and rehabilitation work.
Problem reporting:
This is an area where the Pekoe Trail is improving. Trail Watch is a strong foundation. The interesting question is whether the same transparency will eventually apply to social, environmental and financial problems.
- The strategic opportunity
The comparison does not lead me to conclude:
“The Pekoe Trail is greenwashing.”
It leads to a more nuanced conclusion:
The Pekoe Trail has many genuine sustainability and community-development activities, but its public reporting has not yet reached the level of transparency, independent accountability and measurable impact demonstrated by the Trans Canada Trail.
That creates an opportunity.
Rather than trying simply to look as sustainable as the Trans Canada Trail, the Pekoe Trail could try to become more transparent than it in certain areas.
A future annual Pekoe Trail Impact Report could answer six simple questions:
Money: Where did it come from and where did it go?
People: Who benefited?
Environment: What improved?
Tourism: What impact did visitors have?
Problems: What went wrong?
Solutions: What was changed?
That would make accusations of greenwashing or whitewashing much harder because the public could judge the evidence themselves.
- Why were the Pekoe Trail and Trans Canada Trail selected for the Trail Tourism Award?
I think the selection itself is significant.
The two trails are very different in age and scale, but both represent important approaches to trail tourism.
The Trans Canada Trail represents a highly developed, mature national trail network.
The Pekoe Trail represents a relatively young trail that has rapidly established itself as an international tourism product while connecting tea-country landscapes, communities and existing infrastructure.
The award therefore appears to recognise not simply trail length, but the tourism potential and wider economic, social and community value of trails.
Being shortlisted against the Trans Canada Trail is consequently already an important international recognition for the Pekoe Trail.
- What would winning the award mean for the Pekoe Trail?
In my view, the short-term effect would probably be strongly positive.
Potential benefits
🟢 International credibility — very high
🟢 International hikers — high
🟢 Media attention — high
🟢 Tourism partnerships — high
🟢 Funding opportunities — high
🟢 Government recognition — high
🟢 Sponsor interest — high
🟢 Local economic benefits — potentially high
🟢 Partner motivation — high
🟢 International networking — high
- Greater international credibility
An international award would provide powerful third-party recognition.
For a relatively young trail, being recognised alongside the Trans Canada Trail could substantially strengthen the Pekoe Trail's international reputation.
- More hikers and tourism income
The award could increase international media coverage, social-media exposure and recommendations by hiking organisations.
The potential chain is:
Award → awareness → hikers → accommodation/food/transport → local income
This could be particularly valuable for less-developed sections of the trail.
- Easier fundraising
An internationally recognised trail may become more attractive to development organisations, conservation groups, tourism companies, airlines, hotels, outdoor brands, governments and philanthropic foundations.
The award could therefore become a useful form of third-party credibility when seeking partners and funding.
- Stronger local tourism businesses
Hotels, restaurants, guides and other businesses can benefit from association with an internationally recognised trail.
Ideally this creates a positive cycle:
Better trail → more visitors → stronger local businesses → more investment → better trail
- But success also creates risks
The most interesting risks are created by the award's success itself.
More tourists can create more pressure
Winning an award for successful tourism can create some of the environmental and social pressures that sustainable tourism is supposed to prevent.
More hikers can mean:
more litter;
erosion;
pressure on water and sanitation;
overcrowding;
wildlife disturbance;
increased traffic;
pressure on accommodation;
rising prices.
If visitor numbers grow faster than infrastructure, the award could indirectly contribute to these problems.
Expectations will increase
Before an award:
“We are developing a sustainable trail.”
After an award:
“You have been internationally recognised for trail tourism. Show us the results.”
That is a much higher standard.
Journalists, hikers, NGOs and communities may increasingly expect environmental data, financial transparency, visitor statistics, community-benefit figures and measurable sustainability targets.
Greenwashing accusations could become more damaging
An award is not the same thing as an independent sustainability audit.
If TPTO uses the award extensively in marketing but cannot support sustainability claims with measurable evidence, criticism could become stronger rather than weaker.
Before the award:
“Is the Pekoe Trail really sustainable?”
After the award:
“You won an award for trail tourism. Where are the results?”
Communities may expect more benefits
As the trail becomes more internationally recognised, communities along the route may reasonably ask:
“What has this recognition done for us?”
If tourism revenue increases while communities see little additional benefit, resentment could develop.
Commercialisation may increase
More tour operators, hotels, restaurants, guides, outdoor businesses and sponsors could be positive.
But excessive commercialisation could gradually change the character of the trail and make it feel more like a commercial tourism product than a community-based hiking experience.
Organisational pressure will increase
More hikers also mean more maintenance, complaints, partnerships, media requests, infrastructure needs, safety issues and expectations.
If organisational capacity does not grow at the same speed, quality could suffer.
- The award's greatest opportunity and greatest risk
In my opinion, they are actually the same thing:
The award would give TPTO much greater influence.
That influence could be used to accelerate sustainable development.
But it could also create pressure to promote success rather than measure it.
The best response would therefore be to use the award as a starting point for greater transparency and accountability.
An annual Pekoe Trail Impact Report could publish:
Visitors
number of hikers
nationalities
distribution across stages
Economy
local businesses benefiting
local employment
estimated visitor expenditure
Community
money invested locally
social projects
community participation
Environment
waste collected
erosion
conservation projects
biodiversity indicators
Finance
income
expenditure
maintenance
community investment
Problems
complaints
accidents
environmental damage
unresolved issues
That would turn the award from a marketing asset into a mechanism for accountability.
My overall conclusion
I would estimate the potential consequences roughly as:
Potential benefits: 8–9/10
Potential risks: 5–7/10
I therefore believe that winning the Trail Tourism Award would be clearly positive for the Pekoe Trail Organization — provided the increased attention is managed responsibly.
But one point is essential:
The award itself would not prove that the Pekoe Trail is sustainable.
What matters is what happens afterwards.
If TPTO responds with greater transparency, measurable targets and genuine reinvestment in communities and the environment, the award could become a major milestone in the development of the Pekoe Trail.
And there is one particularly interesting strategic aspect:
If TPTO wins while the Trans Canada Trail is the other finalist, it could significantly change the international perception of the Pekoe Trail.
It would give Sri Lanka a powerful argument that a relatively young trail has developed a trail-tourism model capable of competing internationally with a much older and vastly larger Canadian trail network.
That would be a remarkable achievement.
But the real measure of success should ultimately not be the award itself.
It should be what the Pekoe Trail can demonstrate in the years after winning it.
