Gössling, S. 2009. Carbon neutral destinations: a conceptual analysis.

Journal of Sustainable Tourism 17(1): 17-37.

Stefan Gössling
This paper provides a critical review of the concept of “carbon neutrality” for tourism destinations
within the framework of the UNWTO’s Davos Declaration, a document ascribing responsibilities to
various actors in the tourism industry to engage in green- house gas emission reductions. The paper
assesses the planning frameworks of countries engaging with the concept, discusses the measures
that can be taken to achieve “carbon neutrality”, along with an evaluation of some of the theoretical
and practical impli- cations. An increasing number of destinations now plan to become “carbon
neutral”, often as a response strategy to pressure on the tourism industry to reduce its emissions of
greenhouse gases. They aim to mitigate their contribution to global warming, and to develop their
tourism industries by enhancing their image as being environmentally pristine and sustainable.

Introduction
The identification of tourism as an important contributor to climate change has become
both an important driver for efforts to develop more sustainable forms of tourism, and a
challenge to the concept of sustainable tourism itself. Work to create more sustainable
tourism has until now been designed to solve local issues, but climate change presents a
new type of problem. Site-specific greenhouse gas emissions can, through climate change,
impact destinations everywhere and these emissions are primarily created by travel
between source markets and destinations. While the problem is thus global and can only be
solved in global agreements, experience shows that progress must be made locally if
effective improvements are to be made: few international projects in sustainable tourism
have shown strong results. It is in this context of a new challenge for sustainable tourism
that this discussion of the idea of carbon neutral destinations should be seen.
Globally, an estimated 5% of CO2 emissions, and a significantly higher share of the
radiative forcing1 caused by all greenhouse gases, is attributed to tourism (UNWTO-UNEP-
WMO, 2008). In industrialised countries, emissions from tourism may, however, be higher in
both relative and absolute (per capita) terms than the global average (e.g. Becken, 2002).
Aviation is by far the most important contributor to emissions from tourism, globally
accounting for 40% of the sector’s contribution to CO2, and up to 75% of its contribution to
radiative forcing (UNWTO-UNEP-WMO, 2008). National studies have also found that
aviation is the single most relevant sub-sector of tourism in terms of its contribution
to climate change (Becken, 2002; Go¨ssling, Borgstro¨m-Hansson, Ho¨rstmeier, & Saggel,
2002; Go¨ssling & Hall, 2008).
In the light of the urgent need to reduce global emissions of greenhouse gases (IPCC,
2007), there is thus a problem caused by tourism’s rapid growth, and its increasingly
energy- intense nature as traveller numbers grow, with many taking shorter, yet longer-
distance, and more frequent holidays using air travel (UNWTO-UNEP-WMO, 2008). While,
for instance, countries in the European Union (EU) have agreed to cut emissions of
greenhouse gases by at least 20% by 2020 (compared to 2005 levels), tourism, and
particularly aviation in these countries, is characterised by rapid growth. The European
Commission (2006) foresees a growth of 100% in emissions from this sector in the EU in
the period 2005–2020. Tourism development in the EU and elsewhere is thus in conflict
with global emission reduction needs.
There is, therefore, increasing pressure on the tourism industry to become sustain-
able with regard to its contribution to climate change. This was acknowledged by the
United Nations World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) in its Davos Declaration (UNWTO,
2007a, p. 2):
 The tourism sector must rapidly respond to climate change, within the evolving UN framework and
progressively reduce its Greenhouse Gas (GHG) contribution if it is to grow in a sustainable manner.
This will require action to:
• mitigate its GHG emissions, derived especially from transport and accommodation activities;
• adapt tourism businesses and destinations to changing climate conditions;
• apply existing and new technology to improve energy efficiency;
• secure financial resources to help poor regions and countries.

The Davos Declaration calls for a range of actors to take action. This includes a call for
governments and international organisations to (UNWTO, 2007a, pp. 2–4):

• Collaborate in international strategies, policies and action plans to reduce GHG emis- sions in the
transport (in cooperation with the International Civil Aviation Organisation [ICAO] and other aviation
organisations), accommodation and related tourism activities.

For tourism industry and destinations to:

• Take leadership in implementing concrete measures (such as incentives) in order to mitigate

climate change throughout the tourism value chain and to reduce risk to travellers, operators and
infrastructure due to dynamic climate variability and shift. Establish targets and indicators to monitor
progress.
• Promote and undertake investments in energy-efficiency tourism programmes and use
of renewable energy resources, with the aim of reducing the carbon footprint of the entire tourism
sector.
• Seek to achieve increasingly carbon-free environments by diminishing pollution through
design, operations and market responsive mechanisms.

For consumers to:

• In their choices for travel and destination, tourists should be encouraged to consider the climate,
economic, societal and environmental impacts of their options before making a decision and, where
possible to reduce their carbon footprint, or offset emissions that cannot be reduced directly.
• In their choices of activities at the destination, tourists should also be encouraged to opt for
environmental-friendly activities that reduce their carbon footprint as well as contribute to the
preservation of the natural environment and cultural heritage.

For research and communications networks to:

• Encourage targeted, multi-disciplinary research on impacts of climate change in order to address

regional gaps in current knowledge, develop tools for risk assessment and cost–benefit analyses with
which to gauge the feasibility of various responses.
• Include environmental- and climate-specific subjects in the study curricula of tourism
training programmes and extend these to broader educational systems.
• Promote responsible travel that supports “quadruple bottom line” sustainable tourism,
incorporating climate, environmental, social and economic considerations.
• Raise awareness on tourism’s economic role as a tool for development, and present
information on causes and effects of climate change based on sound science, in a fair, balanced and
user-friendly manner.

The Declaration thus implicitly states that the responsibility for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions lies with several actors, i.e. governments and international organisations,
industry and destinations, consumers and, though not further discussed in this paper,
scientists. Furthermore, responsibility is divided between actors, with each of the actors
encouraged to focus on specific tasks. For instance, emissions of greenhouse gases from
transport are the responsibility of governments and international organisations;
destinations should focus on energy-efficiency programmes within the destination, and
consumers should make travel choices leading to smaller “carbon footprints”. Finally, the
Declaration seems to suggest that all actions are of equal importance; there is no
prioritisation of the suggested actions. The implications of these assumptions for the
concept of “carbon free destinations”, which the UNWTO has endorsed as an avenue to
deal with the problem of increasing emissions from tourism (e.g. UN News Service, 2007),
and which is likely to become an important new concept and tool within the sustainable
tourism paradigm, will be discussed in the following sections.

