Nonetheless, golf remains an important activity across Québec’s 362 golf clubs, while worldwide an estimated 25,000 golf courses cater to some 50 million players. Internationally, various organizations and initiatives exist to reduce golf’s environmental impact, but one of the most popular remains the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program. In 2009, 783 golf courses were certified by this program worldwide, including 82 in Canada and 11 in Québec.²

Golf courses that have implemented initiatives to reduce their environmental impact can be recognized by a variety of actions, including:

• decreased water use
• improved irrigation systems and water application
• water quality monitoring
• reduced or eliminated pesticide use
• increased natural organic fertilizer use
• improved spill containment for pesticide mixing and loading areas
• decreased managed turf grass area to increase wildlife habitat
• landscaping with native plants to increase wildlife habitats
• removed exotic invasive plants
• vegetation planted in and around waterways
• installed of contained equipment in wash-off area.

Where such environmental actions have been implemented, golf course managers have generally also reported a positive business value or cost savings, according to Audubon International assessments.³

Situation in Québec

Currently, there is no information that systematically documents environmental improvements implemented by Québec golf courses. However, numerous golf courses are actively working towards reducing their negative environmental impact, while several are also in process of certification by Audubon International. The most prevalent positive environmental action presently in Québec remains the reduction of pesticide use, owing to legislation implemented back in 2003 by the Provincial Government.⁴ According to baseline assessments for the period 2003-2005, Québec’s golf sector used 39,382 kg of active ingredients per year (according to sales figures) and 75.9%, or 29,885 kg, in the form of fungicides.⁵ In comparison with total pesticide use in the Province, pesticide use by golf represented about 1.1% of the total. The continuous reductions in pesticide use remains important to maintain watershed ecosystem health, but especially since their application by golf courses in Québec occurs almost entirely on permeable soils.

Since 2003, the Québec Pesticides Management Code and its associated regulations require all Québec golf courses to submit a pesticide reduction plan prepared by a certified agronomist to the ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs every three years.⁴ For the period 2006-2009, the objective was to achieve average reductions of 12.9% in the use of fungicides, 9.4% in herbicides, 8.2% in insecticides, 7.4% in rodenticides and 2.8% in growth regulators. The results are currently being analyzed and the objectives for the next three years will be revised in 2010.

Though golf courses in Québec have taken numerous other actions to improve their environmental management, the overall impact of these is not documented, with the exception of the Laurentides, where water use is monitored by public sector organizations. A few golf courses have also installed industrial equipment to filter, treat and reuse wastewater. However, such initiatives are limited to only a few places, since they cost up to CAD 200,000. Elsewhere, golf courses have exchanged their carts for electric versions, implemented recycling programs, and use recyclable or biodegradable balls and tees. Increasingly, some golf courses supply their restaurants with local and regional foods, as in the case of the Rawdon Golf Club, which also received Le Phénix de l’environnement Award in 2009 for having implemented a variety of initiatives to improve its environmental management.⁶

While there aren’t clearly any 100% eco-friendly golf courses, work is under way to improve management at some places. There is currently a move in Québec to implement a variety of voluntary initiatives in 2010. For example, the Association des terrains de golf du Québec is drafting a sustainable development policy and green program, which will address comprehensive environmental management requirements covering a range of issues, including waste and water management (composting, recycling), hazardous substance use, vegetation around waterways and others. A number of other organizations, such as the Coalition for Responsible Golf, are also working to help golf courses improve their environmental management practices in Québec.

What about green golfers?

Few studies have assessed golfers’ attitudes towards the environment, and none have been reported from Québec. However, in 2008, Golf Digest published a survey that illustrated how perceptions of 650 avid golfers compared with the general American population regarding golf and its relationship with the environment.⁷ According to this study, golfers were typically male, affluent and older than the general population surveyed and some similarities and differences were noted amongst the two groups concerning environmental attitudes. For example, both groups appeared environmentally conscious and participated in activities like recycling and agreed that government regulation is a necessary approach for addressing environmental issues. However, while golfers also appeared to support the idea that golf is an environmentally friendly/compatible sport, they were less likely than the general population to participate in initiatives such as carpooling. Figure 1 summarizes some of the attitudes towards specific impacts linked to water and pesticide use, which suggests that fewer golfers believe the game’s water and pesticide use has a negative impact on the environment than the general population. The Golf Digest study ⁷ also suggests that, while golfers agree with the need to improve the environmental management of golf courses, such improvement does not necessarily represent a big plus for increased participation in the game.

Some golf courses are also focussing on player education to raise environmental awareness and several try to get players involved by having them volunteer to carry out restoration and environmental works, while others encourage the provision of financial support towards environment initiatives.

Golf clearly has the potential to be more environmentally responsible and the numerous initiatives in place by some golf courses currently leave no room for inaction by the great majority.

Source

(1) Wheeler, K. & Nauright, J. (2006). A green game?: A Global Perspective on the Environmental Impact of Golf. Sport in Society, 9(3) 427-443.

(2) Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Golf Courses

(3) Audubon International (2007). Golf’s Green Bottom Line: Uncovering the Hidden Business Value of Environmental Stewardship on Golf Courses. Audubon International. 64 p.

(4) Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs. Code de gestion des pesticides. Last access November 4, 2009 http://www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/pesticides/permis/code-gestion/index.htm

(5) Laverdière, C., Dion, S., and Gauthier, F. (2007). Bilan des plans de réduction des pesticides sur les terrains de golf. Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs. 54 p.

(6) Ministère du Développement durable, de l’Environnement et des Parcs. Les Phénix de l’environnement, édition 2009. Last access October 28, 2009. http://www.mddep.gouv.qc.ca/Phenix/2009/5-realisation-entrep.htm

(7) Golf Digest (2008). Golf and the Environment: Golfer Perceptions and Attitudes Concerning the Game and its Relationship with the Environment. Golf Digest Publication. Research Resource Centre. 25 p.

The relationship between climate change and tourism is interwoven and interdependent.  Climate change has major implications for the future of tourism because weather conditions factor heavily into the business direction of tourism operators. In Canada, seasonal and outdoor tourism may be adversely impacted by abnormal or unpredictable weather patterns, and costly changes to infrastructure may be required to cope with these changes .

With the growing concern about the effects of climate change and how the tourism industry is vulnerable to these effects, the challenge is to determine the awareness of tourism stakeholders and their level of participation in mitigating such effects.

A 2008 study by L. Kole et al at Ryerson University aimed to determine the level of awareness among Canadian travel agents with regard to climate change, and their willingness to offer carbon offsetting as a mitigation strategy to their clients. The study also aimed to determine whether more information regarding environmental issues and carbon offsetting needs to be provided to travel agents to assist them in channelling this knowledge to consumers.

The study sent an e-survey to 1886 members of the Association of Canadian Travel Agents (ACTA) and 2,500 members of the Canadian Institute of Travel Counsellors (CITC). The study received a 5.9% response rate.

Findings

The study found that while travel agents consider climate change a threat, they were unaware of the tourism industry’s contribution to climate change. Their consumers, travellers, also did not make the connection between climate change and their travel habits. Most travel agents have a ‘basic’ understanding (50%) of climate change and carbon offsetting. More than 50% said their first business priority was ‘making a profit.’ However, 9% of travel agencies said their first priority was ‘spreading knowledge of climate change.’ In addition, although 46% of agents felt it was important to communicate environmental issues related to tourism, they were not encouraged to do so by their agencies.

Some 34% of Canadian travel agents believe their customers would be willing to pay up to $10 as an additional charge for carbon offsets, although they felt that the government should bear the financial costs of carbon offsets. Less than half of these agents ’sometimes’ suggest carbon offsets to their customers while customers ‘rarely’ bring up the option of carbon offsets.

The study concludes that since most travel agents have only a ‘basic’ knowledge and understanding of climate change, they are not sufficiently informed to help transfer knowledge about climate change and carbon offsets to their clients. This is also the main reason that agencies are apprehensive about presenting carbon offsetting as a viable option. Travel agents need to be well-versed in environmental issues and carbon offsetting in order to be ambassadors of environmental change.

Implications

In order to increase awareness, a combined effort needs to be initiated among governments, academic institutions and corporations to educate agents about the effects of climate change on tourism and carbon offsetting. As travel agents are representatives at the frontline of the tourism industry, they wield considerable influence when it comes to travellers’ actions and awareness of environmental issues.

There are a number of approaches for communicating climate change awareness within the tourism industry and for making climate change and carbon offsetting a fundamental part of the industry:

1. Education Campaign for Agents – climate change and mitigation strategies should be part of travel training institutions’ curriculum.
2. Increase client awareness through the tourism industry, in order to incorporate this issue into mainstream culture.
3. Offer clients a flat-rate fee for carbon offsetting.

Travel agents must realize that they can help mitigate the effects of climate change. Agents can inspire action by educating consumers about how their travels contribute to climate change, and by offering them carbon offsetting options to enable them to reduce their carbon emissions.

Sources:

Kole, L., Krestell, S., Parlagreco, L. & Dodds, R. (2008). Climate Change and Carbon Offsetting. Toronto: Ryerson University. 49 pages.

