Dear GSTC Board Members,
We are committed to the development of responsible and sustainable tourism. We believe that tourists want more information about how the impacts of tourism in destinations are being addressed, and about how they can play a positive part in this. Businesses want credible approaches which have value in the market place and which enable them to demonstrate what they have achieved.
 
However we feel that the Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria meet the requirements of neither consumers nor tourism businesses. It is not possible to provide sustainable tourism experiences by focusing only on the tourism businesses. The criteria are no more than a wish list which distract from the focus necessary to tackle the most important issues in particular places.  The GSTC is another process based initiative which fails to transparently report on real achievements; and it provides no apparent mechanism for addressing the differing and important economic, social and environmental issues in the world�s diverse destinations.
 
We, and our supporters, would like to debate these points with you further. We have created a campaign which outlines our concerns, and the specific points that we think merit further debate. You can read about it here www.responsibletravel.com/gstcdebate
 
There is a forum to enable you to share you thoughts with us, the travel industry and policy makers and the growing number of people supporting our call an open debate around these issues and the results of the consultation process which you and so many contributed to.
 
We very much look forward to hearing your thoughts,
 
Kind regards,
 
Justin Francis
www.responsibletravel.com

 
Harold Goodwin
The International Centre for Responsible Tourism

The discussions about aviation emissions are �hotting up� as negotiations begin ahead of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December. The aviation industry is under increasing pressure to step up and make its contribution to the essential reductions in global emissions. The G8 in July pressed the aviation sector to make their contribution outside of the national carbon account targets.

The aviation industry is the �first global industry to commit to a carbon-neutral growth target by 2020�. Yet the strategy for achieving this seems to be based on the vain hope for some magic, non-polluting fuel. Neither International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), nor International Air Transport Association (IATA) can be held accountable for achieving this target. It is little more than wishful thinking, and is technically irresponsible � the industry cannot be held to account for failing to achieve this target. It is difficult to trust in its implementation when there is no mechanism in place to assure progress. 

Irresponsibility

This is not to argue that all airlines are irresponsible � some airlines are taking quite radical steps to reduce their carbon impact per passenger mile flown. They are saving money by increasing fuel efficiency per passenger mile, and the increase in fuel prices have doubtless contributed to driving progress.

This pressure has reduced significantly as fuel costs have fallen in the recession, but the recession has also reduced the number of planes flying, and made a significant contribution to the reduction in aircraft flying and polluting our atmosphere . The NATS, the air traffic controllers, has its own target and a coherent plan to achieve reductions en route, in holding and at airports. Its menu cards are technically specific and some of the plans are SMART.

A responsible strategy

Aviation is not currently being dealt with in the Kyoto system. A responsible aviation pollution reduction strategy requires that the stakeholders, particularly those who operate and manage the industry, adopt an approach similar to that of NATS � one that is specific and credible in its requirements.

Any credible response to the scale of the challenge confronting our species requires an agreed baseline for carbon emissions, a clear auditable target for reduction with interim objectives and a credible global plan for mitigation. The aviation industry has been behaving as though it expected to secure a continuation of its exempt status � this now looks much less likely. It is time to press hard for the aviation sector to be held to account, to take its responsibilities seriously.
 
In June the ICAO, the UN specialist agency charged with addressing the reduction of aviation emissions, recommended a 2% annual increase in fuel efficiency through to 2050. Confusingly, this is expressed as a goal through to 2012, a recommendation 2012 to 2020 and an aspirational goal for 2021to 2050. It is hard to believe that they expect this to be achieved: until the onset of the recession, the average annual rate of increase in aviation has been 4.5% a year.  So far the recession* has contributed more than ICAO or IATA to the reduction in emissions.
 
There are however reasons for optimism. 
 
CO2 is seen in the US as a public health hazard

There are signs, at last, of progress in the USA. In March 2009 the US Environment Protection Agency sent an �endangerment finding� to Obama in the White House stating that it has determined that CO2 poses a hazard to US citizens and seeking authority to regulate and limit CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act. This will treat carbon as a pollutant and a public health hazard.

In the House of Representatives a Clean Energy and Security Act (the Waxman-Markey Bill) has been introduced which may result in US airlines having to pay a domestic carbon tax, through a cap-and-trade program applicable to jet fuel. The Bill passed the House of Representatives at the end of June, and, as it stands, has annual reduction targets for national carbon emissions � requiring a 17% reduction on 2005 levels by 2020.
 
Carbon offsetting is increasingly discredited

Carbon offsetting has been heavily criticised � most recently by Friends of the Earth � as a dangerous distraction. It allows the purchase of permits to pollute � like medieval pardons � designed to perpetuate behaviour that damages our environment.

