Environmental trends – Will tourism respond to environmental and energy pressures? 12th EUROPEAN TOURISM FORUM Tourism – a Force for Economic Growth, Social Change and Welfare 17-18 October 2013 The Palace of the Grand Dukes of Lithuania, Vilnius C. Michael Hall Docent, University of Oulu, Finland; Visiting Professor, Linneaus University, Sweden & University of Eastern Finland; Professor, University of Canterbury, New Zealand firstname.lastname@example.org http://canterbury-nz.academia.edu/CMichaelHall 2 The concept of sustainability in tourism is incredibly successful • - Innovation and diffusion of the concept over time modern origins in late 1980s From two academic papers in 1989 to >60 in 2009 A dedicated journal, numerous dedicated texts and courses - Widespread adoption of the term in government at all scales, industry organisations, individual firms and nongovernment organisation policies and statements - Is has become a part of the lexicon of business and of governments, especially with respect to the policy context within which they operate UNWTO forecasts 3 Yet… tourism is less sustainable than ever • In environmental terms: - More emissions in absolute terms - Greater resource use (energy, land use, water) - Increased contribution to biodiversity loss / species introductions • But then we keep being told… “Travel & Tourism accounts for 255 million jobs globally. At US$6 trillion (9% of GDP) the sector is a key driver for investment and economic growth” (WTTC, 5 June 2013). • The growing contribution of tourism to environmental change while simultaneously being promoted as a means of economic growth suggests that sustainable tourism development is a significant policy problem. Maybe even a policy failure? As presently constituted tourism is not a form of green growth. • “much tourism growth, as with much economic growth in general, is already uneconomic at the present margin as we currently measure it given that it is leading to a clear running down of natural capital”. • Tourism is experiencing an enormous environmental subsidy The sustainable tourism ‘standard model’ A more accurate sustainable tourism model THE ENVIRONMENT / NATURAL CAPITAL A reallocation of natural capital from nature’s economy to human economy in the process of generating economic growth? (and social change and welfare?) Do efficiency improvements mean that we reduce the level of natural resource consumption and the level of environmental impact? K Natural capital allocated to wildlife / environment GDP Source: Adapted from Hall, 2010 Natural capital allocated to human / tourism economy and society. Everything in the previous model of ‘balanced’ sustainable tourism fits in here TIME Tourism sector emissions and mitigation targets and forecasts •IEA (2009): Air travel almost quadruples between 2005 and 2050 with an average worldwide growth rate of 3.5% per year, but over 4% worldwide until 2025 • IMO (2009): Absolute emissions from shipping will grow by 1.9–2.7% per year up to 2050 • Boeing (2012): Growth in global aircraft fleet from 19 890 in 2011 to 39 780 by 2031; airline traffic in revenue passenger kilometres: 5% per year • Airbus (2012): Growth in revenue passenger kilometres by 150% between 2011 and 2031 (averaging 4.7% per year), with the global fleet of passenger aircraft growing from 15 560 to 32 550 in the same period Source: Gössling et al. 2013 Emission Reduction Targets and Suggested Action in Aviation International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) International Air Transport Association (IATA) Aviation Global Deal Group (AGD group) International Business Aviation Council (IBAC) IEA / OECD Emission projection and Reduction Goal Improvement in fuel efficiency of at least 2% per year until the year 2050 -50% until 2050, stabilisation by 2020 (base year 2005) -50% to -80% by 2050, up to -20% by 2020 • Carbon-neutral growth by 2020; • fuel efficiency as per ICAO • A reduction in its total CO2 emissions by 50% by 2050 relative to 2005. 3 to 4-fold increase in emissions to 2050 in baseline scenario. • “Extremely challenging” Blue Shifts scenario still results in considerable emissions growth in 2050 over 2005 GHG considered CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 Suggested measures Biofuels • technology • Improving operational efficiency • Building and using efficient infrastructure • Positive economic instruments to provide incentives Energy efficiency measures Air traffic management Biofuels Open and unlimited emission trading with other sectors Technology, Infrastructure and operator best practices Alternative fuels Market based measures Technology, Infrastructure and operator best practices Alternative fuels Market based measures O dear, we forgot something… • Three types of rebound effects are frequently identified in the literature. 1 the direct rebound effect, which is manifested in increased demand for the same product or service. For example, the switch from a 6-litre to a 3-litre car may result in additional journeys being made in the 3-litre car. 2 the indirect rebound effect, expressed in increased demand for different products or services. For example, the change from a 6-litre to a 3-litre car may result in consumers taking more holidays by air. 3 the structural or macroeconomic rebound effect. For example, because more consumers drive 3-litre cars, overall demand for petrol is lower, causing relative prices to fall and creating an incentive for increased demand for energy-using products in other sectors. • The level of a rebound effect is generally defined as the percentage of an efficiency-boosting measure/technology that is offset by a rise in demand • The 50-50 rule of thumb: – ‘in the long term and on average, combined rebound effects of at least 50% must be assumed. In other words, energy efficiency improvements in an economic system will on average yield half the theoretical savings potential of efficiency technologies and measures’ (Santorius 2012). How large? • Barker et al. (2009) modeled the potential long-run rebound effects resulting from the global energy efficiency measures incorporated into the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report and estimated