“Carbon neutral”: perspectives on definitions

Destinations announcing goals of “carbon neutrality” have used at least four terms to
describe the concept, including “carbon neutral”, “climate neutral”, “carbon free” and
“carbon clean”. These appear to be understood synonymously; all are taken to mean that a
destination does not contribute to climate change. From a definitional point of view, the
terms imply different things, however. “Climate neutral”, for instance, would indicate that the
focus is on emissions of all greenhouse gases, an issue of particular importance with
regard to the radiative forcing caused by aviation (Sausen et al., 2005), while “carbon
neutral” would only comprise CO2. “Neutral” is, in both cases, an oxymoron, as emissions
of greenhouse gases from tourism are not “neutralised”, they are compensated for, usually
through projects that save emissions in other, non-tourism sectors. Such compensation
projects focus on energy efficiency, renewable energy or forestry projects (afforestation,
reforestation, avoided deforestation or forest conservation and forest management). One
may argue that it is correct to use the term “carbon neutral”, if an amount of CO 2 similar to
that released by a given tourism-related activity is stored in biomass, for instance, in a
forestry project, but there are problems about the permanency of these sinks and land
availability for them (see Forestry projects as offsets – a critical review). In contrast,
projects focusing on energy efficiency or renewable energy would then be compensational.
“Carbon free” and “carbon clean”, on the other hand, would indicate that no emissions of
CO2 have been released in the first place. This is theoretically possible for a destination
using 100% renewable energy, including all transport and emissions, and calculated based
on a lifecycle perspective, i.e. also considering the emissions caused by, for example,
the production process of an electric car as well as that of the wind power station
providing the energy for the car. “Carbon free” will not be possible as long as aviation is
involved. In summary, “carbon compensated” or “climate compensated” (the latter including
non-CO2 emissions) are the correct terms to use for most offsetting activities. As “carbon
neutral” appears to be the term most frequently encountered in the literature and on
websites, with little evidence that there is awareness among the various actors of the
implications of the respective terms, it is here used as an umbrella term to indicate the
notion of a tourism not contributing to a net increase in global warming.

Complexities and difficulties with “carbon neutrality”

The Davos Declaration (UNWTO, 2007a) seems to assume that (1) the responsibility for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions lies with several actors; (2) there is a distribution of
tasks between these actors and (3) there are no clear priorities for action. As becoming a
carbon neutral destination demands the coordination of efforts and a common goal, the
UNWTO’s (2007a) suggested distribution of tasks and responsibilities deserves further
discussion.
With regard to shared responsibility, one important question is whether all actors will
assume the responsibility assigned to them. Aviation, the most relevant tourism sub-sector
in terms of emissions, is a case in point. With regard to tourists, a recent study of Swedish
air travellers (n = 300) found that only a third of respondents assumed any personal respon-
sibility for the emissions caused by their air travel, while the broad majority considered
aircraft manufacturers and airlines to be responsible for emissions (Go¨ssling, Hultman,
Haglund, Ka¨llgren, & Revahl, in press; see also Becken, 2007). Airlines and aircraft manu-
facturers are not even mentioned in the Davos Declaration, though they have usually
defined themselves as service providers, i.e. catering to growing mobility demands. These
findings would thus question whether tourists or airlines will take on the responsibility
assigned to them by the UNWTO. In the European Union, national governments have,
through the European Parliament, assumed responsibility for emissions from aviation by
including the sector in the EU Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS), but the process is
undermined by airline associations. For instance, the Association of European Airlines
issued statements that the inclusion of aviation in the European Union’s Emission trading
scheme represents “a massive blow to airlines and passengers, a barely measurable step
for the environment” (AEA, 2007, p. 1). From a systemic point of view, it is also worth
noting that while the inclusion of aviation in the EU ETS is an attempt to re-assign
responsibility to airlines, costs for emissions are likely to be passed on to customers (Boon,
Schroten, & Kampman, 2007). Fuel- and emission costs are thus not necessarily likely to
increase the speed of technical innovation (cf. Scandinavian Airlines, 2008 – the company
considers operating a comparably old fleet for yet another decade). With regard to costs
passed on to customers, no significant changes in travel behaviour can be expected as
these costs are likely to be moderate within the suggested framework of the EU ETS
(Go¨ssling, Peeters, & Scott, 2008; Mendes & Santos, 2008). The overall effect of the EU
ETS may consequently be limited, while responsibilities for emissions are effectively
diffused between the various actors. As the EU is the only region in the world that will make
an attempt to address the growth in emissions from aviation, there is little evidence that
governments or customers will take responsibility as anticipated by UNWTO, while airlines,
aircraft manufacturers and airline organisations, arguably the most important actors in
terms of emissions, are not even mentioned in the Davos Declaration, or, as in the case of
ICAO and the ETS,2 may work actively against requiring airlines to limit greenhouse gas
emissions.
Another problem with the distribution of tasks in the Davos Declaration (UNWTO,
2007a) is that destinations would only be responsible for emissions released during the
tourists’ stay. This implies that the major share of emissions is unaccounted for when
destinations declare themselves “carbon neutral”, because these are attributed to air travel
to and from the destination (UNWTO-UNEP-WMO, 2008). Consequently, with regard to
priorities for action, not all sectors are of equal importance in greenhouse gas reductions.
Aviation is the most emission-intense sector, both in absolute and per-trip terms, as well as
with regard to growth, and action in this sector would thus have a comparably larger effect
on overall emissions than reductions in any other tourism sector. In summary, achieving the
goal of “carbon neutrality”, or, more generally, climate sustainability, would thus demand a
focus on key emission sources, particularly aviation, and the cooperation of all actors,
assuming shared responsibility, working towards behavioural change and the development
of alternative transport systems where possible. Moreover, as the discussion below
indicates, there is a need to define the boundaries of the “carbon neutral” tourism system.

