New Policy on Climate Change in the Tourism Sector in Australia - Case Study Example

Cover letter From: Address Email Phone To: Address:. Email: Date: Re: New Policy on Climate Change in the Tourism Sector in Australia Having studied and understood how the tourism industry contributes, and is affected by climate change, I have proposed new policies for adoption, which if implemented properly, will lead to mitigation and/or abatement of practices and processes that contribute to climate change. Specifically, I have suggested the use of advocacy and law as the two policy instruments that can alter the current situation, which is dominated by adaptation measures being taken by tourism stakeholders as they try to find ways of surviving in the changing environment. The reason for the proposed policy is underscored by the need to have tourism stakeholders take up more responsibility for mitigating and abating climate change. Through advocacy, the suggested policy proves that the government can succeed in informing all stakeholders about their roles and responsibilities towards adopting practices and processes that will have minimal or no effect on the climate. By using law, the proposed policy states that imposing obligations is a viable policy approach especially when used on tourism players who cannot voluntarily participate or take up practices and processes that are climate-friendly. The policy paper notes that a lot of discussion in Australia’s tourism sector currently focuses on how the industry can adapt to climate change, and as such, it would be recommended that the proposed policies be implemented immediately. Notably, it is important for stakeholders in the tourism sector to ‘own’ the climate change issue, by accepting that their contribution has as much weight as those from other industries; moreover, the tourism stakeholders need to take initiatives to tackle the climate change issues, and where they cannot be persuaded to do so through advocacy, the government should impose laws that guard the integrity of the climate. The two proposed policy approaches could also set a precedent for other sectors to follow especially due to the consideration that climate change is a phenomenon whose contribution is linked to different industries and sectors. Finally, I would request that you read the attached policy paper carefully and take note of the important roles that both advocacy and law would play in making stakeholders in the tourism industry more responsible towards climate change. Any question, concerns or opinions regarding the proposed policy can be channelled to me through my contacts above. Yours sincerely, Signature: Name: Executive summary In this policy paper, the writer commences by observing that the tourism industry stakeholders in Australia have been largely focusing on how to adapt to climate change; consequently, little effort is being paid to acknowledging the fact that the tourism industry is a non-negligible contributor to climate change, and discovering ways of mitigating and abating such tourism sector-caused climate change. The policy paper proposes the use of advocacy and law as the two policy instruments that will bring knowledge the industry’s contribution to climate change, and what needs to be done differently to correct all the negative factors that degrade the environment and by extension causes climate change. The policy paper gives more weight to advocacy as a policy instrument compared to law, arguing that advocacy would convince more people to institute measures out of their own free will, and in recognition that abating and/or mitigating climate change is beneficial not only for future generations, but also for the current generations. Law on the other hand has been recognised as the policy instrument, which can successfully force people to embrace obligations, which they would not voluntarily. The paper notes that even in the presence of knowledge regarding the negative effects that some practices and processes have on the climate, some players would ignore such knowledge and instead chose to pursue profits. In such situations, it would be the government’s responsibility to ensure that there are laws and regulations to govern current practices in a manner that protects the interests of future generations. The policy paper identified performance and technological measures as some of the considerations that the Australian government should use in formulating laws for the tourism sector in relation to climate change. Through advocacy, the policy paper underscores the importance for the government to champion the cause for stakeholders (especially consumers) to have consistency in attitudes. Consistent attitudes would then play a major role in ensuring that tourism demand is sensitive to products or services that have negative consequences on climate change. In conclusion, the policy paper notes the combination of advocacy and law as policy instruments to champion climate change mitigation and abatement measures is complementary since the law should be strategically be designed to cater for issues that cannot be settled through advocacy. Imрlеmеnt Асtiоns tо Rеduсе Сlimаtе Сhаngе in Tоurism in Аustrаliа Introduction There is little doubt among scholars and analysts that climate change is and will continue affecting Australian tourism for years to come if nothing is done to mitigate and/or abate the effects that different human activities have on tourism. Yet, discussions on climate change in the tourism sector are mainly related to how well the sector will adapt to such changes (especially gauging from literature sources such as Hughes (2003); Galloway (1988); and Scott and McBoyle (2006), and rarely is the effect that tourism activities have on the environment mentioned. In others words, the tourism industry acknowledges that climate change is a problem that will affect it, but rarely do stakeholders therein perceive themselves as being part of the solution that can slow down or mitigate the effects of climate