53% make responsible flight choice

Where travellers are offered a meaningful choice they demonstrate their responsibility in significant numbers. Travellers choose carbon efficient flight options when offered them, with 57% of users selecting the cheapest/lowest carbon option and paying an average premium of 19% over lowest cost/higher carbon options. Read the full blog here from Harold Goodwin International Centre for Responsible Tourism www.icrtourism.org

Global sustainable tourism accreditation and criteria will not work

At first thought a global sustainable tourism criteria or accreditation scheme might seem like a good idea - all organisations marketing sustainable tourism would need to comply with it, and tourists would know at a glance from a logo that the holiday met certain criteria. Eco-labels have worked elsewhere so why not in tourism? Here I will argue that in practical terms there is unlikely to ever be a global accreditation scheme, and that - while tourism accreditation schemes can be useful - such schemes are limited in what they can achieve in creating change. In fact, a global scheme could indeed be detrimental.

Responsible tourism is not an easy concept to explain. The impacts of tourism are complex and span cultural, economic and environmental issues. Although I was told repeatedly in 2000 that calling our business "responsibletravel.com" would put off tourists more recently claims around responsible and sustainable tourism are believed to have real marketing value. Naturally, fears have grown around 'greenwashing' - people exaggerating their claims to attract more business. As a result some have called for a global criteria or accreditation scheme....The hope would be to simplify the issues and the choices for tourists through use of a logo granted when organisations meet a checklist of criteria. There are several reasons why this might be problematic, if not undesirable.

Local relevance
Firstly, tourism's impacts are very different in each place. For example, water conservation and access to fresh water is a big issue in Kenya, but not in Ireland. Poverty reduction through tourism is key in Peru, but not in Geneva. The cultural impacts of huge numbers of cruise ship passengers visiting small Alaskan towns is significant, but irrelevant in Antarctica. On a micro level tourists taking parking places reserved for the local community might be a big issue at one end of town, but academic to those at the other end of town with more parking. In reality there tend to be just two or three big issues facing tourism in any one place, and they are different everywhere. Compared to these big issues other concerns are relatively minor.

A global set of sustainable tourism criteria or accreditation scheme with long checklists of criteria does not recognise these differences. It does not force you to think about and address the big issues in that destination - instead it leads you to attempt to tick off lots of (probably easier) but less important things.

It could be argued that applying a top down global accreditation scheme or criteria is in fact the antithesis of responsible tourism, which seeks to work bottom up to involve local people in deciding what type of tourism suits them and to recognise that every place and every community is different. It also goes against what we are seeing emerge from the market - lots of more locally relevant accreditation schemes. A global scheme would be reductive; it would reduce destinations down to one common level rather than acknowledging what makes them different.

The unique role of tourists as ‘involved consumers’…
There are several additional reasons why the impacts of tourism are far more complex than those served by eco-labels in food, fisheries and timber production. When you buy a tin of tuna with a Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) logo you can be confident that it's from sustainably managed fish stocks. However, when you book a fully accredited 100% sustainable place to stay can you be confident that all the economic, cultural and environmental impacts have been managed?

The answer is 'no'. If the tourist decides to get drunk and be offensive to local people; use masses of water for baths, damage the coral whilst snorkelling; litter the Park; buy souvenirs made from endangered species; or stay in the hotel and spend no money within the local community then immediately the holiday is no longer 100% sustainable.

The fact is that the consumer (tourist) is part of the impacts of tourism, in a way that the person who buys a tin of tuna or fair trade tea from a supermarket is not. In short the impacts of tourism are totally different based of the type of tourist. A small group of older cultural tourists have totally different impacts to a large group on an stag party.

Furthermore the impacts of tourism in the same place changes across different times of the year. They are different during Ramadan than before or after; they are different during the harvest when local people need to be in the fields not serving in the hotel; they are different during the dry season when access to water is more at a premium.

Added complexity...
No tourism accreditation scheme or set of criteria can address the complexity of the different impacts from different types of tourists across different times of year, or the fact that even before this, tourism (with its cultural, economic and environmental impacts) is already more complicated than other sectors served by eco-labels.

I have not even begun to address the issue that just one holiday might encompass four restaurants, three hotels, two local tour guides, one Park, local transport, six producers of food, three different towns and four excursions. Are we really going to try to accredit each element of this? I am reminded that it took Tesco over 18 months and over £100,000 to examine the cradle to grave impacts of a tin of baked beans...

Simplicity isn't the answer
In short, it is wrong to try to pretend that we can confidently say whether a holiday is sustainable or not based on a check-list of global criteria. Of course you might say that imperfect as any global scheme might be it would be better to at least try... This is where I disagree.