System boundaries
Destinations focusing on carbon neutrality will have to define their system boundaries. To
illustrate the problem: some Annex I countries3 have reported reductions in greenhouse
gas emissions in recent years, but this may be a result of the system boundaries chosen,
rather than efforts to decarbonize economies. For example, the UK has reported, over all
sectors, CO2 emission reductions of 5.3% in 2006 compared to 1990, the Kyoto-
protocol’s base year, but this excludes international transport by UK citizens as well as
emissions embodied in production abroad for consumption in the UK (Helm, Smale, &
Phillips, 2007). If a consumption perspective is applied, i.e. a system boundary including all
emissions embodied in consumption by UK citizens minus the emissions embodied in
exports, CO2 emissions in the UK have increased by 19% in the period 1990–2003. These
findings emphasise the importance of the system boundaries chosen.
For destinations seeking to become “carbon/climate neutral”, an early decision must be
whether to include only CO2 or all greenhouse gases in calculations, as well as of how to
define its tourism system. Recent assessments of tourism’s contribution to greenhouse gas
emissions have usually focused on three sectors, travel to and from the destination,
accommodation and activities (Becken, 2002; Go¨ssling, 2002; see also UNWTO-UNEP-
WMO, 2008). Assessments have, however, not included indirect emissions, such as those
caused by employees travelling to work. Likewise, emissions caused by hotel construction,
or those embedded in furniture production, have been excluded from these assessments,
which consequently measure energy throughput, i.e. the energy needed for daily
operations. At present, data on indirect/lifecycle emissions of tourism is scarce, but the
UNWTO- UNEP-WMO (2008) indicate “shadow emissions” of the order of 10–20%. These
should be included in the calculation of greenhouse gas emissions, by multiplying
emissions with a factor 1.15 (the average value of the range provided in UNWTO-UNEP-
WMO, 2008).
With regard to a focus on CO2 or all greenhouse gas emissions, it is clear that a
“CO2-only” perspective would substantially underestimate the radiative forcing caused in
particular by aviation (Sausen et al., 2005). More specifically, nitrogen oxides and water
are, when released in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere, highly climate-
relevant. While there is still scientific uncertainty regarding the overall contribution of
non-CO2 greenhouse gases from aviation to radiative forcing, the effect of nitrogen oxides
is comparably well understood. Together with the radiative forcing caused by contrails,
the contribution of non-CO2 emissions to radiative forcing may be about 1.9 times that of
CO2, if calculated for the year 2000 (Sausen et al., 2005). For various reasons, it is difficult
to compare emissions of CO2 with those of other greenhouse gases, because the life time
of non-CO2 emissions is short (see Peeters, Williams, & Go¨ssling, 2007). However, not
considering non-CO2 emissions would underestimate the contribution of aviation to climate
change. It is thus suggested that emission calculations follow the outline of the European
Parliament (2007), which foresees the inclusion of aviation in the EU ETS by 2011 and
that the aviation sector has to buy two emission permits for every ton of CO 2 emitted above
aviation emission allowances to reflect the impact of non-CO 2 greenhouse gases. In the
context of the concept of carbon neutrality, this effectively means that every ton of CO2
from the aviation sector should be weighted by a factor 2. However, as the outline by the
European Parliament has no regulatory status, and does not adequately address the
complexities of the non-CO2 effects, another value may be used in the future, following the
multiplier or mechanisms used by the EU. For the purpose of this paper, the factor 2 may
be seen as following a precautionary principle in the absence of more adequate solutions.
The term “destination” is used in this paper to comprise an entire country, even though
the concept of “destination carbon neutrality” could also be used on a regional or a local
level. An identification of system boundaries would be easiest if based on the view of an
island. The tourism system would from such a point of view include all accommodation as
well as the activities carried out by both domestic and international tourists within the
country. Furthermore, emissions from transport to and from the destination need to be
addressed. Two general approaches seem possible: one is a consumption approach,
focusing on the emissions of the citizens of a given country. In this model, emissions
caused by a German travelling around the world should be accounted for as “German”
emissions,
i.e. reflecting the more or less energy-intense lifestyles between societies and individuals.
Opponents of this approach may argue that the economic benefits of the journey accrue at
least partially to the destination(s) visited, and that a share of the emission burden should
thus be shouldered by the destination. In contrast, a production approach would seek to
account for emissions in the destination. For instance, if a U.S. citizen takes a holiday in
Jamaica, then Jamaica would be “responsible” for the emissions caused by both the
incoming and outgoing flights. In this scenario, it may, however, be argued that several
actors in the United States, such as the tour operator or the airline, may have profited
economically from the traveller, and should thus be responsible for a share of emissions.
Furthermore, Jamaica would become responsible for a considerable share of the emissions
caused by the energy-intense lifestyles in a wealthier nation. While this deserves further
debate in a more general context, as, for instance, provided for in ongoing allocation
debates of emissions from aviation in the EU, it is clear that in the context of “carbon
neutral” destinations, only a production approach would account for all emissions caused
by tourism. A production approach would exclude emissions from outgoing resident
travellers. Furthermore, to address the tourism revenue argument, airlines and tour
operators in the source countries, which are profiting from tourism, could become part of
the compensation system.
In summary, the baseline calculation of destination-related emissions would thus, for a
given country, include travel to and from the destination (international tourists), as well as
accommodation and activities (domestic and international tourists), the latter including

local travel. All emissions would be multiplied by a factor 1.15 to include a lifecycle
perspective (following UNWTO-UNEP-WMO, 2008). Furthermore, net emissions from
aviation (i.e. the amount of CO2 emissions released, but not being multiplied by a lifecycle
factor) would be multiplied by a factor of 2 to reflect the contribution of non-CO2 emissions
to radiative forcing (following European Parliament, 2007).

