DestiCorp 2.0

In Response to George Monbiot - The New Dividing Line

On Dec 14th George Monbiot wrote a cutting but insightful piece on the new politics. While he has titled the post “It’s About All of Us”, the content ends up focusing on "them" and "us". It was reproduced in the Guardian under a more militaristic heading: This is bigger than climate change. It is a battle to redefine humanity. 

He argues that the new dividing line in politics is not between right or left but between expanders and restrainers: those who believe that there should be no impediments, and those who believe that we must live within limits. He goes onto to say:

The vicious battles we have seen so far between greens and climate change deniers, road safety campaigners and speed freaks, real grassroots groups and corporate-sponsored astroturfers  are just the beginning. This war will become much uglier as people kick against the limits that decency demands.

While I dislike the language of wars and battles, I do agree with the fact the the divide exists, is growing and will widen before it shrinks.  

Fear is the force that is driving a wedge between these two groups. The expanders fear loss of control, position, power, wealth, comfort, familiar stuff (the list goes on).  Restrainers miss loss of access to cultural diversity, to well-being, biodiversity, health, community, security and happiness. 

It seems always to be about fear. Fear will trump ambition every time. But even fear runs out of steam when people have lost all – as Victor Frankl showed in Auschwitz. The human search for meaning stays alight among some amidst the darkest darkness. It’s that sputtering flame we must each kindle…

I wish I could write as eloquently as Monbiot – he can be convincing, except that there’s flaw in his thinking that comes from a flaw of perception. There are colours in our world. He has identified two modes of thought but not seen the connections that link and unify. 

I don't know about you, but there are  also colours in my personality – at various times I am an expander and a restrainer. Some degree of expansion is necessary, or entropy would take over and we’d all end up in a useless heap under our duvets. Some form of restraint is necessary or we’d all burst from satiation. George rightly alludes to the fact that each of us harbours a capacity for great acts of selflessness and goodness and horrific acts of selfishness and evil. I am “all of us” but so are "you" too – and from where you’re standing, the view is different. Before WW2, Carl Jung warned of the shadow that exists within each and the dangers of denying it. 

If humanity needs anything right now it’s to develop a universal capacity to grasp and feel comfortable with complexity, ambiguity even paradox.  It’s the ability to say “yes and” not just “yes but”. But in the same way our psychology has difficulty handling gradual threats and responds best to immediate danger, the media we have created (and especially the new, digital  social media) values the brief, the new, the instant, the “real-time”. Our thought processes are constantly interrupted, distracted and divided and our capacity to mull over an idea or article is reduced. Never was there such a need for our leaders to take time out to think (God forbid) but, when they do, we describe them as indecisive. 

Another new and promising writer, Jane Young of The Resonance Blog, has tried to capture this need to handle complexity in a slide deck that should enjoy wide distribution. Her blog is well worth a read too. 

Complexity & Humanity 2.0

View more presentations from ResonanceBlog.

I include it here not just because I enjoyed it but because it supports my last point – the dividing line (if there is such a thing) is not between people but modes of perception.  People can shift back and forth between different modes of perception relatively easily.  (In the illustration to the right, most of you can see an image of both a young  lady in a fine hat, and an old crone clad in scarf). 

One mode of perception views the planet as a living organism, a complex system continuously self-regulating and all forms of matter and energy as agents within that system, connected to and influencing all other agents. This paradigm necessitates a healthy respect for all other agents and an intrinsic, pervasive humility -  the complexity of the interconnections means that we never know how they might impact each other.

The other model sees the planet as a storehouse of resources that any set of agents (any tribe) can exploit ad infinitum for its own personal benefit. This mode of perception has developed its knowledge based on a paradigm that divides subject from object; that underplays the deep connections that constantly link the two;  and that assumes that agents can be neatly labeled, grouped, un-grouped and manipulated like the pixels on your screen. For as long as this paradigm “worked” (and it has for over 350 years) practicing humility was disadvantageous. What was needed was daring, courage, and boldness to break through barriers of ignorance and build new edifices that proved my tribe's superior intelligence and strength. 