United Nations World Tourism Organization (2008). Climate Change and Tourism:
Responding to Global Challenges. Retrieved from http://www.unwto.org/index.php

Landscapes are an important tourism resource, so it is unrealistic for tourism stakeholders to offer unequivocal support for wind farms. For this reason, battles to stop wind farm development around tourism attractions continue, while at the same time opinions about wind farms continue to diverge. For example, there is opposition to the recently erected wind turbine on Grouse Mountain in Vancouver(2) and to the proposed wind farm near Mont St. Michel, a UNESCO World Heritage Area in France, even though the turbines would be situated some 15 km from it.(3)

Wind turbines as tourist attractions?

For some people, wind turbines are symbols of sustainable development and valued for producing clean energy. Perhaps this attitude can give wind turbines some recognition for being part of modern heritage. Windmills, the predecessors of modern wind turbines, were also contested when introduced to the European landscape around the 12th century. In countries like Holland, windmills today are a visual part of the nation’s heritage and in Québec, many are also tourist attractions, notably on Île Perrot and Île aux Coudres.

However, wind turbines are unlikely to be a major tourism draw in their own right, especially since they are now increasingly part of the cultivated landscape in many countries. In some cases, they diversify the attraction base of a destination, like Cap Chat in the Gaspé Peninsula, where a visitor centre showcases the highest vertical-axis wind turbine in the world. Similar interpretation centres worldwide offer guided tours; in Denmark, for example, there are boat tours to see the offshore wind farms at Middelgrunden near Copenhagen. Preferences and attitudes towards modern wind farms are likely to evolve over time as people get accustomed to their presence, but it is unlikely that they will appeal to everyone in the future.

Visitor preferences

A Scottish report reviewing a number of studies evaluating the impact of wind farms on tourism suggests limited overall negative impacts.(4) However, tourists generally prefer wind energy projects to be located away from accommodation areas, historic sites, scenic areas and viewpoints, and places of natural beauty. The proportion of visitors who flatly oppose wind turbines near tourism attractions appears to be a minority, according to some reports. For example, a broad national survey in France showed 22% of the population thought wind turbines affected tourism negatively, while the rest were positive or neutral.(5) Similarly, in the Languedoc-Roussillon Region, a survey showed only 16% of visitors thought wind turbines degraded the landscape in general.(6) In a more recent study from Scotland, about 20% to 30% of tourists preferred landscapes without wind farms and the rest were mainly positive or neutral.(4) Tourist perceptions were also evaluated in a study in the Gaspé Region of Québec, where visitors generally expressed a positive attitude towards wind farms.(6) However, when asked about the establishment of new wind farms in the future, 56.4% preferred to see a concentration of wind turbines (more than 12 turbines) in a few places, rather than fewer turbines (less than 12) in multiple locations. Furthermore, 5.6% of visitors surveyed did not want to see any wind turbines in the Gaspé Region.(7)

Economic impact

While preference studies show broadly similar patterns, very few quantitative studies published to date have established empirical links between wind farms and the net economic impact on tourism. (8) Several studies use hypothetical scenarios to assess future preferences, thus indicating likely impacts on tourism.(9,10) Such studies tend to show that visitors would not change their travel patterns to an area if a wind farm were established, as 92% of visitors indicated in a survey in Southwest England, for example.(9) Overall, there is limited evidence to suggest that wind farms have a serious negative economic impact on tourism.

A report from Scotland estimated the net economic impact of potential wind farm development by calculating the combined effect of the changing number of tourists going to an area when a wind farm is constructed and the subsequent change in expenditures, and the lowered willingness to pay for a “room with a view” in an accommodation facility affected by the construction. The study looked at four areas in Scotland that represent about 12% of the country’s tourist activity and found that, in total, 81% to 98% of the tourists to these areas would be affected.(4) It also estimated the proportion of accommodation facilities in the same areas that would be impacted by the proposed wind farms, and this ranged from 9.83% to 32.40%. In the visitor survey part of the study, 63% of tourists preferred a landscape free of wind turbines from the hotel bedroom, while 28% were neutral and 9% were positive. The authors suggest visitor perceptions about wind farms are based on where they are. Thus, opinions about wind farms are likely to change if one has a passing view for a few seconds while driving by compared to having a longer, static view from a hotel room. For accommodation establishments with affected views, the study found a reduction in use by 4.9% to 16.20% and estimated a net expenditure reduction of between 0.48% to 1.59% respectively. The study also found proposed wind farm development may lead to a 2.5% loss due to fewer returning tourists visiting the area.(4)

Conclusion

In most places, like Québec, a variety of legislative and planning tools help minimize the social and environmental impact of wind farms.(11) In addition to its visual impact, wind farm development continues to push the limits of social acceptability in terms of its planning, management, operational control and fairness with regard to the distribution of benefits.(12) The few studies mentioned here suggest that even though the majority of tourists may appear positive about wind farms, one must look closer at preferences with regard to visiting places and choosing accommodations. In this context, it would be worthwhile to independently assess the effects of wind farms on tourism at the local and regional scale in Québec.

Sources:

(1) Ministère du Développement durable, Environnement et Parcs (2006). L’énergie pour construire le Québec de demain. La Stratégie énergétique du Québec 2006-2015. Québec: Gouvernement du Québec. 138 p.

(2) Colebourn, J. (2009). “Wind turbine power project installed atop Grouse Mountain,” in the Province. September 25. Accessed online 10 Oct. 2009. Http://www.theprovince.com/story_print.html?Id=2035719&sponsor=

(3) nouvelobs (2009). “Manifestation anti-éolien au Mont-Saint-Michel,” in Le Nouvel Observateur. September 26. Accessed online 10 Oct. 2009.
Http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/depeches/sciences/20090926.SCI7308/manifestation_antieolien_ au_montsaintmichel.html
(4) Riddington, G., Harrison, T., mcarthur, D., Gibson, H., and Millar, K. (2008). “The economic impacts of wind farms on Scottish tourism. A report for the Scottish Government.” Accessed online 16 Oct. 2009. Www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/214910/0057316.pdf

(5) Synovate (2003). Perception et répresentation de l’énergie éolienne en France. Ademe. 18 p.

(6) Institute CSA (2003). Impact potentiel des éoliennes sur le tourisme en Languedoc-Roussillon, France. Synthèse de Sondage. 5 p.

(7) Richard Guay Consultants (2004). Étude de marketing auprès des touristes de la Gaspésie afin de connaître leurs attitudes face à l’installation d’éoliennes. A report presented to technocentre Éolien Gaspésie-les-Îles. Québec. 37 p.

(8) Riddington, G., mcarthur, D., Harrison, T. And Gibson, H. (2009). “Assessing the economic impact of wind farms on tourism in Scotland: GIS, surveys and policy outcomes,” International Journal of Tourism Research. Published online in Wiley Interscience. DOI: 10.1002/jtr.750 http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122609399/abstract

(9) visitbritain (2006). Foresight. Issue 33. July. Strategy and Communications Division.

(10) mori Scotland (2002). Tourist Attitudes towards wind farms. research study conducted for the Scottish Renewables Forum and the British Wind Energy Association. Final Report. Edinburgh. 24 p.

(11) Ministère des Affaires municipales et des Régions (2007). Guide d’intégration des éoliennes au territoire : vers de nouveaux paysages. Québec: Gouvernement du Québec. 38 p.

(12) Saucier, C., Côté, G., Fortin, M.-J., Jean, B., Lafontaine, D., Feurtey, É., Guillemette, M., Méthot, J.-F. And Wilson, J. (2009). Développement territorial et filière éolienne. Des installations éoliennes socialement acceptables : élaboration d’un modèle d’évaluation de projets dans une perspective de développement territorial durable. Rimouski: Université du Québec à Rimouski. 227 p.

Offset Providers

The choice of offset providers internationally continues to augment, while the Carbon Catalogue presently lists 12 providers across Canada with an offset price range of 12.50 $ to 39.90 $ per ton CO2e.(1) For those wishing to purchase offsets from organizations based in Québec, the four principal providers include Planetair,(2) Carbone Boréale,(3) Zero GHG Inc.(4) and ZÉRØCO2.(5)

(1) Planetair is a not-for-profit organization managed by the Unisféra International Centre, also a non-profit organization. (2) Planetair is the exclusive distributor of Myclimate, one of the most respected offset supplier worldwide, since all their projects conform to the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)* and Gold Standard.** These projects finance only renewable energy and energy efficiency projects in various developing countries. Planetair plans to offer Canadian projects in the future depending on sales volumes.