Carbon neutral destinations – an overview

Several destinations have recently announced their intention to become carbon neutral. Sri
Lanka may have received most attention; it announced its initiative “Earth Lung –
Carbon Free Sri Lanka” (UNWTO, 2007b) during the 2nd International Conference on
Tourism and Climate Change in Davos, Switzerland (1–3 October 2007). This initiative was
applauded by the UNWTO, praising the country for becoming the first carbon neutral
destination in the world (UN News Service, 2007). However, Sri Lanka does not appear to
be the only country focusing on carbon neutrality, nor is it the first one. Table 1 provides an
overview of countries (plus the semi-autonomous region Scotland) that have announced to
become “carbon free” or “carbon neutral”, along with a review of the system boundaries
chosen, the year of expected carbon neutrality, as well as the strategy employed to achieve
“carbon neutrality”. Iceland is sometimes listed as a nation that has vowed to become
carbon neutral (cf. UNEP, 2008). However, as the Icelandic government reports in its
Climate Change Strategy 2007 (Iceland Ministry for the Environment, 2007), the goal is not
carbon neutrality, but rather to reduce emissions by 50–75% by 2050.

Norway
The initiative to become carbon neutral across all sectors of the economy was launched by
the prime minister in January 2007, and taken up by the government in June 2007.
Norway’s government announced on 18 January 2008 that it will seek to become carbon
neutral by 2030, 20 years earlier than previously planned (Office of the Prime Minister,
2008). Current national emissions amount to 54 Mt CO2-e (in 2005) and are expected to
increase to 58.8 Mt CO2-e by 2020 (Miljøverndepartementet, 2007). The government
believes, however, that annual reductions of 15–17 Mt of CO2-equivalents can be achieved
by 2020. This includes a wide range of measures to reduce emissions, such as the
development of renewable energy sources, the use of economic tools to achieve more
efficient use of energy, CO2 capture and storage (CCS) and, to a considerable extent,
carbon sequestration by forests in Norway. The Government foresees that 70% of
Norway’s total emission reductions can be made nationally, while the remainder will be
offset by purchasing Certified Emission Reductions through the Clean Development
Mechanism (Miljøverndepartementet, 2008).
Starting in 2008, the government has declared its intention to set aside an additional
NOK70 million (€8.9 million) for research on renewable energy and CCS. In 2009, the
additional allocation for research will increase to NOK 300 million (€38.2 million), and sub-
sequently increase to NOK 600 million (€76.5 million) by 2010. Further measures include
the investment of NOK 150 million (€19.1 million) in the development and demonstration
programme of offshore wind turbines and other energy technologies, an additional invest-
ment in railways (NOK 250 million, or €31.9 million, in 2009), increased fuel taxes – even
though by only NOK 0.10 (€0.012) per litre for diesel and NOK 0.05 (€0.006) per litre for
petrol, additional investments in public transport (not further specified), the abolishment of
oil-fired heating systems in public buildings by 2009, and spending of NOK 3 billion (€382
million) each year on reducing CO2 emissions caused by deforestation in developing
 Table 1. Carbon neutral destinations (countries).

Country Norway Costa Rica New Zealand Scotland Sri Lanka

Announcement January 2007 February 2007 May 2007 July 2007 October 2007
Initiative by Prime Minister Minister of Environment Prime Minister Tourism Innovation Minister of Tourism
Group
2030 2021 No year, individual sectors between 2025 and 2040 Year not specified Year not specified
Comprises National emissions of “Tourism and associated Not yet specified, starts “Tourism”, including “Tourism”
(system GHG; international international air travel” and with government transport
boundary) aviation not included, but “certain industry sectors” agencies
possibly by 2012.
∗
Strategy RE FC RE EE RF
EE FM EE RE BF
RF AF and FM (in New Zealand) AF (in Scotland)
AF and FM (in Norway) EE Eventually
offsets Offsets through CDM
National emissions 54 Mt CO2-e Business as 4.1 Mt CO2 (1996) 77.1 Mt CO2-e Regional emissions 33.6 Mt CO2 (1994),
∗∗
2005 usual scenario: 58.8 Mt Business as usual scenario: +30% by unclear – tourism 27.9 Mt CO2 out of
CO2-e by 2020 2030 emissions: 13.7 Mt CO2- this forest related
Forest growth/- −1.0Mt CO2 (removal; 1996) −24.5Mt CO2 in 2005 e 27.9 Mt CO2 (release;
management, −27.3Mt CO2 in 2005 (current removal) Projects: 68,000 tons CO2 1994)
∗
LULUCF (current removal) in year 1, 137,000 tons
CO2 in year 2
Reduction 15–17 Mt CO2-e per About 6 Mt CO2-e per annum Not specified Not specified
potential annum
(Continued)
 Table 1.
Continued.
Country Norway Costa Rica New Zealand Scotland Sri Lanka
Amount of 11.3 Mt, 70% of this Unknown Unknown Not specified Not specified
emissions to be nationally
offset
Emission Participation in Kyoto VERs, offsetting nationally Participation in Kyoto VERs, offsetting VERs, offsetting
reduction units markets, i.e. CERs (FC, RF) markets, e.g. CERs, nationally (AF, RE) nationally (RF)
ERUs
Source Miljøverndepartementet, Reuters, 2007; Costa Rica New Zealand Energy TIG, 2007b UNFCCC, 2007b
2007, 2008; UNFCCC, Tourism Board, 2007; Efficiency and
2007b Dobles Mora, 2007; Conservation
La Nacion, 2007 Strategy, 2006;
UNFCCC, 2007a
∗
Notes: Abbreviations: CO2-e: CO2-equivalent,4 i.e. based on a comparison of the global warming potential of various greenhouse gases; LULUCF: Land Use, Land Use Change
and Forestry; RE: Renewable Energy; EE: Energy-efficiency; FC: Forest Conservation (avoided deforestation); FM: Forest Management; AF: Afforestation; RF: Reforestation; BF:
Biofuels; CCS: Carbon Capture and Storage; VER: Verified Emission Reductions; CER: Certified Emission Reductions; CDM: Clean Development Mechanism.
∗∗
Note that calculation methods are not identical in the countries.
Sources: see table and country sections below.
countries (Office of the Prime Minister, 2008). It should be noted, however, that interna-
tional aviation is not part of the Norwegian national greenhouse gas inventory, and growth
in this sector is not addressed in policies, even though it is the fastest growing source of
greenhouse gas emissions (Hille, Storm, Sataøen, Aall, & Holden, 2008). Tourism as such
is not mentioned in climate policies, even though the government’s new tourism strategy
(“reiselivsstrategi”) mentions climate change as an important challenge (Government Nor-
way, 2007, p. 29) and research to achieve a “Sustainable Destination Norway” has been
supported with NOK 6 million (€765,000) over the period 2008–2010.