After 350 years or so, it’s not just the physical resources that have been plundered and are running low, but a healthy sense of wonder; a willingness to realize that there is far more we don’t know about our amazing universe than what we could ever know. As students of nature we are all in kindergarten where a bit more hand holding would serve us well.  The old expansionist paradigm is losing its ability to describe our world accurately and predict the future - everywhere we read of systemic flaws, meltdowns and crises. 

So, methinks a real paradigm shift is finally afoot. 

If that's the case, then George, while  I respect your passion, eloquence,  intelligence, and wit, I reject your analysis of a new form of class struggle - even though I will fess up and state that I'm a moderate restrainer. If as you suggest, there are two mountains of thought separated by a chasm of misunderstanding, we need bridge builders and integrators not polarizers. Without such, it's gonna get a lot uglier….Let's not be responsible for that...It's not time for barricades but bridges......

Postscript

My tourism readers might be thinking - what has this to do with tourism?  Well everything. For starters,  I believe the tourism community can and should act as bridge builders. But I also see evidence for the perception division growing within our ranks as evidenced by recent press releases issued by the WTTC, the Ecumenical Council on Tourism and the UNWTO. More in next post!!

A Tale of Two Men and Two Canadas

Indirectly and directly Lester B Pearson, Prime Minister of Canada (1963-1968) saved many American lives and put this country on the international map. During the depths of the Vietnam war, it was customary for some American backpackers to sew the new Canadian Maple`flag (which Pearson introduced) on their backpacks to avoid being recognized as Americans.  Pearson also introduced universal health care, student loans, the Canada Pension Plan and helped raise Canada's status as a country and sustain its reputation as a peace keeper concerned about the developing world. 

How things change. Now many countries in the Commonwealth wish Canada to leave and the green backpackers are likely removing the maple leaf from their packs. Our international reputation and appeal as a country is in quick descent as evidenced in the Guardian article here and a few concerned citizens have assumed responsibility for presenting Canada's  brand to the world - see previous post on Reputation.

Increasingly Canada' s pristine image of wilderness stretching inifinitely into the horizon is being tarnished by scarred images of black, bitumen encrusted deserts. as described by John Vidal in this four minute video here: 

 

 

  

While Harper's policies were in alignment with the Bush administration - the world is literally and metaphorically a lumberyard to be exploited - the new US administration are expressing a different view (even if they are constrained by a conflicted Congress) and even China is shifting its position..

But this is not just a tale of two men but two countries. While Harper and the national government are dragging their feet on issues like climate change, Canadian leaders at the community level (across provinces, in cities and on First Nations lands) are actively stewarding the land and acting responsibly. While men in suits prevaricate in cities, hoards of caring individuals with varying levels of political status are showing they care about the land and are protecting Canada's vast forests as best they can as described in another article here. There are plenty of reasons to be both proud and stand on guard for Canada.

  

Canada's boreal forest - all 1.3 billion acres of it - stores the equivalent of 27 years' worth of current global greenhouse emissions, soaking up 22% of the total carbon stored on the earth's land surface. If that dries out, the release of greenhouse gases would be catastrophic. 

So given that we Canadians may have lost any right to tell the world what to do and how to behave (and appear to have little appetite to do that anyway), we can focus on conserving the precious green resources that provide the scenic backdrop to every tourist photo, provide succour to many of our iconic critters (beaver, moose and bear), soak up our carbon and provide the clean air we breathe. This is no longer a philanthropic action on the part of the tourism community but vital to its long term survival and credibility. Regardless of whether you believe climate change is occurring or even caused by human activity, simple housekeeping logic suggests that failure to take care of the food in the larder avoids hunger or sickness.

Will DMOs* survive the next decade?