The United States Government Audit Office in 2008 cautioned that �it is not possible to ensure that every credit represents a real, measurable, and long-term reduction in emissions� Many carbon offset products share the characteristics of toxic debt: as the Friends of the Earth report makes clear, offsets are for sale and have been purchased which do not deliver what the purchaser expects, and some have received very adverse publicity in the press . Offsetting delays us reducing the burning of fossil fuels and securing greater efficiency by the polluter. As a strategy, it is preferred because it is cheaper, and is a dangerous distraction from solutions which address the volume of flying and push airlines and aircraft producers to increase their carbon efficiency of flying. These would tackle pollution at source.
 
Why is cap-and-trade the preferred option for airlines?

Currently, aviation will be brought with the European Emissions Trading Scheme. Airlines will be allocated emissions permits, which they can sell if they have a surplus or buy elsewhere (from within the sector or from other sectors). This has the attraction for the industry that emissions can be maintained and the airline can go on flying � effectively, it is buying a permit to continue polluting, and requires no meaningful change in behaviour.

Carbon offsets are available at a range of very different prices; yet the cost of carbon offsetting is way below the UK government�s 2009 shadow price of carbon at �26.50 per tonne.  Airlines are also aware that where quotas are set by governments they are likely to be generous, making the scheme doubly attractive. The caps are very vulnerable to lobbying pressure by industry reminding governments of the national importance of the aviation sector; fishing quotas are a prime example of this sort of regulation in action.
 
Air passenger duty

This not a green tax in any acceptable sense. There are two principal ways a tax can be �green�. Firstly, it can encourage producers reduce the amount of pollution they cause. Secondly, the revenues can be hypothecated (specifically reserved) for projects promoting adaptation to a low-carbon economy or that mitigate the harmful effects of flying. APD achieves neither of these objectives. It raises revenue for general government expenditure (much of which may well be carbon heavy) and offers no incentive for an airline to become more carbon efficient: the passenger pays the same tax regardless of the carbon efficiency of the airline. Furthermore, because it is a national scheme, UK airlines and airports and destinations � for example the Caribbean � are disadvantaged. The APD distorts competition and fails to create any incentive for airlines to become more carbon efficient. We need something better.
 
Climate change and developmentDeveloping countries are becoming more assertive about the need to generate substantial resources to help them adapt to climate change � which has most impact in the developing world. The 50 least-developed countries have tabled, for discussion in Copenhagen, a proposal that an aviation levy should be introduced to fund adaptation measures in the world�s poorest and most heavily impacted countries. The Maldives, meanwhile, has proposed a flat-rate levy.
 
Many of the world�s least-developed countries are dependent on tourism; small-island developing countries have few economic opportunities in the global economy. In the Caribbean, changing tastes and agricultural policy in developed countries have undermined the tobacco, sugar and rum industries. Tourism is often the industry of last resort rather than of choice. APD, which levies disproportionate charges on Caribbean nations is a particularly damaging tax that will penalise their development; once again the Caribbean will suffer at the hands of the colonial power.
 
In May, the Global Humanitarian Forum published its: �Human Impact Report: Climate Change � The Anatomy of a Silent Crisis�. The report estimates that climate change today accounts for over 300,000 deaths throughout the world each year, the equivalent of 2004�s Indian Ocean tsunami every single year. By 2030, the annual death toll from climate change is forecast to reach half a million people a year. This is a major humanitarian crisis. In June, Gordon Brown suggested that climate change adaptation funding should begin in 2013, and that the scale of resources required by 2020 was $100bn per annum. Resourcing on this scale clearly requires a dedicated fund.
 
A responsible strategy would incentivise mitigation and fund adaptationA tiny fragment of the world�s population flies each year; some estimates are as low as 2%. In the UK it is more than half the population but in the UK, as at the global level, it is the wealthy that fly and the poor who suffer the worst consequences of climate change.
 
A responsible strategy would ensure that the polluters pay: that the least carbon-efficient airlines would pay the most tax. A carbon tax on fuel would promote a reduction in consumption and the proceeds could be used to compensate those who have been most adversely affected by pollution � the world�s poor living in the lest developed countries who are already being affected by changes in climate and the increased frequency of extreme weather events.

The incentives created by the tax would work in a straight line to encourage airlines to fly in a more carbon-efficient way  and to reduce pollution. Passengers, meanwhile, would be encouraged to choose other forms of short-haul travel and, when flying, the most carbon efficient seats.
 