Costa Rica
The Costa Rican newspaper La Nacion (2007) reported in February 2007 that the country
would engage in an initiative to achieve carbon neutrality, announcing the government’s
plans to implement legislation encouraging more efficient use of energy. The initiative is
financed by the Spanish Agency for International Cooperation (Agencia Espan˜ola de
Cooperacio´n Internacional), which, according to La Nacion, has supported the Costa Rican
Ministry of the Environment & Energy with €160,000. The Ministry provides no informa- tion
on its homepage, however (www.minae.go.cr). Furthermore, La Nacion reports that the
government plans to develop an eco-label, “carbon neutral”, which will certify that tourism
and other industrial sectors have offset as much CO2 as they have emitted. In June 2007,
Reuters (2007) reported that President Oscar Arias had announced plans for Costa Rica
to cut its “net greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2021”. According to The Costa Rica
Tourism Board (2007), an agreement has been signed between the Board and the National
Forestry Financing Fund (Fondo Nacional de Financiamiento Forestal, FNFF) to involve
national and foreign tourists in the compensation of greenhouse gas emissions produced
by aircraft and cars. The voluntary initiative is aimed at tour operators, which, on joining the
initiative, will charge customers a tax upon arrival or departure. La Nacion (2007) reports
that for each ton of CO 2 emitted by tourist transport, US$10 will be added as a voluntary
surcharge. The money will be administrated by the FNFF and be used for the conservation
of natural areas as well as reforestation. It is estimated that in the period 2007–2011,
US$40 million will be collected for this purpose.
Nature Air and the National Air Service Company (Sansa; www.flysansa.com) are the
first to engage in carbon offsetting. Nature Air (www.natureair.com) has engaged in
offsetting since 2003, while Sansa will “finance the protection of hectares of forest land
according to the amount of fuel that is used by the airplanes” (Costa Rica Tourism Board,
2007). Sansa emitted 5740 tons of CO2 in 2006, which are offset by a payment of
US$15,000 for the protection of “48 ha of land in the Peninsula of Osa” (Costa Rica Tourism
Board, 2007).

New Zealand
In her Statement to Parliament on 13 February 2007, Prime Minister Helen Clarke made
the remark “I believe we can aspire to be carbon neutral in our economy and way of life”
(Government New Zealand, 2007a), which was misleadingly presented by the world media
as a statement that the islands were aiming at becoming the world’s first carbon neutral
country. What has been decided by the government (Government New Zealand, 2007b;
May 2007) is that the public sector, including all government agencies, should become
carbon neutral, with six departments, the Ministries for Environment, Health and Eco-
nomic Development, as well as the Departments of Inland Revenue and Conservation,
 and Treasury reducing their emissions of greenhouse gases, and offsetting what cannot
“feasibly” be reduced by 2012. Offsetting projects will include forest plantations on Crown
land (Government New Zealand, 2007b). All other government departments will develop
similar action plans, going through three steps to achieve carbon neutrality, i.e. (1)
measuring all emissions associated with energy, transport and waste to landfill (2006/2007
baseline),
(2) developing emission reduction plans and (3) offsetting unavoidable emissions through
New Zealand based projects (Government New Zealand, 2007b). More specifically, New
Zealand wants to focus on energy efficiency strategies, renewable energy development
including biofuels, energy-efficient buildings, financial incentives for solar water heat- ing,
waste emission reductions, afforestation and the introduction of an emissions trading
scheme. In this context, it is interesting to note that the New Zealand government puts the
responsibility for emissions on producers, not consumers:

• To reduce compliance and administration costs, we propose to place the obligation for emissions
upstream in the market. For example, fuel companies will be responsible for emissions, not motorists
(Government New Zealand, 2007b).

Regarding specific targets, the New Zealand Government has agreed to:

• By 2025, our target is to have 90% of electricity generated from renewable sources.
• By 2040, our target is to reduce by half per capita emissions from transport.
• We aim to be one of the first countries to introduce electric vehicles widely.
• By 2020, we aim to achieve a net increase in forest area of 250,000 hectares (Government
New Zealand, 2007b).

These measures would have the effect that the electricity sector will be carbon neutral
by 2025, the rest of the stationary energy sector by 2030 and the transport sector by 2040.
New Zealand has thus taken a wide range of measures to become a low-carbon economy,
even though there are no official countrywide reduction goals or “carbon neutrality”
timelines. Overall, New Zealand accounted for emissions of 77.1 Mt CO 2-e in 2005, but the
country claims that forest growth and management have removed 24.5 Mt CO2 in the same
year (UNFCCC, 2007a).