(2) Carbone Boréale (CB) is both a program, and a laboratory of researchers at the University of Québec in Chicoutimi. CB offsets finance tree plantations in a deforested area of Québec and contributes to supporting research. The plantations are verified and managed according to ISO 14064-3 norms, and are registered by the Canadian EcoProjectsTM GHG.(3)

(3) ZeroGHG Inc. is a private consultancy firm offering offsets in a variety of renewable and energy efficiency projects in addition to their consulting services to develop GHG reduction strategies, quantifying emissions and performing audits. ZeroGHG projects are located in various countries, and at least 80% must meet CDM* and Gold Standard**.(4)

(4) ZÉRØCO2 is a private enterprise selling offsets that finance reforestation projects in various communities. Since 2006, ZERØCO2 has reforested more than 20 hectares of land, creating green spaces equivalent to just over 40 football fields in the heart of communities. (5)

Indirect Offset Sellers

Some tourism businesses have partnered up with various offset-selling organizations. For example, since 2007, Air Canada (AC) encourages its customers to purchase offsets via non-profit organization ZeroFootprint that invests in forest restoration project in British Columbia. To date, AC customers bought $187,612 of offsets, equivalent of 11725 tones of GO2.(6) In contrast, Air Transat does not sell offsets for reasons relating to the efficiency of such projects in their ability to solve climate change related problems amongst other reasons.(7)

For those traveling by rail, VIA Rail also does not directly offer offsets to its customers, however it also encourages its customers to calculate their GHG emissions with Tree Canada, an Ottawa-based offset company. Since 1990, VIA Rail has reduced its GHG by 15% approximately, although it is responsible for only 0,03% of total GHG emissions compared to 13% generated by motorists in Canada.(8) For travelers that hire vehicles, numerous car rental companies also offer carbon offsets on-line such integrated into their reservation forms such as Alamo, Enterprise and National Car Rentals amongst others.(9)

Tourism Operations Buying Offsets

Some Québec and other travelers to Québec probably purchase offsets, however none of the above named organizations had data available at the time of writing this article about their clients. Some tourism operations also buy offsets in Québec, but no study assessed their transaction value to date.

Some accommodation establishments also have a carbon neutral policy. For example, the Chicoutimi Hotel has been offsetting its heating and electricity use and has been encouraging its clients to offset their stay with CB.(2) Since 2006, the hotel l’Auberge des Seigneurs in St-Hyacynthe has been offering Eco-Friendly Packages to its clients and in 2008, it has also engaged to calculate guest’s travel related GHG contributions amongst other environmentally friendly services.(10) This establishment also compensates emissions of meetings and events held in the hotel by planting trees. Similarly, in an effort to be carbon neutral, Novotel Montreal plants a tree for every online booking. (11)

Montreal based tour company, Karavanniers du monde has also taken climate change mitigation serirosly and since January 2009, its price structure includes carbon compensation costs with Planetair. (2, 12) The company’s client’s base is approximately 97% Québécois and based on discussions with the operation’ owner, there have been no complaints at all concerning the price increase resulting from mandatory carbon compensations. On the contrary, clients are pleased to see such an effort by the company. Some other travel companies such as Omnitour, Voyages Tour Étudiants also offers offsets to its customers. (2) Similarly, since 2006, the regional-based operation WeLa Aventure organizes eco-friendly hiking and cycling trips in the Saguenay,(13) and it compensated for its clients travel related CO2 emissions to and from the region via supporting tree plantations by ZIP Saugenay (14) and the cooperative COOP4Temps.(15)

Increasingly festivals and events across Québec are also eco-friendly, and some compensated for GHG emissions.(16) For example, since 2008, Montreal’s International Jazz Festival is carbon neutral.(17) Both Québec and Montreal Convention Centers offer eco-friendly events with their partner organizations (18, 19) and both centers offer offsetting as an option for such events. For example, In 2004, the Québec Convention Centre committed to reducing its energy consumption by 33% per m2 and its total GHG emissions by 50%.(20) Since 2007, it hosted 32 eco-friendly events of which 7 involved carbon compensations.

At Montreal’s Jean-Drapeau Park (JDP), sustainable development policy integrates GHG mitigation and compensation strategies for the organization and activities (about 100 events per year) on the park’s territory. (21) JDP created a fund (Fonds Oxygène) to implement this policy, and partners and suppliers will be asked to contribute to this fund, which will finance specific environmental improvement projects (22). Additionally, drivers to JDP will be required to pay $1 extra to leave their vehicles in the parking to help offset GHG emissions with CB.

Conclusion

Although it is well known that carbon compensation projects do not represent an ultimate solution to mitigating GHG emissions, the purchase of offsets in credible projects can raise awareness, and provide funds towards worthwhile initiatives.(23) Although buying offsets in tree plantations remains controversial, in certain cases they can deliver net environmental improvements, while buying offsets in renewable energy projects and technology developments permit a shift away from using fossil fuels.

This brief synopsis of the situation in Québec shows that carbon neutrality in the tourism sector is a patchwork. The analysis also highlights the need for measuring net contributions of greenhouse gases by the travel and tourism sector in order to enable a coordinated approach to assessing how this could be effectively mitigated.

* CDM certifies emission reductions that are sold on the voluntary market and it ensures that developed countries’ carbon credits comply with Kyoto Protocol regulations.
** The Gold Standard is an independent organization that certifies carbon credits sold on the voluntary market. Such carbon credits need to meet sustainable development objectives. This means that a carbon-offset project must lead directly to a net GHG emission reduction. Gold Standard does not certify forestry projects.

Sources:

(1) Carbon Catalogue Project: Find a Carbon Offset: Canada. Last Consulted Apr 25, 2009.  http://www.carboncatalog.org/projects/canada/
(2) Planetair. Offset Projects. Last Consulted Apr 2, 2009. http://planetair.ca/
(3) Éco-conseil. Plantations Compensatoires de GES. Last Consulted Apr 15, 2009.  http://dsf.uqac.ca/eco-conseil/ges/frame_ges.html
(4) ZeroGHG Inc. Last Consulted Apr 25, 2009.   http://www.zeroghg.com/
(5) ZeroCo2. Last Consulted Apr 15, 2009.  http://zeroco2.com/welcome.php
(6) Air Canada. Carbon Offset Program. Last Consulted Apr 25, 2009.  http://www.aircanada.com/en/travelinfo/traveller/zfp.html?src=hp_ql
(7) Transat AT (2009) Greenhouse gas reduction and fuel management. Last Consulted Apr 2, 2009. http://www.transat.com/en/social.responsibility/gas.reduction.fuel.management.aspx
(8) Via Rail Canada. Environment: Helping To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Last Consulted Apr 17, 2009. http://www.viarail.ca/corporate/en_environment/reducing_greenhouse_gas.html
(9) Terra Pass Inc. (2009) Rental Car Carbon Offset Program Proves Most Popular With Consumers. Published on-line in Earth News, April 6, 2009. Last Consulted Apr 25, 2009.  http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/rental-car-carbon-offset-program-proves-most-popular-with-consumers775734.shtml#%23
(10) l’Auberge des Seigneurs à St Hyacynthe. Last Consulted Apr. 24, 2009.
http://www.hoteldesseigneurs.com/notre_environment.asp
(11) Novotel Montréal Centre. http://www.novotelmontreal.com/home/novotel_news.shtm Last Consulted June. 2, 2009.
(12) Karavaniers du Monde. Destinatons: Fiche technique. Last Consulted Apr. 3, 2009.  http://www.karavaniers.com/voyages/calendrier/?voyage_depart=134
(13) Wela Aventure. Horaire et parcours. Randonnées des cols du Fjord 2009. Fiche d’information. Last Consulted Apr 25, 2009. http://www.welaaventure.com/
(14) ZIP Saguenay. Réalisations. Last Consulted Apr 27, 2009.  http://www.zipsaguenay.ca/zipsaguenay/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=1&id=5&Itemid=12
(15) Coop Quatre Temps. Mission. http://www.coop4temps.com/ Last Consulted Apr 27, 2009.
(16) Réseau québécois des femmes en environnement. Sustainable Event. Last Consulted Apr 2, 2009. http://www.evenementecoresponsable.com/
(17) Festival International de Jazz de Montréal. Une édition 2008 carboneutre. Last Consulted Apr 27, 2009.  http://www.montrealjazzfest.com/Fijm2008/planetAir_fr.aspx
(18) Centre des congrès de Québec. Développement Durable. Évennements éco-responsables. Last Consulted Apr 27, 2009.  http://www.convention.qc.ca/tiki-index.php?page=devdurable_eve_resp
(19) Palais des congrès de Montréal. Environnement. Last Consulted Apr 2, 2009. http://www.congresmtl.com/fr/visiteurs/environnement.aspx
(20) Centre des congrès de Québec. Lauréate du prix Stellaris: Efficacité Énergétique. Press Release 2 April, 2004. Last Consulted Apr 2, 2009. http://www.convention.qc.ca/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=41
(21) Société du parc Jean-Deapeau (2009) Politique de développement durable. Montréal. 8 p.
(22) Société du parc Jean-Deapeau (2009) Fonds Oxygène.Le fonds de compensation de gaz à effet de serre Montréal. 4 p.
(23) Broderick, J. (2008). Voluntary Carbon Offsets. A Contribution to Sustainable Tourism? In Sustainable Tourism Futures. Perspectives on Systems, Restructuring and Innovations. In Gössling, S., Hall, C.M. and Weaver, D.B. (Eds.). Routledge, New-York. 169-197.