The idea that we must try to reduce and simplify down the complex impacts of tourism into a simple logo (gold, silver or bronze?) is based on the premise that we do not want the tourist to have to think too much. In fact we want the opposite. The tourist needs to be aware of the issues in the place they are visiting, and to think about their own impacts.

Krippendorf in his book The Holidaymaker said it best; he talked about the need for "rebellious tourists" questioning their holidays more actively. Does a codified and largely meaningless logo from an accreditation scheme achieve this? It does not - in fact it achieves the opposite - which is why I believe that a global accreditation scheme for tourism would be damaging to the responsible tourism movement.

At responsibletravel.com we've always published something we call a 'making a difference statement' on every holiday page. Here we ask the tourism provider to think about the big issues in their destination, and to explain how they have addressed them. They must all meet a minimum standard, but of course some far exceed this. The tourist can read these stories, get informed about the issues in the destinations and how they are being addressed. It gets them thinking about their role, and their impacts, before they travel.

They can also read about other travellers' experiences, and their views on what the tourism provider is doing to address tourism's impacts. Every review is sent back to the tourism provider - creating constant feedback about ways to improve (even the best accreditation schemes only make annual inspections).

Tourism accreditation kite marks do not sell holidays
Finally, one last myth. It is said that a global sustainable tourism kite-mark would gain recognition quickly and generate significant additional bookings for those who had achieved it, thus creating a market driven incentive.

We market over 700 accommodations; many of them have been accredited in some way. They tend to come to us after being disappointed that their new logo did not generate new bookings - and why would it? We find tourists are far most interested in the infectious stories in our making a difference sections - such as the local guide whose family have lived in the village for four generations offering a village tour and opportunity to learn to cook local dishes with his family - than in any logo.

Many other market sectors have understood this and try to re-connect the buyer of a product with the producer through storytelling - just look at fair trade teas or coffees, the back of The Body Shop products, Waitrose and Marks & Spencers advertising and in store promotional materials. This is how to sell responsible tourism, not by sticking a label on it.

On accreditation
You might think I am against tourism accreditation full stop. I am not. I think it plays a valuable part in helping raise standards in the supply chain and can work quite well with hotels, particularly those in similar destinations with similar types of tourists who face common problems.

The Federation of Tour Operators Travelife scheme adopted by TUI and Thomas Cook and others is a good example of this and I believe it to have been successful in raising standards. I am in favour of good local accreditation schemes focussed on the big local issues.

Having said that Professor Harold Goodwin at the International Centre for Responsible Tourism at Leeds Metroplitan University argues that -'The case for certification has not been made, a great deal of money has been spent on it over the last ten years but there is still little or no evidence that it delivers for the businesses that have to pay for it. The labels are opaque; consumers do not know what the businesses have achieved. The labels are process based; the business gets rewarded for introducing low flow showers, not for reducing water consumption per bed night.

The certification schemes cannot tell us what they have achieved, how much water has been saved, or waste recycled. The Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria are comprehensive but no grading based on them can tell the consumer how high or low the average fossil fuel consumption is per bed night.

Consumers are increasingly looking for a meaningful way of reducing their negative and increasing their positive impacts – labels do not offer that. They are too opaque; they lack meaning and local significance, we have no evidence that they affect consumer choice'.

In summary
I believe the most important thing is to be having tourists asking more informed questions of their holidays and themselves, and for those in the tourism industry to be thinking about the key big issues in their destination rather than one size fits all checklists of global criteria. This is far more important than any attempt to create a global accreditation scheme or criteria, which in fact may be detrimental to both the encouragement of rebellious tourists and the identification of the biggest issues to address in each destination.

Responsible tour operators and hotels against Heathrow expansion

Last week we did a survey of over 900 of our responsibletravel.com members and staggeringly we found that 75% are against plans for a third runway at Heathrow.

I was on the BBC News Channel on Thursday evening talking about the results.

Indeed, just like the rest of the travel industry, most of the members that we work with are dependent on aviation to generate business. However, it's a total myth that everyone in the tourism industry backs an expansion. As one of our members said this week this is just ‘more hypocrisy from our government who talk the talk on the environment but never walk the walk’.

What we needed last week instead was an announcement about how rail travel across the UK and Europe would be made easier and cheaper for people. We should be focussing on flying less, and improving the benefits of existing international tourism to local communities and conservation, not on a new runway at Heathrow.