Scotland
The Scottish Tourism Innovation Group (TIG) (www.tourisminnovation.com) is a private-
sector led organisation with the goal to “stimulate tourism operators into taking action to
add to the quality, scope and success of tourism businesses, improving Scotland’s compet-
itiveness in tourism markets” (TIG, 2007a). In November 2007, TIG launched a Scotland-
wide carbon offset initiative, concerned about the contrast between the carbon intensity of
Scottish tourism and the clean image of Scotland’s unsullied environment. TIG (2007b)
states that: “[. . . ] many of those involved in the industry have a personal commitment to
environmental protection which makes them increasingly uneasy to operate within a sector
that could be accused of a reliance on negative environmental impact”.
TIG (2007b) has gone through several stages to implement its vision of a “carbon
neutral” destination Scotland, and in some ways is ahead of other destinations seeking to
implement “carbon neutral” tourism. In a first step, with funding provided by the BAA5
Scottish Natural Heritage and VisitScotland, an environmental consultancy was asked to
complete a feasibility study. The results indicate that tourist transport to and within
Scotland,
accommodation and visitor attractions cause annual emissions of 13.7 Mt CO2-equivalent.
It is not clear how equivalent emissions were calculated, and whether this included the use
of a factor to account for the radiative forcing of non-CO 2 emissions.
TIG (2007b) suggests that all constituencies in Scottish tourism (demand, supply, public
sector) that wish to become part of the “carbon neutral” initiative should first seek to reduce
their emissions and then offset those that are unavoidable. TIG thus follows the procedure
of “measurement – emission reductions – offsetting”, even though there is no information of
how emission reductions are to be achieved in the growing tourism economy of Scotland
(cf. Yeoman et al., 2007). Offsetting projects are to be implemented in Scotland. They
should be environmentally beneficial, and tourists should, if possible, be able to “touch
and feel” projects, in order to both increase donations and encourage the acceptance of
the carbon neutral concept. With regard to financing, TIG (2007b) assumes conservatively
that 0.5% of tourists will be willing to offset their emissions, corresponding to 68,500 tons
CO2. Tourists will be provided with an opportunity to calculate their emissions, and then
choose one or several offsetting projects. At an estimated offsetting cost of £10 per ton
CO2, revenues of £685,000 would be generated. On top of this, hotels and other
businesses can also make contributions. These assumptions cover the start-up phase of
the project (year 1). It is unclear, though, how the acceptance of the scheme will develop,
and whether it will ever become possible to offset the 13.7 Mt CO2-e caused by tourism in
Scotland. TIG (2007b) envisages, however, to first involve businesses and the public sector,
and then to move on to visitors. As participation is voluntary, donations will be collected
through a website, which is still to be established, and be based on a marketing campaign
involving VisitScotland, airlines, trains, ferries, accommodation, operators, etc.
Besides moving towards “carbon neutrality”, TIG sees marketing advantages in the
scheme, allowing the region to market itself as “Europe’s most sustainable tourism desti-
nation” (TIG, 2007b). Furthermore, TIG reasons:
Business tourism is a growing sector, and TIG has established that the green credentials of a
location and venue is an increasingly important part of the decision-making process for
International Associations, and major corporates. We believe this scheme will create genuine market
and product differentiation, giving Scotland a competitive edge in the growing ethical consumer
market place. (TIG, 2007b)

TIG welcomes project proposals, which are to be chosen on a competitive basis. Selec-
tion will be based on “semi-quantitative, environmental and social accounting methods”,
considering sustainable development related aspects in addition to the carbon offsetting
potential. Projects have to comply with the principle of additionality, i.e. project proposals
have to demonstrate that the emission reductions to be achieved through the project are
over and above those that would have been achieved without the project. Double counting
has to be avoided and carbon reductions be verified by an independent third party.

Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka declared on 3 October 2007, i.e. during the 2nd International Conference on
Climate Change and Tourism organised by the UNWTO, to become the first destination in
the world to become “carbon clean” (Moragoda, 2007). The country presented its strategy
by outlining that:
Sri Lanka commits to using its LULUCF [Land use, land use change and forestry] and
associated COP [Conference of parties] activities to become the first carbon neutral travel
& tourism destination. A travel & tourism Earth Lung. To achieve this, a strategy will be
developed where all stakeholders of Sri Lanka Tourism both in the public and private sectors, the
people of Sri Lanka and the destination’s visitors collaborate and create a carbon neutral tourism
haven (Moragoda, 2007, p. 4).

In order to achieve the goal of carbon neutrality, the country encourages cooperation
with the international tourism industry, development and environment agencies, NGOs,
local tourism stakeholders and with the research communities focusing on forestry, envi-
ronment and energy and development. Workshops will be held over 24 months to discuss
strategies for financing, partnerships and other issues (Moragoda, 2007). Notably, the forest
protection/reforestation strategy itself is not mentioned.
About 30% of Sri Lanka is covered by forests, comprising some 2 million hectares
(Moragoda, 2007). The country’s forests store 21 tons carbon per hectare – a low value
indicating the (remaining) forests’ heavily degenerated status – i.e. a total of 40 Mt carbon.
According to Moragoda (2007), 1000 hectares of land are reforested each year, though the
report fails to mention forest loss. This is of considerable importance, as Sri Lanka reported
in 2000 to the UNFCCC (UNFCCC, 2001) that deforestation has comprised 54,000
hectares of forest per year in the period 1984–1994. Sri Lanka’s strategy report (Moragoda,
2007,
p. 13) mentions, however, that “the eligibility of forestry for sink activities within the
Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) established under Kyoto is contested”, but does not
provide further details on the consequences of this insight. Rather, it goes on to state that
“Sri Lanka has considerable opportunity to participate in forestry related carbon sink
activities.” Apart from forestry projects, Sri Lanka will also focus on bio-fuel projects and
“alternative” energy to achieve “carbon clean” tourism (Moragoda, 2007). The next steps for
Sri Lanka will now be to develop “a comprehensive carbon neutral strategy” as well as a
“demand side initiative”, to involve tourists in the programme. “Carbon clean” tourism in Sri
Lanka is thus in the early planning stages, with no concrete strategies of how to achieve
carbon neutrality being established as yet and no concrete plans on how to reduce
emissions from tourism.