Collaborative Initiatives

To date none of the 21 tourism regions had produced a comprehensive regional scale sustainable development strategy with a clearly articulated vision, set of achievable short and long-term objectives and progress measure indicators. Yet, tourism is an important economic activity in Québec and in 12 regions it directly generates at least 3% of all income (3). Tourism has much more potential to be sustainable, since most regions have rich natural and cultural resource bases and diversified economies. Although natural resource exploitation forms the foundation of many regions across Québec, there is much untapped potential to expand tourism in these areas, thereby achieving greater economic integration. Untapped potentials also remain between biodiversity conservation and tourism development on private and public lands besides the protected area networks managed by the Provicial Parks Authority, la Sépaq and Parks Canada.

In some regions such as the Laurentians, concrete initiatives have been undertaken towards strategically integrating tourism into the regional economy through the Provincial Government’s Accord Program (4). In other regions a shift towards increased collaboration between stakeholders is occurring by the establishment of various cooperatives. Examples include the Lac Saint Pierre Biosphere Reserve (5), l’Échappé Bleue (6), Le Parc Aventures Cap Jaseux (7) and V.E.R.T.E. cooperatives (8). There are probably numerous other locally driven projects, but to nobody has examined their socio-economic value or general importance.

There are also 23 territorial areas across Québec with Local Agenda 21 (LA21) strategies (9) and one of the best examples with a strong tourism orientation includes the municipality of Baie-Saint-Paul. There, an LA21 process and willingness and leadership by certain stakeholders continue to enable greater community interaction as part of the redevelopment planning of Le Massif Resort (10).

Operational Changes to Improve Performance

Some tourism operations have a longer history of functioning according to sustainability ideals such as the Le Baluchon rural resort (11) and the zoos in Granby and Saint-Félicien (12, 13). However, very few businesses have a transparent Corporate Social Responsibility strategies, such as those published by the Granby Zoo(12) and Transat AT (14). Many tourism operations have reduced their energy and water use and waste output via different mechanisms, but their overall impact is not evaluated. Hotels in Québec seem to be making visible progress, especially since the Québec Hotel Association has its own Reser-Vert certification program (15), and the CITQ also recently modified its rating system to include environmental considerations and carries out checks on behalf of the Canadian Hotels Associations of Green Key rated establishments (16). Since recent years, numerous events including conferences and festivals are increasingly organized as ecologically and socially responsible, such as Montreal’s International Jazz Festival (17). Many other tourism operations also have supply chain management policies and source various products locally and or produced responsibly. Abitibi-Témiscamingue is the first ‘green’ Tourism Region awarded by Recyc-Québec for achieving more than 80% waste recuperation for its office operations (18).

Besides environmental efforts, some tourism businesses are also making contributions to improving north-south relations. For example, L’Auberge l’Autre Jardin (19) has been directly providing financial benefits to developing countries via its support of Carrefour Tiers Monde. Similar actions can be observed by Parc Safari that sells fair-trade products from developing nations (20). Sustainability news about small and medium enterprises (SME) in Québec is not well documented, which suggests limited progress. Since SMEs comprise about the majority of the tourism industry (21), it might be worthwhile to examine their progress, and issues so that appropriate tools could help them implement change towards sustainability.

Quebec’s tourism includes a variety of products to help reduce its greenhouse gas emissions such as a vast bike network developed by Vélo-Québec (22), the Bixi bike in Montreal (23) and the bio buses in Old Quebec and Montreal (24). Some businesses and events are also carbon neutral, but their profiles and numbers has not been documented. For example, Karavaniers du monde is the first tour operator in Quebec to include the cost of carbon offsets in its pricing (25). Climate change does not seem to be a preoccupation of the Quebec tourism sector, despite the vulnerability status of some products notably ski, snowmobile and various other outdoor activities (26).

Some sub sectors in Québec have a long history of encouraging businesses and visitors alike to reduce their environmental impact, notably Québec’s Adventure and Ecotourism Association (27). How many visitors to and from Quebec travel environmentally consciously is not known. Undoubtedly Québecois travelers are increasingly ethically minded. Since 88% of tourists in Québec are of domestic origin, consumers locally need more indication about industry’s progress so they can choose responsibly (28).

Where to next?

Various operational changes to improve environmental and social performance of the tourism sector are occurring at all scales, but nobody knows the real progress in the absence of benchmark indicators. Québec is not ahead nor behind other Canadian Provinces but there has not been a national study to compare progress at this scale. Québec’s tourism sector is in the beginning phase of operationalizing sustainable tourism and the above examples highlight the need for a Provincial scale action plan combined with a set of feasible progress indicators.

The support tools and knowledge network to put sustainable tourism principles into action is growing across Québec, and numerous institutions offer special training to improve human resource capacity, in responsible environmental managers that is directly applicable to tourism (29).

There is also a growing amount of effective tools and mechanisms reported from outside Québec to help implement change rapidly and help sustain a viable and responsible industry sector. However, local leadership remains an important key driver to implementing any action plan. There needs to be more leadership from government and industry to move the fragmented sub-sectors forward and to provide a coordinated approach to the entire process in Québec. The tools are wide ranging, and many remain unexplored potentials in Québec, including financial incentives and voluntary measures.

Sources:

1. Ministère du Tourisme du Québec (2005) Towards a Sustainable Tourism. Tourism Policy of Québec. Governemenet du Québec: Québec City. 37 p.

2. La Fédération des clubs de motoneigistes du Québec (2008) Plan d’action quinquennal de la FCMQ pour l’environnement. La Fédération des clubs de motoneigistes du Québec (FCQM): Montreal. 8 p.

3. Sauvé, R. La reconnaissance de l’industrie touristique dans l’économie locale et régionale. Presentation at the International Symposium on the Sustainable Development of Tourism. March 17 to 19, 2009. Québec City, Canada. Available at: http://www.bonjourquebec.com/mto/activites/symposium-developpement-durable/fr/programme-mercredi.html

4. Ministère du développement Économique Innovation et Exportation. Accord Program. Last accessed 14 April, 2009. [http://www.mdeie.gouv.qc.ca/index.php?id=3715]

5. La réserve mondiale de la biosphère du Lac-Saint-Pierre. Coopérative de solidarité de la réserve mondiale de la biosphère du Lac-Saint-Pierre. Last accessed 14 April, 2009. [http://www.biospherelac-st-pierre.qc.ca/content/cooperative.html].

6. L’Échappé Bleue. L’Échappée bleue. Coopérative de Tourisme durable. Last accessed 14 April, 2009. [http://www.lechappeebleue.com].

7. Le Parc Aventures Cap Jaseux. Qui sommes-nous. Last accessed 14 April, 2009. [http://www.capjaseux.com/-Qui-sommes-nous-.html].

8. La Coop V.E.R.T.E. Qui nous sommes? Last accessed 14 April, 2009. [http://www.coopverte.com/coopverte/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=19&Itemid=37].

9. Gagnon, C. and E. Arth. Guide des Agendas 21e siècle locaux. Les Agendas 21e siècle locaux québécois. Last accessed 14 April, 2009. [http://www.a21l.qc.ca/9544_fr.html].

10. Le Massif. Territoire Le Massif. The development project. Last accessed  14 April, 2009. [http://www.lemassif.com/en/territoire_le_massif/the_development_project.php].

11. Le Baluchon. About the Baluchon. Last accessed 14 April, 2009. [http://www.baluchon.com/inn-accomodation/index_ang.cfm].

12. Zoo Granby (2006) Réalisations en responsabilité sociale et environnementale. Zoo de Granby: Granby. 24 p.

13. Zoo Sauvage de Saint-Félicien. Au sujet du CCBB/Zoo Sauvage. Last accessed 14 April, 2009. [http://www.borealie.org/page.php/fr/1/4.htm].

14. Transat A.T. (2008) Transat for Sustainable Tourism. 2008 Corporate Social Responsibility Report. Transat AT Inc: Montreal, Québec. 44 p.

15. L’Association des hôteliers du Québec. RéserVert, le Programme de reconnaissance en développement durable. Last accessed 14 April, 2009. [http://www.reservert.com/fr/page.php?label=r%E9servertleprogramme].

16. Corporation de l’industrie touristique du Québec. CITQ is mandated by the Hotel Association of Canada for the Green Key Eco-Rating Program visits. Last accessed 14 April, 2009. [http://www.citq.info/EN/classification.asp].

17. Festival International de Jazz de Montréal. Une édition 2008 carbon neutre. Last accessed 14 April, 2009. [http://www.montrealjazzfest.com/Fijm2008/planetAir_fr.aspx].

18. Bisson, K. Là où commence un tourisme plus vert. Last accessed 16 April, 2009. [http://lafrontiere.canoe.ca/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=87930&id=836&classif=].

19. L’Auberge Autre Jardins. Mission et historique. Last accessed 15 April, 2009. [http://www.autrejardin.com/auberge.php].

20. Ranger, J.-P. Tourisme durable. Parc Safari. Presentation at the International Symposium on the Sustainable Development of Tourism. March 17 to 19, 2009 Québec City, Canada. Available at http://www.bonjourquebec.com/mto/activites/symposium-developpement-durable/fr/programme-mercredi.html

21. Ministère du Tourisme du Québec. Programmes et services aux entreprises touristiques. Last accessed 15 April, 2009.  [http://www.bonjourquebec.com/mto/ministere/index.asp].