A carbon tax on fuel would raise very significant sums of money to fund the adaptation essential to ensure that climate change does not exacerbate poverty and premature death. And, given that aviation emissions cause climate change globally, the revenues from taxation designed to mitigate climate change should be disbursed by the UN or a similar agency for mitigation in those areas worst affected globally.
 
Travellers � what we can do

Travellers and holidaymakers need to be encouraged to think about their impacts and encouraged to reduce them. This is the approach of the FlySmart campaign. Fly less, reduce your air miles, and, if you decide to fly, choose the most carbon-efficient way to reduce the pollution you cause. Fly direct; fly on planes which are full; fly economy rather than business; consider taking a charter flight; reduce your luggage.

The pioneering Carbon Friendly Flight Finder � accessible from www.flysmart.org � has now been used by over 10,000 consumers. 57% of those consumers chose the greenest and cheapest over the cheapest, paying an average premium of 19% over the lowest cost/higher carbon options. This is proof that, given a credible choice, many consumers are willing to take responsibility and buy a greener option. 45% of air journeys in Europe are less than 500km, and better rail services at affordable prices would be quicker and more convenient; business people and the relatively wealthy take the train from the heart of London to the heart of Paris or Brussels, the less affluent suffer Heathrow or Gatwick.
 
Assuaging guilt by buying a carbon offset does nothing to pressure the airlines to offer more carbon efficient flights. Consumers should FlySmart and if they need to assuage their guilt, they should find a carbon philanthropy initiative � one which is charitable and attracts gift aid, and which is designed to help those worst affected by climate change to adapt.
 
The task for governments

It is the responsibility of governments formulate a coherent policy to climate change � to link mitigation and adaptation � and ensure that taxation does not distort competition. Most radically, they must shape policy to encourage a reduction in the rate of growth of flying, and to reward more carbon-efficient flight.

Governments need to work with airports and the air traffic controllers to make the skies more efficient, to reduce holding and to increase public transport to and from airports.

Government should be setting an example by using the most carbon efficient flights and flying less � and they should not be endorsing offsetting
 
AirlinesAirlines should shoulder their responsibility, and make their flights more carbon efficient for every passenger mile flown. They must stop passing the buck to the passenger. Indeed, airlines should be competing to be more carbon efficient: this has the potential to be a real competitive advantage in a tough market. Many airlines are already doing a great deal but they could do more, and they should be telling the consumers what they have achieved � for example, by labelling seats so that passengers are informed about the level of pollution their individual flight in a particular seat is causing.
 
There is an aviation forum at http://tiny.cc/rtp254 where you could reply to this post or contribute to the discussion about aircraft pollution and responsibility.
 
Harold Goodwin  International Centre for Responsible Tourism

* NATS is reporting that June 2009 was the 12th consecutive month in which the number of flights in UK airspace fell, and that the number fell by 10.5% in June. Transatlantic departures and arrivals were down 14% year on year compared with a reduction of 9.9% for domestic flights. The recession in the airline industry is deep and if the industry could persuade us that the sensible baseline is 2012, when the it may be at the bottom of the trough, that would make achieving any target a good deal easier than using 2008.

This year I have had the pleasure of attending two graduation ceremonies for ICRT Masters graduates, one �robed� at Leeds Met the other as a guest at Greenwich. The ICRT and the Masters course moved form Greenwich to Leeds Met and we still have a few students completing their dissertations at Greenwich. You can see the photos online.

Amongst this year�s Master graduates Katelijne Lenaerts has secured a post as project manager of a European Community tourism project in Suriname, Lucy McCombes is joining the ICRT as a Research Fellow, Linda Ver�sdal is developing her responsible tourism business in Norway www.ansvarligturisme.org , Anna Waddilove is writing up her research as an occasional paper, Rebecca Leah Pelkonen is working in the industry in Canada but still finding time to be involved in organising the Together for Peace Leeds Summat www.t4p.org.uk/jointhesummat

The greatest reward of working in a university with graduate students is the vicarious satisfaction that comes from watching their success in acheiving change in the world.

Respect is at the heart of responsible volunteering. We established people and places to enable volunteers to engage with communities abroad, to share their skills and knowledge and to work together as partners to achieve their host�s goals. Mutual respect between host and guest is crucial in such a partnership. people and places volunteers never replace a local employee: they work as colleagues, contributing as part of the team, and enjoying the privileges of being an �insider�.