Carbon neutral?
The results presented in the previous sections indicate that there are some common
aspects, as well as substantial differences between the five countries/destinations. First of
all, the countries/regions presented here are all small, with populations of between 4.1
million (Costa Rica, New Zealand) and 20.9 million (Sri Lanka) (CIA World Fact Book,
2008), and national emissions of between 4.1 Mt CO 2-e (Costa Rica) and 77.3 Mt CO 2-e
(New Zealand; no data available for Scotland). Reported tourism-specific emissions are
up to
13.7 Mt CO2-e (Scotland). Overall, countries engaging in “carbon neutrality” are thus
small both with respect to population numbers and emissions, even though tourism-related
emissions in Scotland may be seen as substantial. Furthermore, it is worth noting that in
those countries with an outspoken focus on carbon neutrality, the decision-making process
may have been influenced by national debates on climate change. For instance, there are
media debates on climate change on a daily basis in Norway, involving large parts of the
population. This may have simplified the political decision to turn Norway into a carbon
neutral country by 2030. Note that none of the countries has provided a more detailed
analysis of the system boundaries chosen.
Another similarity is that all of the destinations are in the first stage of implementing
their strategies, officially launching them between January and October 2007. So far, how-
ever, only Scotland has presented a more comprehensive strategy, and initiated a
discussion
on offsetting projects. Another common aspect is that all countries have planned to achieve
a considerable share or even the entirety of emission reductions nationally. In all coun-
tries, strategies for offsetting are heavily focused on forestry projects, including forest
management, reforestation, afforestation and forest conservation (avoiding deforestation).
Countries like New Zealand and Norway are already reporting annual carbon removal in
the order of 24.5–27.3 Mt CO2 through forest management, including reforestation. In
these countries, forestry projects are thus the most important instrument in achieving
emission offsets, which, however, needs to be seen against the background of predicted
growth in national emissions from the burning of fossil fuels (business-as-usual scenarios:
+30% by 2030 in New Zealand, +9% by 2020 in Norway). Furthermore, energy efficiency
and renewable energy improvements are important elements of the reduction strategies of
Norway, New Zealand and Scotland, while Costa Rica also wants to focus on biofuels.
Norway, on the other hand, emphasises the potential of Carbon Capture and Storage, a
strategy that is as yet in the experimental stage and, while potentially reducing emissions,
will substantially increase energy use.
With regard to the economics of carbon offsetting schemes, it seems clear that
countries like Sri Lanka, Costa Rica and Scotland wish to involve tourism industry and
tourists on a voluntary basis in financing projects, while no such strategies have been
announced as yet in New Zealand and Norway. Overall, it is thus unclear of when and how
destinations will be- come carbon neutral, and suggested timelines (Costa Rica: 2021;
Norway: 2030) are at least 15 years in the future. As all countries will heavily rely on
forestry projects to achieve carbon neutrality, the following section provides a critical review
of forestry projects as offsets.