22. Laraue, S. Tourisme durable et velo. Presentation at the International Symposium on the Sustainable Development of Tourism. March 17 to 19, 2009 Québec City, Canada. Available at http://www.bonjourquebec.com/mto/activites/symposium-developpement-durable/fr/programme-mardi.html

23. Montreal Tourism. BIXI: Montreal’s Brand New Public Bike System. Last accessed 15 April, 2009. [http://www.tourisme-montreal.org/Press/Whats-hot/News/bixi-montreal-s-brand-new-public-bike-system].

24. Société de Transport de Montréal. For one year, 155 STM buses to run on biodiesel in downtown Montreal (Press Release). Last accessed 15 April, 2009. [http://www.stm.info/English/info/a-biofiche.htm].

25. Karavaniers du monde. Cuba. Mère des Caraïbes. Informations Techniques. Last accessed 15 April, 2009. [http://www.karavaniers.com/voyages/calendrier/?voyage_depart=134].

26. Singh, B. and C. Bryant (2006) Impact et adaptation aux changements climatiques pour les activités de ski et de golf et l’industrie touristique : le cas du Québec. Rapport préparé pour Ouranos Inc. Département de géographie, Université de Montréal: Montréal. 404 p.

27. Aventure Écotourisme Québec. Leave No Trace Program. Last accessed 15 April, 2009. [http://www.aventure-ecotourisme.qc.ca/content/templates/content_en.asp?articleid=46&zoneid=10].

28. Tourisme Québec (2009) Le tourisme au Québec en bref – 2007. Ministère du Tourisme du Québec: Québec. 16 p.

29. Villeneuve, V. Chaire en éco-conseil. Last accessed 15 April, 2009. [http://www.uqac.ca/recherche/organismes/chaire_ecoconseil.php].

Most governments, large companies and, increasingly, small and medium enterprises in tourism have some sort of purchase or procurement policy that incorporates environmental and socially responsible objectives. The number of tourism businesses that operate with a green purchase policy has not yet been quantified. The public sector spends 45-65% of its budget on procurement, which amounts to 13-17% of the GDP of OECD nations. Overall, tourism has the potential to significantly improve its sustainability performance by implementing green purchase policies because it is an industry that consumes products and services from almost every economic sector. For example, some hotel chains like Scandic as well as the Resort Municipality of Whistler have integrated sustainable purchasing goals into their procurement policies and developed a number of resource tools to encourage better purchasing choices.

What is a sustainable green product?

In simple terms, sustainable products must meet one the following criteria: they must be made from abundant and/or renewable sources, recyclable, organic, made or grown locally, powered efficiently, durable (i.e., have a long life cycle) and/or be reusable. In effect, a sustainable product best meets the aims of environmentally responsible management at all stages of the product’s life cycle. Life cycle analysis is a very important part of responsible consumption. It refers to the analysis of all the stages involved in the production and consumption of something:

• materials initially used to produce it
• amount of energy used to extract materials
• waste outputs involved in acquiring the raw materials
• manufacturing processes
• consumer use
• maintenance
• final disposal

Traditional products do not reflect the full cost of their social and environmental impact. For example, the price of polluting products such as chemicals and non-biodegradable products does not include the cost of cleaning up the pollution they cause. Instead, this cost is the responsibility of the communities affected and is usually paid by public funds. It is almost impossible for a tourism business or consumer to analyze the life cycle of every product. To make it easier to identify more socially responsible products, a variety of organizations are developing standards, labels and certification programs (see figure with logos). In Canada, Environment Canada’s Environmental Choice Program provides a list of products that have been tested and certified environmentally responsible throughout their life cycle. Such products are the least damaging compared to alternatives on the market and they are permitted to display the EcoLogo. Various other organizations across North America and elsewhere offer certification for a diverse range of products.

It is difficult to assess products that are not labelled. It is also necessary to pay close attention to labels and marketing tactics as the market is currently being saturated with “environmentally friendly” products that do not truly live up to their claims. A product can be assessed by checking product Websites and obtaining information directly from suppliers. If a company does not have a clear description of their sustainability policy, it is also advisable to check its accreditation for general compliance with standards as well as whether it belongs to Canadian Business for Social Responsibility (CBSR).

Why sustainable purchasing should be the norm

Green purchasing influences the market by encouraging businesses to offer more innovative and sustainable options. Besides being generally more responsible, businesses enjoy numerous other advantages by adopting a sustainable purchasing policy. This includes many savings, especially over the long term, as well as an enhanced brand image. As consumers are becoming increasingly green-oriented, companies who have already embraced more responsible practices are realizing opportunities to differentiate themselves from competitors. Other specific benefits can include:

• savings due to lower operating costs because energy, water and other resources are used more efficiently
• savings from lower waste management fees
• easier compliance with environmental regulations
• avoidance of unnecessary health and safety risks associated with toxic product use

It must be noted that several of these benefits may only be realized over the medium or long term. When companies who have adopted sustainable purchasing policies educate the public and build awareness of their economic and environmental benefits, employees develop a sense of pride across the organization.

Practical steps for implementing a sustainable purchasing policy

1. Reconsider each purchase

A lot of businesses consume products that are not necessary. To determine whether a specific product needs to be purchased, the following questions must be asked:

• How does this product contribute to the company’s service?
• Can the company deliver its service without this product?
• (if relevant) Has the product been used to the end of its life cycle?

In the case of consumable items, it is worthwhile to assess the possibility of reducing the rate of consumption. Reducing the purchase of unnecessary items will create savings for purchasing or encouraging more sustainable products.

2. Rent, lease or buy it second-hand

• For all chemical-based products, check the product’s content. Cleaning products, fertilizers, lighting, paints, piping and wood products all have specific assessments to show how toxic they are and these are often available on government department web pages or other publicly accessible sites. Certain computer hardware components and cleaning products contain toxic ingredients such as formaldehyde, mercury, lead, cadmium, chromium, phosphate and volatile organic compounds. These products need to be replaced with low polluting, less toxic alternatives. For example, oil-based paints have water-based equivalents and so on. Some plastics and furniture can emit gas, which is not only harmful to the environment in general but also dangerous to human health.
• For all non-perishable products, check whether the product can be recycled and reused. These include products such as toner cartridges, oils, glass, plastics, paper, pens, beverage containers, batteries, and so on.
• For products that use water and/or energy, check the availability of more efficient alternatives that use less of these resources. This applies to anything from plumbing fixtures, to kitchenware and light bulbs.
• Check whether the product is recyclable, or contains recycled materials or reusable parts. Sometimes new products are available from recycled materials and the purchase of these items promotes recycling instead of using virgin materials. These products are labelled to show the percentage of content that was produced from recycled sources. Some products are made from materials that are less and less abundant and nearly exhausted, including furniture.
• For products that use non-renewable energy such as petrol-based fuels, check whether alternatives exist that use a cleaner source of energy or renewable energy. This applies particularly to cars. The variety of fuel-efficient equivalents is growing rapidly in all vehicle categories and in Quebec the government provides a tax rebate for buyers of some hybrid vehicles.
• For perishable food items, check whether they have been organically and/or locally grown. If you run a dining establishment, you must pay particular attention to foods like fish to avoid serving species whose stocks are overharvested. Sustainable Seafood Canada is a coalition of conservation organizations that has developed a guide to encourage sustainable consumption patterns.
• For imported products from less developed nations, check whether they have been produced in accordance with fair trade principles.

5. Source products locally as possible

In an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it is really important to source as much as possible from local sources.

How to get started?

Implementing a sustainable purchasing policy will take time because purchasing staff need to consider trade-offs. This includes environmental objectives versus operational requirements, price competitiveness and product quality and availability. For most tourism businesses, implementing a sustainable purchasing policy will not be easy because of the need to strike a balance between these aspects. However, it is better to start with a simple plan that can be improved continually. Organizations that have implemented such sustainability actions have the following advice:

1. develop a clear policy statement about the organization’s vision and objectives regarding sustainability, including a new purchasing plan with clear priorities
2. involve everyone in the organization in the process
3. set clear, measurable targets for implementation
4. regularly monitor the organization’s progress towards achieving the objectives

Sustainable purchasing is an effective tool that helps businesses prevent pollution at the source. It is also an effective way to educate everyone to be responsible. As purchasing affects every phase of the production process, from the extraction of raw materials to waste management, via responsible consumption, an organization’s financial and environmental performance can improve because every buying decision has an impact on the economy, the environment and society. Buying “green” products helps suppliers that produce responsible products to realize economies of scale. This reduces their costs and encourages a wider distribution of their product, probably at lower prices. Today’s responsible products are produced at low volumes and cost more partly because the market is still small. This should change as demand increases.

Every person and every business needs to be more responsible and change today. Consumers cannot shop the planet out of its problems, but responsible patterns of consumption will help mitigate some issues.