change. In this policy paper, the use of advocacy and law are recommended as the two policy approaches that the government can use to address climate change in the tourism industry. Advocacy was chosen because of its ability to engage a wide-range of stakeholders and creating awareness about the effect that each activity in the tourism industry has on climate change. Advocacy can be used by the Australian government in areas such as: accreditation schemes, eco-tourism guidelines, and water-use and energy-use guidelines. Law on the other hand has been suggested for use because the government has a responsibility to legislate, regulate, and provide compulsory provisions which stakeholders in the tourism industry need to comply with. The use of law would be especially useful in zoning tourism areas, regulating tourism activities in specific protected areas, and regulating investments in specific tourism sub-sectors with an aim of eliminating or reducing the GHG emissions and other environment-degrading activities and processes in identified areas. Overall, it is clear that human activities in the tourism sector (and elsewhere) aggravate climate change. Specific tourist areas (e.g. world heritage areas) have been found to be extremely prone to the threat posed by humans, and through advocacy, it is highly likely that such activities will reduce, but if not, the government has an obligation to use law to ensure that human activity in such areas have are within the limits of ecological integrity as has been suggested by Hoegh-Guldberg (2008). Theoretical background: advocacy Although no specific figures have been fronted, it has been indicated that Tourism’s contribution to green house gas (GHG) emissions is non-negligible (Gossling 2002). Most such emissions are related to transport (which contributes approximately 75% of all emissions in the tourism sector worldwide) and accommodation (contributing an estimated 20% emissions worldwide (Goslling 2002)). Most of the actions taken up by individual organisations in mitigating climate change have been voluntary, and minimal. Gossling (2002) thus observes that there is an increased need to engage stakeholders in the tourism industry regarding the need to reduce GHG emissions. Notably however, such engagements would be best placed within an advocacy context in order to reach a wide audience. By definition, advocacy is indicated to be the actions related to “seeking with, and on behalf of” a specific group affected negatively by climate change with the intention of addressing the underlying cause of climate change through “influencing policies and practices of the powerful” (Shaw 2011, p. 7). The role of advocacy in shaping public policy is underscored by Stephens (2006) who observes that in addition to shaping public debate, it also influence public reactions. On her part, Bulkeley (1999) observes that advocacy offers explanations to processes of the initiatives formed to manage climate change activities; enhances interactions among different stakeholders and enhances policy learning among such stakeholders. Although advocacy alone cannot be relied upon to deliver good outcomes on the policy process, Bulkeley (1999, p. 727) notes that it puts emphasis of the “dynamics of meaning, legitimacy, and knowledge as an essential part of policymaking” and as such, makes reasoning with different stakeholders about climate change matters an easier and successful tasks, specifically because advocacy creates knowledge and understanding among the targeted group. Simply put, advocacy can enhance the government’s capacity to build relations that will encourage stakeholders in Australia’s tourism industry to adopt a collaborative approach in the management of climate changing. By taking up the advocacy role, the government (through an appointed government ministry) will be responsible for facilitating communication between different tourism stakeholders, negotiating, building alliances, and demonstrating good practice. While it is evident that the adaptation to climate change is a widely discussed subject topic in Australia’s tourism sector, ways of mitigating climate change appears to be a forgotten or largely ignored subject. Advocacy therefore needs to be targeted towards building the capacity of the tourism industry to reduce GHG. As suggested by Shaw (2011), advocacy at community level could involve ensuring that people understand the importance of conserving the environment through sustainable tourism activities. At a national level, Shaw (2011) suggests that advocacy works should encourage the government to adopt and enforce laws that reduces the country’s GHG emissions amid other environment conservation methods. Advocacy could also include lobbying and influencing people at international levels to adopt sustainable tourism activities. As Shaw (2011) notes, climate change does not just affect countries with high GHG emissions; rather, it affects all countries regardless of the carbon emission levels. As such, lobbying and influencing tourism stakeholders from outside Australia could also be beneficial in not only protecting the longevity of the tourism industry in Australia, but also the longevity of tourism in overseas destinations. The need for the Australian government to spearhead advocacy as a way to champion climate change mitigation practices is underscored by UN-Habitat (2007, p. 3), which states that at national levels, governments “must create policies, incentives and disincentives” that encourage sustainable tourism practices. The government could also incorporate environment education in the education system in order to create knowledge in young people about ways and means of mitigating climate change. At the local level, UN-Habitat (2007) observes that government could enforce policies and regulation that for example restricts specific tourism related activities. Notably however, national or local government have a responsibility to set future growth agendas, and when doing so, they must always consider