|
Justin Francis cofounded Responsible Travel in 2001, combining his passions for travel and ethical business—he had previously worked at cosmetics brand The Body Shop and counted its founder, Anita Roddick, as a mentor and seed investor. He shares the lessons for sustainable travel that he has learned on his entrepreneurial journey so far.
How do you define responsible travel?
After 21 years in this business, I've come to realize there's really three things that matter: climate change, loss of nature and biodiversity, and an inclusive [tourism] industry. Our purpose is to be low-carbon, nature-positive, just, fair and inclusive. If we don’t get those three things right, everything else, all the other sustainable development goals, will become irrelevant.
Is upholding the low-carbon standard the biggest hurdle in achieving your mission?
Up until 2009, we had been promoting carbon offsets with the idea that you could go on as before, traveling and offsetting your flights—but then we realized that it was a mistake. We started to advocate that people fly less, which is unusual for a travel company. The idea that you could go on flying as much as before, or even flying more and offsetting a flight, was dangerous marketing, hiding the truth. And the truth is, the advances we're seeing and new types of fuels and aviation are not going to come fast enough for us to meet the Paris goals of decarbonization.
We advise customers to take longer holidays and fewer of them, and we advise swapping out some flights altogether for trips closer to home. We've just removed any unnecessary flights of an hour or less, such as internal connections, from the site. We're working with our suppliers on renewable energy and, in accommodations, to rapidly expand plant-based diets.
I'm an adviser to the U.K. government on sustainable business, and one thing we’ve proposed is something called the green flying duty. [It involves] renaming the Air Passenger Duty, increasing it, especially for those in first and business class, and ring-fencing all the money and using it to invest in R&D in sustainable aviation.
And [the other thing is to] tax fuel. If aviation fuel were taxed the same as the fuel in a car, kerosene flights would be twice as expensive.
Even if offsets are not a solution, some people may think it’s the best option they have available.
I'm in favor of businesses investing in nature restoration. What I'm not in favor of is then presenting that to the customer using the language of being carbon-neutral. It gets away from this idea that we are going to have to fly less, at least for the next 20 years, depending on how fast renewable aviation technology comes through.
Is there too much emphasis on travelers’ individual responsibility compared to systemic change?
It has to be both. Advocating for a green flying duty is systemic change. But at the same time, I do believe we have an individual responsibility. Aviation is singled out for two reasons. The one that's valid is that it's a significant and rapidly growing source of carbon emissions. And the other reason is that tourism is seen as kind of frivolous and therefore could be easily excluded from our lives. I object to that.
Firstly, if you asked people in countries whose income or economies most depend on tourism, they would say it’s their most fundamental industry. Also, I believe in the value of travel. The world feels it is going from a globalized state to a much more nationalistic, individualistic approach, and I'm fearful of that. If there's one industry in the world that brings people together to better understand each other, it is tourism. That has value.
I also think we're losing the meaning of travel. It’s becoming more about self-branding than the quest for experiences, and it's impacting what we see, how often we travel and how we travel. Apart from a fight for more sustainability, I also see a fight for what is precious about travel, which is about learning, fulfillment, adventure and, by all means, a photograph to remember the experience by—but the purpose of the trip shouldn't be the photograph in the first place.
Some places are more at imminent risk of disappearing due to climate change than others. Does traveling there compound the issue?
A ton of carbon emitted at home has the same impact on those vulnerable places as a ton of carbon emitted in traveling there. We all need to be reducing our carbon emission, but you're not doing any more damage by emitting that carbon flying to that place than you are emitting a ton of carbon in any other part of life. But also, the answer very much depends on the holiday.
There's potentially two things travelers can do that are positive. If your holiday is making a contribution to protecting woodlands, grasslands, savannah, the things that sequester carbon—what I would call a nature-positive holiday—then that is of help in the battle against climate change. And secondly, travelers will want to understand how their holiday is helping that destination adapt to climate change—that’s very new, but it’ll become a trend in the coming years.
How can travelers make sure their trip is nature-positive?
Take a look at the website of the place you're going to stay at to see if they've got a policy for sustainable or responsible tourism, reducing carbon emissions and direct and indirect contribution to nature conservation. Ask for data and evidence. In doing so, you can feel satisfied [in your choice], and the very fact of asking makes you a campaigner, a part in creating change. If you're not getting hard facts and evidence, that's a warning sign. The best quality companies care about where they operate and how they operate, as well as your enjoyment. By doing this research, you're going to end up booking a more enjoyable trip as well as one that's going to be more responsible.
Would a traveler pay more for a more responsible trip?
We have cheap trips, and we have more expensive trips, the same as everybody else. But the cost doesn't come with the sustainability dimension, it comes with the difficulty of operating in remote locations.
If you book a cheap holiday, which is very unsustainable, you might think [you’ve got a] fantastic deal, but you're going to pay in other ways, because of the economy is struggling due to global warming or higher food prices. We're all going to pay in the end for living in an unsustainable way. There's no shortcut.
Justin Francis’ answers were condensed and edited for brevity and clarity.
|