Sources:

Purchasing carbon credits in a tree plantation is popular because it is simple to understand and presents a good clean green image. From a business perspective, the establishment of forest carbon sinks is estimated to be 90% cheaper than developing and implementing energy efficiency technology. Although planting trees is a move in the right direction, one needs to be aware of the issues surrounding carbon sequestration projects.

Issues

It is recognized that trees play a part in reducing atmospheric greenhouse gases. If managed appropriately, tree plantations can help address other environmental problems and generate income. They can also cause problems.

1. Forestry projects only store carbon while the trees are alive. If the trees are harvested, die or get destroyed naturally or by other mechanisms (such as fire), then carbon gets released back into the atmosphere. When this happens, a client’s emissions are not actually offset or compensated for.
2. Once a forest is established, it is complicated to measure how much carbon is absorbed during the life of the project and this is a current subject of debate amongst scientists.
3. The Earth does not have the physical land available to absorb the excess emissions already in the atmosphere. Not all land currently available is suitable for carbon sink plantations due to biogeographical and other reasons.
4. The effectiveness of a plantation depends on the type of tree species planted. Agroforests with multiple tree species have higher carbon storage capacity, greater biodiversity and are likely to provide more benefits to local livelihoods. Monoculture plantations, of non-native eucalyptus or pine trees, for example, provide no biodiversity value, little habitat provision, disturb hydrological cycles, intensify the use of chemicals and pesticides and can increase soil acidity. Unfortunately, many people buy carbon credits in such monoculture projects.
5. The establishment of carbon sink plantations by developed countries in developing countries has been problematic because they threaten local communities, who risk displacement and loss of access to traditional lands. These communities are often not compensated adequately for their losses.
6. Since sequestration projects lack regulation, companies can take advantage of the situation to over-exaggerate or inflate their projects’ estimated benefits.
7. Planting trees does not directly result in a move away from using fossil fuels. It compensates for emissions, rather than cutting pollution at its source. This is why some organizations do not offer carbon credits from sequestration projects. Rather, they focus on renewable energy and energy efficiency projects, which support a transition away from fossil fuel dependence.

What to do

1. Try to reduce your emissions, while traveling and in daily life.
2. If cutting down is not an option, try to substitute with the best available alternatives.
3. If neither of the above is an option, then continue traveling or doing your business carbon neutral, but be selective in supporting tree projects.

If you decide to buy carbon credits in tree plantations look for:

• Permanent plantations (<100 years) or projects under protection
• Local native species and multiple species
• Projects with long lived and hardwood species (or the most appropriate native species)
• Projects with the resources to manage the plantations to ensure survivorship and longevity
• Additionality (i.e. projects that would not have happened without your purchase)
• Insurance on the project so the company can replace trees if lost or damaged (fire, drought, etc,)
• Well-organized, transparent projects with low administration costs
• Projects that have additional environmental benefits (such as habitat provision)
• Projects that provide genuine sustainable development benefits to local communities
• Projects that retire the carbon credit you bought – so it cannot be sold again
• Projects that incorporate local people’s needs and knowledge
• Projects certified and verified by an independent third party

The climate change solution requires social change – and a move towards greener energy in all sectors. The more we rely on carbon sinks to offset greenhouse gases in the short term, the more we delay the transition to alternative energy, and the harder it will be to reach emission targets in the long term. Carbon sinks should supplement an alternative energy revolution, not replace or delay it.

Finally, travelers can take matters into their own hands, rather than relying on carbon credit companies. For example, when you take a holiday, calculate the amount of emissions you need to offset using one of the web-based calculators. Then, make up for this yourself before and after the trip, by not driving your car or by purchasing energy-efficient products for the household. Individuals and companies now have the opportunity to be proactive in addressing their travel-related carbon footprint.

Notes
1. In this paper, greenhouse gases refer to those recognized by the Kyoto Protocol: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydro fluorocarbons, per fluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.

Sources:
- Air Canada Carbon Offset Program [http://www.aircanada.com/en/travelinfo/traveller/zfp.html?src=hp_ql]. Last accessed November 20, 2007.
- Priskin, J. and Stenhouse, R.N. (2007) Des végétaux pour voyager : les avantages et les inconvénients des contreparties de la fixation du carbone par la séquestration dans les forêts. Téoros. 26(3) p. 68-71.
- Zerofootprint [http://www.zerofootprint.net] Last accessed November 20, 2007.

Everyone wants to boast a mark of distinction

Among the most prestigious international distinctions is “UNESCO World Heritage Site.” The European Union recently announced plans to develop a similar quality label as a way of developing culture and heritage tourism and enhancing its prestige and educational value.

Europe abounds with a variety of eco-labels, Tourism Australia has launched an ecotourism certification program, and the Quebec adventure and ecotourism sector boasts a quality program managed by the Bureau de normalisation du Québec. The Ministère du Tourisme du Québec is restarting its Démarche Qualité Tourisme total quality program. Under the aegis of the World Tourism Organization (WTO) and with funding from both the Quebec and Canadian governments, the World Center of Excellence on Tourist Destinations (CED) recently opened in Montreal. It is currently developing criteria to measure the excellence of destinations.

In the US, five hotels are proudly displaying their certifications from the US Green Building Council. Every year, the World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC) hands out its Tourism for Tomorrow Awards and is currently studying the possibility of establishing an accreditation for organizations which meet sustainable development standards. In Quebec, Grands prix du tourisme recipients proudly feature their awards in their advertising campaigns. And, although primarily a marketing association, the prestigious Relais & Châteaux hotel chain, synonymous with luxury, is not open to just anyone.

And the list goes on. Classifications, certifications, social labels, quality labels, labels of origin, eco-labels, major awards, luxury banners… if recognition is what you seek, there is certainly a lot to choose from!

It goes without saying that growing consumer awareness of the environment and the negative impacts of tourism has led to an inevitable reassessment of tourism practices. Certification is one way to prove one’s commitment and provide a guarantee of good practice. More and more, the principles of sustainable development are key to establishing criteria and creating new labels.

Advantages for businesses

Committing to a certification program or total quality approach is not easy. It is very time-consuming and can even lead to a complete overhaul of work processes. In a business climate where customers are demanding and often enjoy a wealth of options, more and more companies are looking for a seal of quality, recognition or distinction to:

• improve their services and product quality
• reassure consumers and provide a guarantee
• distinguish themselves from the competition
• enhance their visibility and reputation
• access new markets
• improve business practices and increase productivity
• and, to some extent, reduce the negative impacts of tourism

Even certification has its failings

The stars used to rank hotels are undoubtedly the most recognized travel rating system in the world. But who awards these stars? They can come from tour operators, the hotel itself, recognized organizations with very different criteria from one region to the next, or even – with the advent of Web 2.0 – internet users (also read:
You haven’t heard the last of Web 2.0!).

As a traveller, how often have you lamented the disparities in evaluations from different regions and the lack of uniformity among the various programs? In fact, many organizations would like to establish an international certification system, but this may only be a pipe dream.

The challenges? How can international standards take into account the realities of different regions, and how can mass tourism products and niche tourism products meet the same standards? How can a community have a say in the decision-making process, and how can small businesses rally the technical, financial and human resources to take on heavy, costly procedures?

These same questions apply domestically as well. To be “certified” means to ensure that something is true, to provide a guarantee of… what, exactly? Many companies, having understood the promotional benefits of certification, will go so far as to declare themselves certified, even if they are not. This is not uncommon in the case of various “eco” products.

Ambiguous surveys and an ideological debate

Can a “seal” truly influence consumer choices, and do travellers care about evaluation criteria when selecting a certified business or do they simply have faith in the “seal”? Do travellers know which criteria distinguish a 4-star hotel from a 2-star hotel? And do they know that rating systems differ from one country to the next?

In response to these questions, here are some survey results to answer these questions and point out some contradictions:

“Green” programs are definitely very popular! A survey by the Hotel Association of Canada shows that 60% of Canadians feel that membership in an environmental program is a major factor in their choice of hotel. In Quebec, this percentage is 72%, the highest of any Canadian province. Many other surveys illustrate the popularity of environmental programs, both in Canada and around the world.

If something has a “green” label, then it must be good! Various surveys indicate there is still a high level of confusion and lack of understanding when it comes to eco-labels. Consumers support certifications and quality labels, but they are rarely able to distinguish among them or understand their true meaning.

When travellers are on vacation, their principles take a break as well! On one hand, an Orbitz survey reports that 63% of people would pay more to stay in a “green” hotel and 67% attach importance to the “eco-friendliness” of a destination. On the other hand, according to a Starwood survey, most Americans leave their environmental conscience at home because 70% of frequent travellers state they do not waste water at home, while this percentage drops to 18% when they are in a hotel.

Although respect for the environment is now an integral part of contemporary mores, vacations are associated with freedom and a lack of restrictions. Consequently, high principles and good habits also go on holiday. Consumers are exhibiting an openness and commitment to the state of the environment, but tourists’ positive attitude towards eco-labels is not a guarantee of environmentally responsible behaviour.