incorporating sustainable tourism activities with no or minimal contribution to climate change. The importance of advocacy is further reinforced by Dolsak (2001) who observes that cooperation is necessary if different actors will collectively address the risks of continued climate change. Specifically, Dolsak (2001) notes that if the net benefits of adopting mitigating activities will be positive, individuals need to cooperate and restrain behaviour at an individual level. Overall, the use of advocacy especially at a policy level has been summarised by Stephens (2006), who observes that it can help governments mobilise support on both local and international levels. On the international front economic policy tools intended to reduce carbon dioxide emissions can be adopted, and international treaties signed. Locally, the government can adopt political positions and pursue specific strategies meant to increase the adoption activities and processes that have no or reduce amount of GHG. Additionally, the government could also support research and development in order to acquire proof that specific activities or processes are better used in the tourism industry when compared to others. Theoretical background: Law The proposal to use law as a policy instrument is underscored by the fact that advocacy may not succeed in making all stakeholders in the tourism industry adopt climate change mitigation measures. Where reason fails to work therefore, compelling the stakeholders into action through legal provisions should therefore be the case, especially if it has already been established that continued inaction will cause future generations to suffer greater consequences under climate change. As the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (1992, article 3) observes, the current generation should “protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind”. Gupta et al (2007, p. 753) identified regulatory standards as the commonly used form of approach in climate change management. Such standards are precise about what constitutes the acceptable or unacceptable activities or behaviour. According to Buultjens, White and Willacy (2007), the regulatory standards are divided into two broad categories namely: the performance standards and technology standards. As indicated by the two terms, technology standards make it a requirement for players in a specific industry to use specific technologies to improve the environmental outcomes of their activities. Performance standards on the other hand limit the activities that the stakeholders in a specific industry can engage in. In an example, the government can set up a technological standard for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, which as suggested by Peeters (2002) could involve developing a fuel efficiency indicator for use in aircrafts. The current situation In Australia, the law relies heavily on the intergenerational equity principle as a means of mitigating GHG emissions not only in the tourism sector, but in all other sectors (England 2008). Although the intergenerational equity contains concrete propositions such as the polluter pays principle, which requires the cost of pollution to be borne by the polluter, England (2008) observes that Australia has not embraced the latter in a definitive manner. An example in the incomplete adoption of the polluter pays principle in Australia was the exclusion of a reference to the principle in the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (NSESD). As a result of the exclusion, ‘polluters’ in sectors affected by the NSESD enjoy the benefits accrued from the polluting activity, without bearing the costs of their polluting activities. Through various policy documents (e.g. ‘The Climate Change Strategy 2007-2025’; ‘An Action Plan for managing the impacts of climate change 2007’; and ‘Climate Change Adaptation 2007-2012’), Australia has acknowledged the cost effective result of acting on climate change in the short-term. As noted by England (2008, p. 14) however, the “cost-effective measures have been most prominent in the area of climate change adaptation...” Such an observation then implies that mitigating climate change is an issue that Australia is yet to acknowledge and deal-with comprehensively. What needs to change? If intergenerational equity is to be attained in Australia’s tourism sector, the current generation of stakeholders need to be willing to bear the costs of taking up climate change mitigating or abating activities. As indicated above, advocacy can be used to sensitize and persuade such stakeholders to adopt practices that mitigate and /or abate climate change. In cases where advocacy does not work effectively, the use of law would be necessary. Stakeholders in the tourism industry also need to recognise their role in the climate change agenda, especially towards the sectors’ contribution to GHG emissions. Specifically, they need to recognise their respective responsibilities in adopting performance and technological measures for purposes of mitigating or abating their contribution to GHG emissions. The need for government action is underscored by the likelihood that left to do as they wish, investors in the tourism industry will pursue short-term profits without due consideration about the effects that their activities would have on climate change. Miranda (2012) for example observes that the pursuit of profit by stakeholders in the private sector cannot occur without ascent from the government. Additionally, the government being a key player in the tourism industry need to address the need for a profound social transformation (ideally through advocacy) and the needs for systems and processes that encourage sustainable and environment-friendly practices. Suggestions As Reddy and Wilkes (2013) observe, the climate change question is almost tantamount to wondering which way to lose when applied in the tourism sector. Specifically, Reddy and Wilkes (2013) observe that while the monetary earnings generated in tourism are welcome