I was recently asked to write a paper on the likely changing role of DMOs. Having spent my entire career working with this institution in various parts of the globe, and intending to do so going forward, I’ve a keen interest in an accurate answer. 

This afternoon, two blog posts from very reputable sources caught my attention: 

Douglas Quimby from Phocuswright wrote a post titled Destinations: The Online Marketing Disconnect, justifiably bemoaning the fact that DMOs seem so unwilling to move significant chunks of their marketing budgets into the online space. I don’t know Douglas personally, but hope to meet up with him at the PhocusWright Conference in Florida mid November. I imagine him to be a bright, talented Gen X or Yer who ”gets it” i.e finds it impossible to imagine how destinations couldn’t see the obvious benefits of playing aggressively in the online space. 

The commentators to his post are each highly credentialed to speak and deplored the lack of appropriate measuring tools, lack of expertise and education. I suggested that the real problem is “culture” and to see why, please follow the thread…here.  As further evidence of the challenge, I’d  also recommend you read the last blog post from Vicky at Highland Business Research:  It Shouldn’t be This Difficult.   In this post, I can hear the frustrated anguish of someone who is incredibly talented and productive appear to hit a wall or be pushing a boulder up hill. I’m hoping it was her last blog post because she is sunning herself on a beach and has not given up the DMO community for good. 

The second very different post was from a DMO executive – one of the leading lights in social media (and, don’t get me wrong, there are many very talented people in DMOs pushing the edge of the envelope- see my blog roll as a starter. Troy from Denver was writing for the new e-marketing and travel site called, Toonz.com that should be bookmarked quickly by anyone in travel marketing. His post was called How The Industry Will Save the World – so you can see why it got my attention!!

Troy has a brilliant reputation for applying social media to marketing destinations.  So this was quite a step away from his normal territory. Having identified that climate change is an important issue, he appears to be applying travel marketers’ normal and contagious enthusiasm and proposes:  

The time has arrived to lend our voice to the congregation and become a part of the solution.  The travel industry…utilizing technology…can help lead the way.

Well I really hope so. And I welcome Troy and his highly talented e-marketing peers to join the conversation – quickly. But I doubt that the travel industry will save the world – if it’s at all fortunate, it might just save itself. But only if the DMOs recognize and own up to the fact that they are a major part of the problem. The transport cost of most international tourists constitute the bulk of carbon emissions. No one currently takes responsibility for that.  Tourism has to change if it is to make a positive contribution to a very different economy that is emerging from the melting rubble of the old. 

Take my word for it. There are no quick fixes. The current leadership of the tourism “industry” has first to shift its perception and see tourism as the analogue extension of the IT community – both simply connect people and places. They need to work together and fast to find a way of enabling the act of travel to coexist with the act of communication. Both have to find a way of delivering value without living beyond the physical means of the environment to support it. 

In summary – there are two major forces threatening and re-shaping DMOs: 

1. The need to deploy technology effectively or get out of the way; and 

2. The need to ensure destinations can live within the physical limits set by the host environment. 

DMOs could play a positive role in each endeavour but it will mean seeing things differently (a mindset shift); doing things differently ( a culture shift) and doing different things – a role change. Nothing serious – but certainly NOT “business as usual!!!”

To quote Troy – let the conversation continue but PLEASE may it soon lead to action. A good place to start is to join and support The Icarus Foundation, formed some 3 years ago to encourage the tourism industry to become more climate friendly. 

But  now we've started a conversation: what do think DMOs have to do to survive the next decade?

* DMO is the acronym used to describe Destination Marketing Organizations (responsible for attracting visitors to a place).

UK Tour Operators Lead in Thinking About the Future

Kudos to ABTA, British Airways, Carnival UK, Co-operative Travel, The Travel Foundation and TUI Travel plc  and Forum For The Future for leading the way towards some really thoughtful and intelligent debate on the future of outbound tourism.

The report, Tourism 2023, available here, should be mandatory reading for every tourism destination. It’s highly readable, full of substance and deliciously thought provoking. 