Our volunteers travel as paying guests who roll up their sleeves and muck in – paying guests because they pay their way. Too often when working abroad I have come across �volunteers� who make demands on community resources to enable then to do their volunteering. Our volunteers pay for their board and lodging, local transport, liaison with the project and full time support, and each of them makes a donation to the project they work on. If resources are needed for them to achieve their allocated task in the project, they discuss it with their hosts and can buy what they need locally. As paying guests, they neither become a burden on the community they have travelled to assist, nor do they impose their own objectives.

I am often asked whether short term volunteering can work. It can, but only when the volunteers are carefully matched together and work in teams �  where returning volunteers brief the next ones and where all the volunteers working in a particular place are in touch with each other. I believe this contributes to the overall maintenance and development of a professional team approach and avoids dependency on individuals.

I was privileged to be in the rural community of Mapoch, South Africa, when a volunteer who had been at the school for three weeks was demonstrating to the staff how to work the �new� computers which she had refurbished from locally donated redundant computers. In a mere three weeks, this very capable volunteer had patched together a computer lab for computer classes for pupils and their parents � and trained key members of staff who could continue the use and development of basic computer skills.   

As paying guests, people and places volunteers form lasting relationships with their colleagues, often maintaining those professional relationships through email and by fundraising. Volunteers contribute to the sustainability of projects by assisting in briefing the next volunteers who will be travelling to continue the work. Many return to the same community a second or third time.

people and places volunteers enjoy the satisfaction of working with colleagues, in a different place and culture, to achieve objectives which originate with their hosts and become shared objectives. This is truly travel with a purpose: people and places volunteers make a real difference and they are rightly proud of what they achieve.

Harold Goodwin
Chair of People and Places
www.travel-peopleandplaces.co.uk

Travel Pledge is an exciting new opportunity for holidaymakers and travellers to put something back into the destination where they have travelled or holidayed � whether in the UK or abroad. When we travel we make connections, we make acquaintances and friends and we often want to give back through giving � we want to make a contribution to making a place a better place to live in or to visit.

In the late 1990�s when I was working closely with a number of tour operators developing Responsible Tourism policies it was apparent that there was a great deal of charitable giving by holidaymakers and that this was a challenge for the operators, cash was often sent to field staff to pass on and parcels arrive at the offices with an expectation that the contents will be taken out to the destination. Later research in The Gambia revealed that 48% of UK holidaymakers arrive carrying gifts in support of health, education and livelihoods. The tsunami demonstrated that the travel industry in the UK was not equipped to respond rapidly and to provide a mechanism for travellers and holidaymakers who had connections � friends and acquaintances � in the areas affected and who wanted to put something back.

Travel Pledge has been in gestation a long time, Nick Chaffe has brought the energy and time to give it life. I believe it to be the best available one-stop-shop for travellers and holidaymakers wanting to give back to the people and places they have come to care about. It is there to be used � use it.

http://travelpledge.org/

This is Responsible Travel Philanthropy:
1.    We do not charge the local Delivery Partners whose projects we put on the site.
2.    We work with advisers and travel industry partners to ensure that the projects we support are worthwhile and we report, as initiatives complete, to those who have donated.
3.    For UK tax payers we are able to add GiftAid.
4.    The Charities Trust charges 4% of gross donations to cover card charges and processing.
5.    Travel Pledge retains nothing of what is donated.
6.    We aim to be the lowest cost provider � contact me if you find a more responsible or cheaper one-stop-shop for �giving back though giving�.

Harold Goodwin Chair of Trustees � http://travelpledge.org and  harold@haroldgoodwin.info

When  United Airlines broke his acoustic guitar Canadian singer Dave Carroll sought compensation – the baggage handlers had been throwing guitars about. United refused to pay compensation so Dave Carroll recorded United Breaks Guitars and posted it on You Tube 

As Dave Carroll explains “In the spring of 2008, Sons of Maxwell were traveling to Nebraska for a one-week tour and my Taylor guitar was witnessed being thrown by United Airlines baggage handlers in Chicago. I discovered later that the $3500 guitar was severely damaged. They didn�t deny the experience occurred but for nine months the various people I communicated with put the responsibility for dealing with the damage on everyone other than themselves and finally said they would do nothing to compensate me for my loss. So I promised the last person to finally say �no� to compensation (Ms. Irlweg) that I would write and produce three songs about my experience with United Airlines and make videos for each to be viewed on-line by anyone in the world. United: Song 1 is the first of those songs. United: Song 2 has been written and video production is underway. United: Song 3 is coming. I promise.”

The company has lost 10per cent of its  share value -  $180million after the You Tube recording was posted. It was posted on 5 July 2009 and as I write this it has had 3,800,000+ views!

Viral marketing works both ways!