in any country, there is also the negative side of increased water consumption and pollution that countries have to deal with. A country therefore needs to prioritise, which of the two (i.e. monetary earning and increase pollution/water consumption) it needs to prioritise over the other as further indicated by Yohe, Andronova and Schlesinger (2004). In my opinion, engaging the tourism stakeholders (and most especially the tourists) is an undertaking that the government should focus on. As indicated by Reddy and Wilkes (2013, p. 265), tourists acknowledge having a ‘do-not care’ attitude when on holiday, but are more sensitive towards the industry’s contribution to climate change when at home. This then underscores the importance of consistency of attitudes, which could ideally be championed by the government through advocacy, and which would play an important role in ensuring that demand for tourism depends on the climate implications that tourism product and service offers have. Laws on the other hand have a critical role to play in mitigating or abating climate change in the tourism sector. For example, while air transport remains a necessity in tourism and a major contributor (with 60% impact on tourism-related climate change) to GHG emissions, Peeters and Dings (2007) recommends that governments can regulate air traffic growth to ensure that the volumes remain within levels that will not be detrimental to the climate. This is especially important since technologically, an emissions-free aviation is likely to take long (20 to 40 years) to develop. As a protector of the people, Gerard and Lave (2007) observe that the government therefore needs to impose laws that can mitigate or abate climate change especially if it is proven that such measures would be beneficial to the current and future tourism interests. Conclusion This policy paper recommends the use of advocacy and law as policy instruments through which the Australian government can ensure that stakeholders in the tourism industry adopt processes and systems that mitigate and/or abate climate change. Intentionally, advocacy has been given more weight in the discussion part owing to the writer’s believe that convincing stakeholders to voluntary participate in setting up systems and operations that have no or minimal impact on the climate would be more effective than imposing mandatory requirements as would be the case with law. Notably however, law has its rightful place in governance since it forces parties that are unwilling to do what is arguably right to do so. For the aforementioned reasons therefore, the combination of initiatives brought about by advocacy, and obligations which are brought about by law requirements have, in this writer’s opinion, the capacity to bring about the changes needed to make the tourism industry more responsible towards climate change-related activities and processes. References Bulkeley, H 2000, ‘Discourse coalitions and the Australian climate change policy network’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, vol.18, no.6, pp. 727-748. Buultjens J, White, N, & Willacy, S 2007, ‘Climate change and Australian tourism: a scoping study’, Sustainable Tourism CRC, Brisbane, Qld. ISBN: 9781920965563. Dolsak, N 2001, ‘Mitigating global climate change: why are some countries more committed than others?’ Policy Studies Journal, vol. 29, no.3, pp. 414-436. England, P 2008, ‘Climate change law for planners, developers, local government and greenies: a quick stock take and some ideas for the future’, Urban Research Program, no. 16, June, pp. 1-11. Galloway, R. W 1988, ‘The potential impact of climate changes on Australian ski fields’, CSIRO/Brill., pp. 428-437. Gerard, D & Lave, L 2007, ‘Experiments in technology forcing: comparing regulatory processes of US Automobile safety and emissions regulations’, International journal of technology, policy and management, vol. 7, pp. 1-14. Gossling, S 2002, ‘Global environmental consequences of tourism, Global Environmental Change, vol. 12, no.4, pp. 283-302. Gupta, S et al 2007, ‘Policies, instruments and cooperative arrangements’, In Metz, B., Davidson, P., Bosch, R., Dave, L. & Meyer, L (Eds), Climate change 2007: mitigation, Cambridge; New York, Cambridge University Press. Hoegh-guldberg, H 2008, ‘Australian tourism and climate change’, Economic Strategies Background Tourism Paper, no. 02, pp. 1-38. Hughes, L 2003, ‘Climate change and Australia: trends, projections and impacts’, Australia Ecology, vol.28, pp. 423-443. Miranda, C 2012, ‘Planetary emergency- an overview’, Global campaign to Demand Climate Justice, viewed 13 April 2013, < http://twnside.org.sg/title2/climate/doc/Equity_and_Ambition_group/PlanetaryEmergency-AnOverview.pdf>. Peeters, P 2002, ‘The tourist, the trip and the earth’, In NHTV marketing and Communication Departments (Ed.), Creating a fascinating world, Breda, NHTV, pp. 1-8. Peeters, P M & Dings, J 2007, ‘Climate change, tourism and air transport- global sustainable tourism requires sustainable air transport’,In Amelung, B., Blazejczyk, K, & Matzarakis, A, Climate change and tourism-assessment and coping strategies, Maastricht, pp. 20-40. Reddy, M V, & Wilkes, K 2013, Tourism, climate change and sustainability, Abingdon, Routledge. Scott, D, & McBoyle, G 2006,’Climate change adaptation in the ski Industry’, Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change, vol. 78, pp. 12-33. Shaw, S 2011, Why advocate on climate change? Tearfund, Teddington, UK. Stephens, J C 2006, ‘Growing interest in carbon capture and storage (CCS) for climate change mitigation’, Sustainability: science, Practice, & Policy, vol.2, no.2, pp. 4-13. UN-Habitat 2007, ‘UN-Habitat and climate change mitigation’, pp. 1-4. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 1992, ‘1771 UNTS 107; 31 ILM 849’, (entered into force on 21March 1994), Article 3, Principles. Yohes, G, Andronova, N & Schlesinger, M 2004, ‘To hedge or not against an uncertain climate future’, Science, vol. 306, no. 5695, pp. 416-417. Read More