Says Marie-France Turcotte, “Certifications have the potential to make a modest contribution to meeting a major challenge, that of changing business practices and tourist consumer habits.” So, the question is, should travellers purchase a product on the pretext that it is certified, or do we need to become accountable as travellers, companies and social actors? The answer is, no doubt, both.

With the growth of certifications, businesses will probably face the same dilemma they do vis-à-vis distribution channels: which one will improve their position in the wonderful world of competition, increase their visibility and make them the chosen one of consumers? Start strategizing!

Sources:
- Boyd, Christopher. “Green Hotels Are Cleaning Up – Embracing an Eco-friendly Philosophy Resonates with Tourists,” The Orlando Sentinel, July 9, 2007.
- Breaking Travel News. “Survey: US Travelers Stress Eco-friendly Travel,” April 12, 2007.
- Delisle, Marie-Andrée and Louis Jolin. Un autre tourisme est-il possible? Presses de l’Université du Québec, 2007, 144 pages.
- ehotelier.com. “Survey: Most Americans Drop their Green Habits when They Check-in to Hotels,” July 10, 2007.
- Le Figaro.fr. “Vers une liste du ‘Patrimoine de l’Europe’,” May 22, 2006.
- Hotel News Resource. “As Hotels Focus on Environmentally Friendly Programs, Awareness among Hotel Guests Lags,” July 24, 2007.
- Hotel News Resource. “Leaving Home often Means Leaving Green Routines behind according to New Survey from Element Hotels,” July 10, 2007.
- HSMAI. “Asian Hospitality Leaders at HSMAI Roundtable Call for Standardization of Ratings System for Asian Hotels,” July 17, 2007.
- Karantzavelou, Vicky. “Six out of 10 Canadians Want To Stay at Green Hotels,” [www.traveldailynew.com], June 10, 2005.
- Parnières, Émilie. “Le tourisme responsable: Convergence de deux démarches de labellisation,” Veille info tourisme, May 2005.
- Salerno, Neil. “Stars & Diamonds – Do They really Matter any more?” Hotel News Resource, January 31, 2007.
- Turcotte, Marie-France. L’écotourisme entre l’arbre et l’écorce – Labels et certifications d’écotourisme et de tourisme. Le contexte et la portée, Presses de l’Université du Québec, 2006, p. 348-369.
- World Travel & Tourism Council. “Big Companies Must Show how Green They Are,” November 24, 2006.

Being carbon neutral in tourism is mostly associated with the transport sector, but increasingly, hotels, events, and even car rental companies offer the possibility to neutralize their carbon footprint. Carbon neutrality is not yet mainstream, however, it is heading in that direction. For example, in 2005 0,5 % of British Airways passengers traveled carbon neutral and the figure is estimated to be 1 % presently. Some reports suggest the voluntary carbon market grew up to 1000 % between 2002 and 2005. However, as it is not regulated, a number of issues have emerged that require awareness.

Carbon compensation in context

The voluntary purchase of carbon credits is outside the Kyoto mechanism, and it represents an important part of climate change mitigation for individuals, as well as businesses. It is also an example of a voluntary application of the
polluter-payer principle. The Kyoto Protocol is a mandatory framework to signatory countries and includes three principal mechanisms:

1. Emission trading in pollution quotas
2. Clean Development Mechanism projects (CDM)
3. Joint implementation projects (JI)

Emission trading is an allowance-based measure that sets a limit on the amount of pollution permitted by Kyoto countries. Those emitting more than permitted must buy credits from those that pollute below limits on the carbon market, for example via the European Union Emission Trading Scheme. At present this affects mainly power companies and the manufacturing sector, and excludes tourism and the airline industry, although the latter is under significant pressure for inclusion.

Project-based measures include specific projects that will result in GHG reduction. Offset projects create new carbon credits and include renewable energy production, energy efficiency technology development and carbon sequestration. Kyoto-based projects are administered by signatory national governments and two types exist. “Clean Development Mechanism” (CDM) projects permit industrialized nations to invest in projects located in developing countries, to contribute to their sustainable development, while “Joint Implementation” (JI) includes projects between industrialized countries. When travelers purchase carbon credits to compensate or neutralize their activities, in general, they are not contributing to such projects. Exceptions include organizations such as “Atmosfair”.

Voluntary carbon credit purchasing does not equate to emission reduction in absolute terms, because the pollution still occurs. Thus, an effort is still required by everyone to reduce emission contributions. Researchers suggests that to achieve a 10 % reduction of GHG emissions from aviation, the purchase of voluntary carbon credits would need to increase by a factor of 400.

10 things to be aware of before choosing to be carbon neutral

1. Type of organizations selling carbon credits
Estimates indicate that more than 40 organizations sell carbon offsets and their growth and expansion has lead to certain transparency issues. Some are profit and others are non-profit organizations and they are all located in industrialized countries. They all verse a % of the money to offset projects that can be anything between 25 % and 90 %. Hence, some keep significant proportions for operating costs.

2. Variations in emission calculations
Recent research suggests significant differences (as much as a factor of 3) exist between the carbon calculators of individual offset organizations, thus, there is a need for standardization to improve credibility. Calculators need to be informative and accurate. The more parameters used, generally the more accurate the carbon calculation should be. In the case of emissions from flying, a good calculator will include the exact distance flown based on actual routes, take account of radiative forcing at different altitudes depending on the length of flight, occupancy rate, and the type of plane.

3. Cost of carbon credits
The price per ton of carbon offset is variable between organizations because the voluntary carbon market is outside the Kyoto mechanism and hence, it is not regulated, nor standardized. Buying carbon credits currently varies from $ CAD 3 to $ 43 per ton.

4. Type and quality of projects supported
Of the three main types of offset projects the most favorable include emission-free energy generation (wind, biomass, solar, geothermal) and new technology developments (any new products that use less energy such as hybrid vehicles).

When buying into these projects, the main issue relates to additionality; a debated concept in carbon accounting. What is important to know before purchasing carbon credits is whether the projects supported will genuinely result in GHG emission reductions. The question to ask is, if I did not finance this project, would it have occurred? If yes, then it is not a real reduction project, because its financing was not from carbon credit purchasing.

5. Beware of tree plantations
Intending carbon neutral travelers need to be well-informed about carbon credits that finance tree plantations. Evidence suggests problems and controversies surround such projects, and consequently some organizations do not even offer any carbon credits in them. The singular action of tree planting will not solve climate change problems for many reasons, notably because it does not lead to a reduction of fossil fuel reliance (Refer to next edition of the Globe-Veilleur on this subject).

6. Buying high-quality carbon credits
Voluntary offset companies can either operate in or outside (mostly) of the Kyoto framework. The advantage of buying credits from organizations associated with Kyoto, is that emission reductions are verified under a regulatory framework administered by national governments.

7. Project standard credit labels
Presently there are no standards to judge the performance of voluntary offset projects, although several are currently being developed. The Gold Standard Foundation offers a quality label to both Kyoto-based and to several voluntary based projects. Thus, it is currently the most reliable label. Such projects are rigorous, and tested for environmental quality by registered third parties. Gold standard projects exclusively focus on renewable energy and energy efficiency projects.

8. Buying future carbon credits: forward purchasing
Travelers also need to be aware that some organizations sell carbon credits in either already existing projects or in future projects. The purchase of future credits creates some risk, because the proposed project may not be realized and or under-perform. However, investing in projects upfront is important in generating funds to start new offset projects.

9. Location of offset projects
Some of the offset projects are located in developing countries and some have created a variety of environmental and social problems, such as people getting displaced from their land and losing access to resources on which their livelihood depends. Thus, it is important to check that the projects are verified and meet standards, so they deliver long-term benefits to the areas where they are developed.

10. Most credible offset organization?
Two recent studies evaluated offset organizations and the most recommended include “Atmosfair”, “Climate friendly”, “Myclimate” and “NativeEnergy”.

What next?

The above issues need to be addressed to ensure that additional expenditures by travelers and the tourism industry towards negating fossil fuel use are created with the desirable outcome for which they are intended.

Climate change is a global problem that needs global solutions. Thus, if the tourism industry is to keep its confidence in carbon compensation schemes, it needs a standardized method for carbon calculating and the projects it invests in need to be certified and accredited by a relevant global organization.

In the meantime, it is important to reduce GHG emissions and move away from the use of fossil fuels that contribute to climate change. If going carbon neutral, we need to ensure that carbon credits are purchased in quality projects, preferably clean energy and energy efficiency.

1: Carbon refers to carbon dioxide as a gas. Carbon offset projects sometimes involve compensating for other greenhouse gases. The Kyoto Protocol recognizes six gases as contributors to global warming, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydro fluorocarbons, per fluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.