Here are some of the comments from members

2009 travellers will spend wisely on classic trips

Looking into my crystal ball for 2009, I'm predicting a further increase in traditional holidays closer to home and a return to longer more classic travel experiences, as travellers aim to get maximum value from their holiday budgets.

I think 2009 will be one of the toughest years that the travel industry has ever faced. It’ll be tough for travellers too – many won’t take a holiday at all whilst others will cut out second and third holidays, choosing to stay at home – a ‘staycation’ – or with friends instead.

Those that can afford additional breaks will explore much closer to home, particularly as the pound drops in value against the Euro - allowing them to save up the pennies and the annual leave for a longer annual holiday which will come in the form of classic, special travel experiences – those unforgettable once in a lifetime trips.

Having made a tough choice to spend, travellers will want to ensure they are not disappointed and the ‘classic’ more dependable favourites – best in their category – will be the order of the day. Destinations such as Angkor Wat, Machu Picchu and the Masai Mara.

Incredible journeys such as the Trans Siberian railway, which epitomise slow and appreciative travel will be popular. And what could be more classic than a small group adventure holiday that takes in a number of destinations and experiences - proving great value for money too.

Destinations – England tops the list

This year, responsibletravel.com has seen England jump from 11th to 1st place in its most popular destination list, with enquiries for England holidays increasing by 97.

Classic Middle East destinations have also risen in popularity in 2008 – Syria by 94% and Jordan by 69%.

Cuba too has also increased 40% as travellers flock to the country before America lifts its travel embargo – predicted by many once Obama is in power.

The top 10 most popular destinations on responsibletravel.com in 2008 were as follows:

1) England
2) Egypt
3) Thailand
4) Greece
5) India
6) Tanzania
7) Italy
8) Turkey
9) Peru
10) Spain

New to this year’s top 10 is Turkey – deemed to be good value as it is outside the Euro zone, as well as Spain .

Kenya has dropped from 3rd place in 2007 to 13th place this year due to the troubles that took place early on in 2008.

The future of tourism

The environmental cost of travel has been well discussed in the media, and tourism has taken a battering. In our hope to kick start a positive and forward thinking debate around the future of tourism last week we launched a new website http://www.futureoftourism.com , which lays out a vision for the future of the tourism industry and welcomes your ideas, thoughts and contributions.

The site is launched to coincide with the publication of a special dedicated ‘future of travel’ December issue of Geographical, the official magazine of the Royal Geographical Society and our media partner for this project. You can read the editorial from the magazine on the site – there’s articles on the future of hotels, transport, technology and travel trends in general.

I have written the lead article for the magazine which can be read in full here on the site.

We hope you’ll share your own views and visions on the sustainable future of our industry on the site.

The winners of our Virgin Holidays Responsible Tourism Awards 2008…

The 2008 Responsible Tourism Awards were more competitive than ever before - we received nearly 2,000 public nominations!

The ceremony announcing the winners took place last week at World Travel Market on World Responsible Tourism Day. It was one of the most popular events of the day with a packed audience including tourist boards, tourism ministers, hoteliers, operators, students and members of the press.

New Zealand took away the honours for Overall Winner, as well as scooping Best Destination, as the judges felt the destination had proved to the world ‘that it is possible to develop a national strategy which uses tourism to help make better places to live and to visit.’

To discover all the winners in this year’s Awards, visit http://www.responsibletourismawards.com – not forgetting to browse through our wonderful magazine for the responsible traveller, r:travel which features all the winners and highly commendeds in depth at http://www.responsibletravel.com/rtravel2008

You can also read about all the winners and an article by Harold Goodwin, Chair of the Judges, in this weekend’s Telegraph.

The Awards lunch hosted by BBC World News to celebrate all the finalists was a new departure this year and it really added something to the day, giving guests the chance to hear the stories of some of the finalists, meet other key people in the industry, and enjoy a talk by John Simpson.

Watch footage by BBC World News’ Fast Track programme here.

My new business - irresponsibletravel.com

We are great believers in tourism around the world that benefits local communities and conservation - we call it responsible tourism. Some people argue that we should not call tourism that involves a flight responsible because of aviation's contribution to global warming.

The same arguments are made against fair trade products from communities in developing countries, or organic food from overseas farmers - they should not be called fair or organic (terms that indicate they are 'better') if they need to be flown in.

Small businesses and organisations like responsibletravel.com, the Soil Association and the Fair Trade movement are accused of 'green-washing' by making an effort to improve the industries that they work in, because flying is involved.