that – for transport there would be a worldwide direct rebound of 9.1% in 2020 and 9.1% in 2030, and a macroeconomic rebound of 26.9% in 2020 and 43.1% in 2030. The total rebound effect for transport is 36.0% in 2020 and 52.2% in 2030. – Residential/services buildings have an even higher estimated total rebound of 44.3% by 2020 and 60.6% for 2030. The estimated total global rebound effect on the IPCC’s] estimates is 31.5% of the projected energy savings potential by 2020, rising to 51.3% by 2030. • If applied to tourism this means that by 2030 the impacts of energy-efficiencies on emissions reduction will potentially be more than halved and that the reduction in the total potential gains in energy efficiencies over the period to 2035 are cut by more than 35% - leading to a potential doubling of tourism emissions. The limits of containment • Efficiency standards for appliances or production processes harbour the greatest risk of evoking rebound effects. • Real income gains and falls in market prices that arise from efficiency increases can theoretically be absorbed by ecotaxes. However, this would require a complex taxation scheme with sector- and productspecific tax rates, which would be difficult to implement. • In theory rebound effects cannot arise if resource use is limited by caps (absolute upper limits). However, unless caps are introduced globally, rebound effects can still occur via international trade and increased imports – including tourism. Efficiency and sufficiency in sustainable tourism development PRODUCER BEHAVIOUR ECO-EFFICIENCY More productive use of materials and energy. PRODUCTION Efficiency DRIVERS FOR CHANGE EXTERNAL INTERNAL Regulation; Cost of energy; System change; Polluter pays Value change; Ethical & social responsibilities Sufficiency CONSUMPTION CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR Source: After Hall 2009 Increased product life spans Changed consumer behaviour Restructure socio-technical system SLOW / SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION Changed consumption patterns leading to reduced throughput of products and services and less energy. Same or increased personal travel demand. ‘Business as usual’. No fundamental change in destination choice or consumption choices: ‘Green Growth’ / ‘Green Economy’ Continued run down of natural capital if primary policy approach SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT / STEADY-STATE TOURISM Restructure, Redistribute Reduction in personal demand and distance travelled; reuse and recycle. Fundamental change in demand to emphasise ‘local’ destinations, short supply chains and reduce resource consumption and distance travelled: ‘Reorientation’ / ’Degrowth’ Recessionary if implemented in isolation from other measures. Sustainable consumption policies Approach Scale Understanding of decision-making consumption is… Utilitarian (consumer sovereignty; green economics) individual The means for increasing utility Social & psychological (Behavioural economics / green consumerism / ABC model) individual Cognitive information processing on basis of rational utilitymaximisation Response to psychological needs, behaviour and social contexts Systems of provision / Institutions (degrowth, steady-state tourism) Community, society, network Dominant paradigm of “ABC”: attitude, behaviour, and choice Constrained / shaped by sociotechnical infrastructure and institutions Satisfier of psychological needs; cultural differentiator; marker of social meaning and identity Routine habit, inconspicuous rather than conspicuous Tools to achieve sustainable consumption Green labelling, tax incentives, pricing (including carbon trading), education Dominant forms of governance Nudging - making better choices through manipulating a consumer’s environment Markets (marketization and privatization of state instruments) Markets (marketization and privatization of state instruments) Networks (publicprivate partnerships) Social marketing to encourage behavioural change and promote sustainable lifestyles and behaviour Short-supply chains, Hierarchies (nation local food, local tourism state and supranational institutions) Communities (publicprivate partnerships, communities) The value of utilising all approaches to governance: IATA airline online reporting and offsetting opportunities 2009 vs 2013 Social World 2009 2013 Tech. Infra. Oper. Econ. Calcul Book. ator 38.4% 29.5% 28.1% 20.5% 20.5% 19.1% 14.2% EU28+ 41% 4 2009 World Env. 36% 36% 32% 30% 30% 26% 9.4% 17% 50.6% 40.9% 26.4% 26.4% 26.4% 26.4% 16.1% 14.5% EU28+ 61% 4 2013 56% 39% 39% 39% 39% 23% 23% FFPs 3.5% 2% 3.4% 2% *Env. refers to Environmental, Tech. refers to Technology Improvements; Infra. refers to Infrastructure Developments; Oper. refers to Efficient Operations; Econ. refers to Economic Measures. *Book, refers to capacity to offset when booking; FFPs refers to Frequent Flyer Points Global ecological footprint and conceptualising growth and biophysical capacities Can we go beyond the first three letters of the alphabet? • Need to engage in third-order policy learning by which some of the basic paradigms and assumptions are questioned with respect to tourism development. Beyond the dominant paradigm of “ABC”: attitude, behaviour, and choice to actually change systems of provision. • Will tourism respond to environmental and energy pressures? Regulation has a vital role, along with consumer pressure and environmental and resource costs. • In tourism governance far too much attention has been given to the assumption that a well-designed institution is “good” because it facilitates cooperation and networking rather actually focussing on the norms and values of institutional arrangements and their potential outcomes. • What, after all, is the point of encouraging governance mechanisms such as partnerships, network development, self-regulation, codes of conduct and individual responsibility if they continue to have no practical effect on the sustainability of tourism and consumption? • If the ethical value of responsible tourism by “individual choice” leads to increased emissions from lifestyle and travel actions and worsening environmental change then how ethical or responsible is it?