Even though it doesn’t quite achieve its own objectives – i.e. “to set out a clear vision of a profitable, successful future in which the travel and tourism industry recognizes its wider responsibilities to society,” it does makes a very good start. While designed to help the signatories identify and address the complex environmental, social and economic issues affecting outbound tourism, it contains enormous food for thought for all places that attract visitors.   

The talented team at Forum for the Future apply a scenario planning approach to paint a picture of four possible futures based on the inter-play of two key variables: the appeal of overseas travel and the presence of inhibitors to overseas travel. 


The four scenarios represent a caricature of a possible future but are described with compelling detail and logic. Sadly,  none is particularly attractive!

1.    Boom and Burst describes a world in which mass tourism continues to grow fast and furiously based on disposable incomes rising in developed economies and the middle classes of emerging economies exercising their right to roam the planet.  It’s a similar forecast to that outlined in the HBR article: Tourism: The Ticking Time Bomb and describes overcrowded, congested iconic destinations and the disappearance of wilderness. 

2.    Divided Disquiet describes a different world in which devastating impacts from climate change, resource scarcity and social unrest have rendered the planet as unstable and hostile; protectionism is rife, yet where the most popular form of  tourism is “doomsday tourism” with a few tourists wealthy or brave enough flock to see places before they disappear. 

3.    In the Price and Privilege scenario, high oil prices have also caused the cost of travel to soar. Many companies couldn’t cope with the efficiency gains needed and went out of business. Capacity shrank and long-haul travel reverted to the aspirational luxury status associated with the turn of the century. 

4.    Carbon Clampdown describes a possible future in which the high cost of carbon , combined with growing environmental awareness and concern, make travel both uneconomic and anti-social.  Tradeable  carbon quotas restrict demand and economies are more localized. 

I simply cannot do justice to this useful piece of work  in a short blog post, so will likely revisit the topic – often. I am also loath to be critical as I would hate to discourage others from showing such thought leadership. But there are some serious limitations – most likely reflecting the fact that a consortium commissioned the work and each company would probably like to think and respond to its findings privately.  

While no one can argue with the six motherhood principles for creating a sustainable future, the three areas where they say urgent action is needed sound lame and self serving: 

1. The industry needs to demonstrate and monitor the economic benefit tourism delivers to destination communities to help protect them for the future and increase their appeal and value to customers. (The insertion of the word NET before benefit would have made this objective so much more credible as it’s the destinations that generally bear the external costs and not the tour operators)      

2. Low carbon innovation – the industry needs to focus on trialling new technologies and taking them to scale; increase energy efficiency, reduce waste and use more renewables. (Of course, but why not set a big hairy audacious goal and say that enterprises based on the grownd will go carbon neutral while we strive to find less harmful ways of getting airplanes to stay airborne?)
                     
3. Driving Customer demand – develop further insight into what will motivate people to take sustainable holidays. (At no point is a “sustainable holiday”  defined nor is the problem addressed. Vacationers could all stay at low impact facilities and drive around in hybrid or electric cars but if the industry as a whole continues to grow at 5% per annum and increases its demand for concrete and kerosene at the same rate, it wouldn't qualify as sustainable)

Tourism 2023 does conclude with a proposed strategic approach that outlines the areas above in slightly more detail and provides one important target – that the outbound industry will sign up to the WTTC target of a 50% reduction in emissions by 2035. It also references the Global Sustainable Criteria but doesn’t go as far as Walmart, for example, in setting a Sustainability Index for the members of the supply chain. 

In addition to the good content and imaginative scenarios, the report does, however, throw down the gauntlet to the managers and policy makers in tourism destinations everywhere.  These are the agencies that should be doing this kind of work – aren’t destinations supposed to determine the kind of tourism they wish to attract and help their businesses operate in a sustainable and beneficial fashion and ensure that their communities benefit not suffer from the influx of tourists? It’s sad and ironic that such public agencies have been upstaged by a handful of tour operators but not necessarily a bad thing….over to you DMOs...... The stage is now set for some action from you…..How are you thinking about the future?