I've decided to start a new business - its going to be called irresponsibletravel.com. I will pursue profits at all costs and trample on everything and everyone in my way. This way I can be sure that nobody will be in the slightest bit interested or critical about what I do - it is after all how 90% of the tourism industry operates and nobody cares in the slightest.

My ideas are not to work to find holidays in the UK or those than can be reached by train as we spend much of our time doing. I'm going to sell really, really cheap overseas holidays with flights. To do this as cheaply as possible I will exploit staff by paying them a pitiful wage (they can always beg for tips from tourists), they will have no contracts (so I can get rid of them fast if need be) and no insurance.

I'm going to fly in cheap frozen food from the capital instead of trying to work with local food producers and farmers. I'm building 4 new restaurants in the resort, and have told tourists not to eat in local restaurants because they will get food poisoning or be mugged - this means I can make more money from every tourist.

It's cheaper to build the new restaurants from concrete (flown in of course) than locally available renewable materials - bugger the insane amount of carbon required to make concrete. I'll evict the villagers who live down the beach a bit to make room and chop down a few more trees.

Treating the sewage before its pumped out to sea is too expensive so I'll scrap that to save money. I'm going to move some lights down the beach so that I can attract people who want to party late at night, I'm not bothered about disturbing the turtles nesting.

Finally, I'm going to organise bar crawls with half price cocktails through the old village where the locals like to sit out quietly at night, and try to get tourists as drunk as possible so that they remember that they've had a good time.

The truth is that if we agree that there is no such thing as responsible tourism (unless you stay at home) then we consign ourselves to a future of businesses like irresponsibletravel.com and we give up on the idea of trying to improve the industry.

The reality is that there will always be people flying on holiday - hopefully less than now as the price of flying increases. This means that there will always be a need to improve this industry - and this is what responsible tourism is about. People who choose to fly can make a better or more responsible choice of things to see and do, and places to stay when they arrive.

Incidentally I chose to call our business responsibletravel.com rather than sustainabletravel.com for one very good reason - holidays with flights are not truly sustainable!! Our holidays just have good impacts and negative impacts. Some are better than others, and that's the ones we want you to choose.

Finally I think there is a feeling that flying on holiday is worse than buying things that involve transport or carbon intensive production (cars, houses, computers, food, medicines etc..) because its a frivolous rather than an essential activity. I find that a quite offensive idea. If you ask local people in tourism destinations who earn their living from tourism, or conservationists who fund all their work through tourism incomes, they will tell that you that tourism is essential for both their lives, their communities and the conservation of cultural and natural heritage.

So, while I quietly build my fortune from irresponsibletravel.com spare a thought for those who tried to improve the tourism industry but were told to stay at home...

BBC R4. Is tourism sustainable?

Last week I did a radio programme (BBC Radio 4 Excess Baggage) with presenter John McCarthy and the wildlife TV presenter Kate Humble discussing sustainable tourism. I was asked, amongst other things, whether sustainable tourism was just a nice concept rather than a reality.. Listen to the program here

Honeymoon

It's been a couple of months since my last blog post, I've been rather busy getting married! We had an amazing honeymoon on Zanzibar, which I'd thoroughly recommend. We stayed in 3 small lodges, like this one on the site and enjoyed community run tours of local villages and Dhow trips with local fishermen, before spending a few days in Stone Town - a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

responsibletravel.com on BBC Today Programme discussing volunteer travel

This morning I was interviewed by Evan Davis on BBC Radio 4's prestigous Today Programme about the rising trend of volunteer travel.

There's no doubt that volunteer holidays have become much more accessible for people from all walks of life. In the past you needed to give up six months or even up to two years to go and volunteer. That's no longer the case as there are now shorter trips on offer. It's fantastic to see more and more people wanting to make a difference whilst on holiday.

However, I also highlighted the importance for volunteer holidays to be borne out of a real local need and raised my concerns that some trips can be inspired more by marketing departments in an effort to exploit a growing trend rather than being rooted in a local cause. This approach can leave volunteers feeling like they haven't made a positive difference and local communities are left wondering where the benefit is too.

We have over 350 volunteer trips in the UK and overseas - see www.responsibletravel.com/volunteering - all have been carefully screened. I urge potential volunteers to do as much research as possible and ask plenty of questions of any potential volunteering company.

Here's a five-point checklist to help you on your way to making a real difference:
1. Has the project been inspired by a real local need?
2. Is the project run in joint partnership with the local people?
3. Can you see an independent report on the benefits of the project to local people/environments?
4. Is there transparent information around costs and where the money goes?
5. Does the organisation take steps to match your skills to the needs of the project?

Hear the full Today Programme interview with Justin here.