Sources:
- Anonymous. The Economist (2007) Carbon offsets: ripping off would-be greens? The Economist, 382(8520) p.61.
- Anonymous. The New Internationalist (2006) Special report on carbon related issues. The New Internationalist. July. Issue no.391.
- Atmosfair website. Last visited 4 July, 2007.
- Climate Friendly website. Last visited 4 July, 2007.
- Heughebaert, A. (2006) Étude comparative des programmes de compensation volontaire des emissions de C02 par les passagers d’avions. Institut de Gestion de l’environnement et de l’aménagement du territoire. Université Libre de Bruxelles. 98 pp.
- International Civil Aviation Organization 2007. Presentations and statements from the ICAO Colloquium on Aviation Emissions with Exhibition, held in Montreal Canada 14 – 16 May 2007.
- Gold Standard Foundation website. Last visited June 11, 2007
- Gössling, S., Broderick, J., Upham, P., Ceron, J., Dubois, G., Peeters, P. and Strasdas, W. (2007) Voluntary Carbon Offsetting Schemes for Aviation: Efficiency, Credibility and Sustainable Tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(3) p.223-248.
- Kollmuss, A. and Bowell, B. (2007) Voluntary Offsets for Air-Travel Carbon Emissions. Evaluations and Recommendations of Voluntary Offset Companies. Tufts Climate Initiative. 53 pp.
-Luzadder, K. (2007) Agent Issues: Carbon-offset programs: a reality check. www.travelweekly.com. June 14, 2007. 5 pp.
- Myclimate website. Last visited 4 July, 2007
- NativeEnergy website. Last visited 4 July, 2007
-Tufts Climate Initiative (2006) A Consumer Handout. Flying Green. How to protect the Climate and Travel Responsibility. Tufts Climate Initiative. 5 pp.
- United Nations Framework on Climate Change website. Last visited 28 June 2007.

Atmospheric pollution from aircrafts contributes 2 % to 3 % to global greenhouse gas emissions annually, which is less than other sectors, such as road transport, forestry, or agriculture. According to current scenarios of civil aviation carbon dioxide emissions, in 2050 they will increase by factors of 3.3 to 5. Thus, if aviation emissions continue to grow while other sectors reduce their emissions, the relative importance of tourism’s contributions to greenhouse gas emissions will grow. Consequently, tourism involving flying will become a more significant contributor to environmental problems.

The problem

At least the airline industry is addressing the problem and it was the first sector to commission a special report to determine its baseline performance from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1999. A recent International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)¹ conference, and first ever on aviation emissions, outlined the nature and magnitude of the current problem. Discussions also extended to mitigation measures, where the tourism sector has an important role to play. However, the near absence of tourism industry representatives at the conference is a clear sign that many opportunities remain for a cooperative approach to finding solutions to current problems.

Scientists today confirm that new aircrafts are more efficient than the average car on the road. Engine fuel consumption and aircraft fuel burn per seat improved 70% since the 1960s. Nonetheless, planes use non-renewable natural resources, and between 1990 and 2004, fuel consumption by the aviation sector increased by 2 to 3% per year. Despite alternative fuel technology developments, kerosene remains the primary fuel for planes in the short to medium term. Alternate fuel developments continue to deliver major advances, however fuel source and production raises other environmental issues. In addition, unlike conventional fuels, alternative fuels such as biofuels are currently not regulated nor standardized.

Aircraft emissions are complex and many scientific uncertainties remain. There is pollution from fossil fuel combustion on the ground and in the air at high altitudes. Besides the well-known carbon dioxide emissions, planes also emit water vapors, nitrous oxides, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, sulfur gases, soot aerosols and metal particles. At high altitudes these gases behave differently and emissions also change the radiation balance of the troposphere. Planes also contribute to condensation trails that cause cirrus cloud formation, which is unique to aviation in the climate change debate.

Today the aviation sector’s target for 2020 is to reduce fuel burn and carbon dioxide emissions by 50%. It is currently estimated that technological improvements alone can bring more than 1% improvements per year. In order to achieve further engine innovations from technology development means environmental trade-off between low gas and noise emissions (especially nitrous oxides) and these also impact on operational costs. Thus powerful research and development advances are needed, coupled with appropriate programs and strong collaboration effort by stakeholders, such as airlines, airports, traffic managers, regulators and governments.

The ICAO conference also included discussions about local air quality and emission standards for aviation. Although standards exist for several gases², presently there are none for particulate matter and carbon dioxide. The setting of standards is a very complex procedure. Current research is investigating how to enable appropriate monitoring and standard setting of aviation emissions.

At airports aircraft are responsible for about 50 % of the emissions produced on average. Other emissions result from ground transportation and use of support equipment. Airport efficiency is highly variable at different destinations, thus many opportunities exist to improve operations. For example, the time taken to taxi in and out, take-off climb and subsequent descent and landing procedures contributes very differently to emissions. For example, on average (all flights globally) it is estimated that 6.5 kg of carbon is emitted per passenger during take off and landing, compared to 0.02 kg per passenger at cruising level. There appears significant emission and fuel burn savings by optimally assign aircraft amongst available altitudes. Calculations also suggest that current traffic flow is inefficient and rerouting may improve emission performance as well prevent conflicts (with other planes, weather and on ground). Even a 2 km reduction in average distance flown by planes could lead to over 200 million km of travel per year, resulting in over 2 million tones of carbon dioxide savings.

Major issues remain

Although mitigation measures via technology and traffic management promise continued improvement in the future, market-based solutions are also part of the solution. However, questions still remain as to who is really accountable for aircraft emissions? Is it fuel suppliers, aircraft operators, airport and navigation service providers, or the manufacturers? Or is the end user, i.e. travelers? Or – the tourism industry responsible for destination marketing?

Current market-based solutions to greenhouse gas emissions include taxes, carbon trading and voluntary reduction mechanisms, such as carbon compensation schemes. Environmental taxes are already part of tourism at several destinations in various forms and they are not generally popular with everyone. Since the early 1990s several European airports notably in Switzerland, France, Sweden, UK, Germany have implemented local air quality charges to respond to local air pollution problems.

Aviation fuel is currently exempt from taxes. Some transport research³ suggests that the potential impact of a carbon tax on international tourism would be small. Even if a very high global tax of $ 1000 per tone of carbon emitted were applied in the year 2010, it would not change travel behavior and only reduce carbon dioxide emissions from aviation by 0.8 %. Under such a scenario, tourist destinations on short haul flights may see a decline in international tourist numbers. Island destinations would be losers in general. Eastern and Central Europe and countries such as China and India would gain, while Western Europe, the Americas and Africa would lose. Modeling also suggests that a carbon tax on aviation fuel would affect medium distance flights least.

The ICAO conference also offered discussions about voluntary reduction mechanisms. There is a clear increase in carbon neutral travel and the carbon market is growing exponentially. However this raises new issue concerning the credibility and the effectiveness of carbon compensation mechanisms (the next topic to be covered by J.Priskin in a forthcoming Globeveilleur).

Where to next

The ICAO conference suggests the airline sector needs to be a part of post Kyoto (2012), thus it endorses development of an emission trading system for international civil aviation. Air transport is, and has been an enabler of economic growth and it is a catalyst for growth. ICAO believes that global problems need global solutions and we need a co-coordinated approach to problem solving. The airline industry also knows that it will take Promethean solutions to improve the sector’s environmental performance.

As global forecasts suggest a growth of international arrivals by air, averaging up to 5 % till 2015, the tourism industry cannot continue to hide behind its clean image because it is a part of the service sector. Nor can it conveniently stay focused on destinations, and ignore that travel to and from them is up to 90 % of environmental problems, such as contributions to greenhouse gas emissions.

The good news is that some segments of the tourism market are showing signs of willingness to pay, although attitudes are highly diverse (Figure 1). Last May, the Canadian Tourism Commission reported that nearly 70% of Canadians would be willing to pay an extra $ 10 or more for every $ 1000 they spend on air travel, if the funds collected were used to develop sustainable resources of energy (Figure 1)

Figure 1: Amount Canadians are willing to pay to offset carbon emissions when traveling by air

Source: Canadian Tourism Research Institute, The Conference board of Canada.

Notes:

1. International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations created in 1944 by the Chicago Convention. It has 190 contracting States and one of its strategic objectives is to minimize the adverse effect of global civil aviation on the environment. ICAO has a Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP), composed of public and private sector reps and NGOs representing the aviation industry.

2. At present emission standards exist for carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, unburned hydrocarbons and smoke.

3.. This research was on international tourism only and also excluded business travel for data reliability purposes concerning international arrivals by air.

Sources:
- Canadian Tourism Commission (2007) Travelers Keen on Going Green. Tourism Intelligence Bulletin Issue 39, May 2007. – Canadian Tourism Research Institute, The Conference board of Canada, Vancouver. 5 pp.
- International Civil Aviation Organization 2007. Presentations and statements from the ICAO Colloquium on Aviation Emissions with Exhibition, held in Montreal Canada 14 – 16 May 2007. [http://www.icao.int/EnvClq/CLQ07/Documentation.htm]
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1999) Special Report: Aviation and the global atmosphere. Summary for policy makers. Geneva. 23 pp.
- Tol, R. S. J. (2007) The impact of a carbon tax on international tourism. Transportation Research. Part D 12. p. 129-142.
- United States Environmental Protection Agency (2000) Aircraft Contrails Factsheet. EPA430-F-00-005. Washington DC. 6 pp.
- Weissman, A. (2007). Binge Flying, sinful travel and paranoia. [www. travelweekly.com] 21, 2007. 2 pp.