National Parks in Peril from Climate Change

Climate Change is the greatest threat our national parks have ever faced. That's the conclusion of a new report we're releasing today, along with the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization. National Parks in Peril highlights the 25 national parks most at risk.

via switchboard.nrdc.org

The "we" referred to above is the NRDC - that has issued a comprehensive report on current and future impact of climate change on the national parks in the US. Given that National Parks in Canada are likely to experience greater warming levels, such a study for Canada's parks would be timely. Please let me know what might exist. Go to the NRDC site for the report and check out the interactivity supporting this map showing the impact on western US. 

The livelihood of thousands of people involved in tourism around such parks in North America will be negatively affected over the next 20 years and,  given that during that short period, we know that global energy demand will rise by 50%; global demand for food will rise by 50% and water availability will decrease by 30%, the impacts on scenic values, ecosystems and biodiversity both in the Parks and out of them will sadly worsen.  Whether the tourism industry acts to avoid such changes depends on whether it really does care for future generations.

Any state, provincial, or national DMO that fails to include a strategy for carbon reduction in its future strategies is failing both the industry it serves and the future generations that might be their clients.

Birdsong in England, Hot Air from Washington and Bubbles in the Arctic - what's the connection?

I write this sitting quietly in a log cabin located in the midst of a lush and quintessentially English cottage garden. It's misty outside but the song birds are celebrating the close of another magnificent and a seemingly normal Spring day. So far this year, we've experienced a normal set of seasons - a cold winter, windy and showery spring and prospects of a hot summer ahead. Even Wimbledon is prepared with its new roof and there'll be strawberries and cream as usual with the chance to forget the financial meltdown - even while another meltdown continues to take place with disproportionately less fanfare and sense of gloom. It's in this context that a growing sense of complacency within the business community, and especially the tourism community, regarding the climate change threat, should come as no surprise. The financial crisis, the ensuing recession and the dramatic declines in visitors, revenues and yields have diverted our attention to less scary, more familiar issues.

Next week, the American travel industry will launch yet another campaign extolling the virtues of travel with the headline "Travel Matters!" suggesting that travel can be the primary engine of economic recovery and is good for our health.  The Q & A sheet in support of the campaign complains that business travel has been "mischaracterized" and makes the following arguments in defence of leisure travel:

Leisure travel is important because it’s essential to good health. Travelers rate their overall health one full point higher (on a scale of 1 to 5) while on vacation. And they receive three times more sleep after vacations and sleep almost 20 minutes longer. An annual vacation can cut a person’s risk of heart attack by 50 percent.

Of course "travel matters" but so does health care, the production of quality yet affordable food, the care of our elderly, the education and safety of our young etc. If the slogan was "Travel Cares" and was backed with the actions that tourism is taking to address the real issues facing humanity right now, I could back it.

In the meantime, "nature" knows nothing of our human issues.Nature simply obeys implacable laws with no regard to their impacts on our human psyches and what we consider to be our well being. Nature simply and relentlessly adapts. And adaptation is what is happening in the Arctic. As temperatures rise and more ice melts so the gazillions of microbes embedded in the permafrost start to feed on the decaying vegetable matter trapped beneath the surface. Their process of consumption - like ours - emits waste but their waste (methane gas)  is 25 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than Co2.

If you harboured any lngering doubts that climate change would seriously and intensively affect your life or that of your children, then think again and read this article or watch the video from the LA Times last week . Bubbles of warming, beneath the ice - Los Angeles Times.

Methane is one of the wild cards that the IPCC scientists recognized as potentially aggravating the problem but did not,  dare not, include in their forecasts.

Moral of this tale? If we want to enjoy the birdsong and avoid the bubbles. we'll need more than rhetoric and hot air......