It is a good story and clearly very viral – however, United Airlines has some bigger underlying problems which have been pushing down it's share price since 1st July – see for example the reports on the Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation website

For more on the social marketing aspects see Search Engine Marketing and Social Media

Justin Francis, one of our alumni with whom I co-founded ResponsibleTravel.com in 2001 has been reflecting in his blog on the state of the Responsible Tourism Movement. In the UK the Movement grew out of the campaign run by VSO in the mid-nineties to raise awareness amongst UK consumers about the impacts of their holidays on other peoples� places. That concern struck a chord; and market research demonstrated that consumers cared more about the responsible credentials of the company than whether they had travelled with them before.

First the Association of Independent Tour Operators and then the Federation of Tour Operators declared their support for Responsible Tourism. ResponsibleTravel.com has grown rapidly as an on-line retailer � the C21st equivalent of Fish Street, by providing a shared market place for a wide variety of responsible tourism operators and accommodation providers it helped grow the market and contributed to raising awareness of the issues and the pleasure which can be had from taking a better kind of holiday. The RT Movement has a vanguard and laggards and a few charlatans – as Justin would say �you can taste the difference�, we need to encourage debate and to use www.irresponsibletourism.org It is not enough to celebrate the good � the bad needs to be identified and criticised, false claims need to be exposed. The claims of operators and accommodation providers about their RT practises are part of the contract � misselling can and must be challenged.

The Responsible Tourism Awards have contributed to growing awareness about a different and better way of travelling and of course the success of Responsible Tourism reflects the growth of a broader consumer movement in the UK and in other originating markets.

There has been a parallel development of Responsible Tourism in Destinations � South Africa, The Gambia, Kerala, Brighton and Hove  – demonstrating the diversity of the issues which need to be addressed in different places reflecting the world�s natural and cultural diversity. The Cape Town and Kerala International Conferences on Responsible Tourism in Destinations provided an opportunity to share experience in open and transparent ways � the declarations were agreed by he conferences in plenary session and are owned by them.  No one size fits all set of Global Sustainability Tourism Criteria can adequately deal with the world�s diversity. The current green labels and eco-certificates tell us nothing about what has been achieved in reducing negative impacts or increasing positive ones � for all the money that has been spent we do not know what has been achieved.

The Responsible Tourism Movement encompasses operators, accommodation providers and destinations � the salient issues vary from place to place but there is broad agreement on the scope of an agenda best defined in the Cape Town Declaration.
Having the following characteristics, Responsible Tourism:

The FlySmart campaign is calling for a similar transparent approach to aviation�s carbon pollution – it is NOT about purchasing permits to pollute (offsets), it is about ensuring that the incentives are in a straight line to ensure reduction in emissions per passenger mile flown and reported in a way that informs consumer decisions and with clear evidence of real reductions in pollution.  

Justin is right to point to the significance of the low carbon economy, the age of oil was never going to last for ever, the readjustment in the world�s economies will be painful – tourism cannot be isolated from those changes. But change brings new opportunities. Domestic tourism will grow; the slow movement and local distinctiveness create opportunities for new forms of tourism and new business opportunities � consider this year�s ground breaking VisitEngland Enjoy Every Minute promotion targeted locals and international and domestic tourists.

Over the next few years outbound operators and accommodation providers will continue to ratchet-up responsibility, carbon efficiency will become rapidly more important and consumers will expect to see transparent reporting on carbon efficiency per bed night or per mile flown. The FlySmart campaign will make the case for responsible flying and for the revenues generated to be used to fund adaptation for communities adversely affected by climate change � not the APD tax which fuels further consumption by government, much of it carbon intensive.

The Responsible Tourism Movement needs to demand more of destination managers: local government, national park managers and the land and sea managers. It is no longer acceptable that destination management is reduced to marketing or to the certification of tourism businesses. The management of public space where tourists and locals interact is going to be of increasing importance � for social, economic and environmental reasons.  Businesses and destinations are going to be challenged to report in a much more transparent way what their impacts are, how they are being managed and what the outcomes are.  Is crowding being reduced? Is the carbon footprint of tourism in Cambridge or Snowdonia being reduced? What of water consumption and waste? And critically what is the net economic benefit for local people?

The International Centre for Responsible Tourism, its friends, associates, partners and alumni will remain at the sharp end pushing for change and supporting those who want to use tourism to make better places for people to live in and for people to visit. The RT Movement needs rebellious tourists, tourism industry professionals and locals. The issues are local, the reporting needs to be transparent and robust, and we need to see real change. The pace of change has to accelerate and we need to challenge ourselves to achieve more � there is much to be done.