Forestry projects as offsets – a critical review

The Marrakesh Accords (UNFCCC, 2001) state that signatory countries can create bio-
logical sinks, which are included in national greenhouse gas inventories. This can include
biological carbon sequestration through afforestation and reforestation (Article 3.3: Af-
forestation, Reforestation, Deforestation), as well as changes in the management of agri-
culture and forestry leading to higher sequestration or new carbon pools (Article 3.4:
Additional Activities). Carbon pools can become tradable emission reductions units both
through Joint Implementation between Annex I countries (Article 6: Joint Implementation,
JI) as well as the CDM (Paper 12: Clean Development Mechanism, CDM) between Annex I
and non-Annex I countries. If emission reductions are achieved through the CDM or JI,
there may, however, be limits to the amount of CERs/ERUs that can be “imported”
according to National Allocation Plans.
Forestry schemes are popular as offsetting strategies. A recent review of agencies
working with voluntary carbon offsets found that out of 41 offset providers, 33 worked
with forestry schemes, and out of these, 22 did so exclusively (Go¨ssling et al., 2007).
Offset providers working with forestry projects have frequently outlined that global forests
are in demise, particularly in the tropics, and that urgent action is required to reverse this
trend, to assist the forests’ role in global climate change. International organisations like the
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO, 2006) have confirmed this notion: forests cover
about 30% of the global land area, corresponding to 4 billion hectares (FAO, 2006). Forest
loss in the tropics is a phenomenon that has been ongoing for decades (FAO, 1993);
however, the speed of forest loss in recent decades is unprecedented. According to FAO
(2006), deforestation continues at a rate of about 13 million hectares per year, mostly a
result of conversion of forests to agricultural land. Forest planting, landscape restoration
and natural expansion of forests have contributed to a reduction in net forest area loss. It is
estimated that net losses amounted to 7.3 million hectares per year in the period 2000–
2005, compared to 8.9 million hectares per year in the period 1990–2000 (FAO, 2006).
However, this should not be interpreted as “problem solved”, as deforestation largely
includes the remaining primary forests. These are forests not significantly disturbed by
human activity, and home to a significant share of the world’s biodiversity (Wilson, 1985).
Primary forests account for 36% of the global forest area; but 6 million hectares are lost or
modified each year, i.e. the major share of the net loss of 7.3 million hectares per year. This
trend has not changed since the 1990s, and FAO (2006) consequently reports that there is
no indication that the rate of forest loss is slowing down, as selective logging and other
unsustainable practices continue.
Forest loss is of substantial importance for climate change, and the IPCC (2007) reports
that land use changes, most of this being deforestation, currently contribute about 17% of
total global anthropogenic emissions of CO 2-e. This also needs to be seen in the light of
evidence that primary forests are carbon sinks after they have reached their full growth
(Schulze, Valentini, & Sanz, 2002). It has thus been emphasised that halting deforestation
can make a substantial contribution to reducing the speed of climate change at comparably
low costs. Schulze et al. (2002, p. 517) conclude: “from an economic view, reduced defor-
estation in developing countries has a larger potential [to reduce emissions] than all other
categories of sinks combined”. Halting deforestation would protect high-carbon pools and
safeguard biodiversity. Further potential to store carbon is provided in sustainable manage-
ment, planting and rehabilitation of forests to increase sequestration. Given this situation,
halting deforestation as well as initiating afforestation and reforestation projects appear to
be important mechanisms to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. However, one
important question in this context concerns the underlying reasons for the loss of forests.
Industrialised countries may often be directly or indirectly involved in the destruction of
tropical forests. The use of aluminium (through mining bauxite in rainforest tracts),
imports of shrimps (conversion of mangrove forests in ponds) or agricultural products, oil
and biofuel produc- tion and imports of timber for garden furniture or interior design all
make a considerable contribution to forest loss. A study by the International Institute for
Environment and Devel- opment (IIED, 1995) for the UK Department of Environment
showed that at least 6.4 million hectares throughout the world are used on a continuous
basis to meet wood consumption in the UK. Additionally, some 67,000 hectares are
deforested each year through logging for the purposes of UK consumption. The most
damaging impacts occurred with the extraction of tropical hardwoods such as mahogany,
iroko and meranti. Overall, the area used for UK con- sumption is thus three times the area
of the UK’s own productive forest and woodland (IIED, 1995). As most imports of wood to
the European Union are not from sustainable forestry, the paradoxical situation is that
emissions released through import-related deforestation are not accounted for in
industrialized countries, while reforestation and afforestation projects financed by
industrialised countries through the CDM would be counted as offsets.
A second aspect of importance relates to the calculation of the emissions being offset
and the additionality and permanency of forest projects. As shown earlier, the five countries
seeking to achieve carbon neutrality plan to engage in four different measures: (1) forest
management to increase carbon stored in biomass (Norway, Scotland), (2) afforestation
(Norway, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Scotland, Costa Rica), (3) reforestation (Sri Lanka)
and (4) forest conservation (avoided deforestation) (Costa Rica). With regard to all of
these measures, it seems unclear how countries will calculate carbon storage, and over
what time spans (cf. Go¨ssling et al., 2007). The issue of avoided deforestation is even
more complicated. An internal document by Nature Air (A. Bien, personal communication,
2007) reveals, for instance, that Nature Air’s 2004 emissions of 4,650 tons CO2 were offset
by protecting 38 hectares of rainforest in Costa Rica. Notably, “avoided deforestation”
represents a situation where emissions of CO2 are “offset” by maintaining a carbon pool,
i.e. despite conserving carbon stored in trees, global concentrations of CO 2 will still
increase. Furthermore, it is unclear why conserved forests are under threat, and there is
a notable absence in both Costa Rica and Sri Lanka of a discussion of the systemic
implications of such conservation strategies: clearly, protection of one forest may lead to
the loss of another as long as the demand for arable land or forest products does not
decline.
Finally, with regard to additionality, it is unclear how, for instance, reforestation, af-
forestation and forest management projects will be additional to forest projects already
ongoing (e.g. in the case of New Zealand and Norway). Most countries seek to increase
their share of forests anyway, and ventures to become carbon neutral may be seen as
oppor- tunities to economise on such initiatives. This is not necessarily a negative
development, given that economic benefits may speed up afforestation and reforestation,
and increase the interest in avoiding deforestation. Critics of reforestation projects have
however pointed out that forests will re-grow naturally in many areas if the area is left
undisturbed, while in other areas, soil quality may be too poor to allow afforestation.
More generally, criticism of forestry projects has referred to the size of plantations
needed to create offsets on a global scale, their location, long term verification, implications
for biodiversity, losses due to fires, pests, droughts or illegal felling, social aspects and the
biological preconditions for planting trees in general (e.g. Ba¨ckstrand & Lovbrand, 2006;
Benitez, McCallum, Obersteiner, & Yamagata, 2007; Brown & Corbera, 2003; Jackson et
al., 2005; Reich et al., 2006; see also Gibbard, Caldeira, Bala, Phillips, & Wickett,
2005). The most important of these criticisms is eventually related to the permanency of
forestry projects, as planted areas would have to be set aside infinitely, i.e. for at least 100
years, which would also claim large areas. The British Government Panel on Sustainable
Development (1999) commented, for instance, that “In order to sequester the 150–160 Mt
of carbon/year emitted from fossil fuels in the UK about 51 million ha of plantation forest
would need to be planted – over twice the land area of the UK”. Another global study has
shown that offsetting emissions from aviation would lead to the use of all available lands by
2050 (Boon et al., 2007).
While forestry schemes are thus of importance in countries such as Sri Lanka, which
have witnessed substantial losses of their forests in recent decades, such schemes are
more ambiguous in industrialised countries. In countries like New Zealand and Norway,
national emissions of CO2 continue to grow despite efforts to become more energy-efficient.
Forestry projects in these countries are thus used as a means to achieve emission
reductions in a situation where it is still comparably cheap to achieve emission reductions
through energy- efficiency measures and the increased use of renewable energy. In the
future, this may end in a situation where further emission savings become excessively
expensive, and there may be no further national areas that can be used for carbon
sequestration through forests. More generally, however, forests seem to have great appeal
to tourists, and in developing countries with high rates of forest loss, income derived from
tourism may thus be attractive to tourists and help to provide funding for forestry related
projects, while simultaneously helping to meet carbon neutrality goals.

Carbon neutrality: from theory to practice

This paper has sought to discuss how and why the concept of a “carbon neutral destination”
has emerged, and how various countries currently seek to realise the concept, including or
focusing on their tourism industries. Destinations may generally be seen as ideal entities
to reduce the contribution of tourism to climate change, as they comprise various actors
that can cooperate towards a common goal of creating low-carbon or even “carbon neutral”
tourism systems. As this goes beyond individual actors, such as a single hotel focusing
on pro-environmental management, “carbon neutral destinations” could, if endorsed by a
significant number of destinations, reach a level that would lead to significant reductions of
greenhouse gases. It is thus an important new concept within the sustainable tourism
paradigm.
The findings presented here allow some conclusions to be drawn that are of relevance
for the theory and practice of “carbon neutral” destinations. First, it is essential for all
tourism actors to cooperate, rather than to focus on individual tasks, as outlined in the
Davos Declaration (UNWTO, 2007a). This is of particular importance with regard to off-
setting, where, for instance, tour operators or airlines may collect money from customers to
finance renewable energy projects (i.e. carbon offsets) in the destination. Second, the
analysis indicates that destinations may profit from going through a three-step procedure to
achieve “carbon neutrality”. In a first step, system boundaries would be defined and
emissions calculated (Step 1: measurement). Emissions would include those of domestic
and international tourists as well as air travel of international tourists. In a second step
(Step 2: decarbonising), energy use should be reduced, both with regard to energy use, as
well as with regard to the carbon intensity of the energy sources used, and the restructuring
of the destinations’ source markets towards improved eco-efficiency (see Go¨ssling et al.,
2008). Priorities should be emission-intense sectors, where comparably large amounts of
greenhouse gases can be avoided. Finally (Step 3: offsetting) remaining emissions can be
offset, although this should be done by considering the systemic problems outlined here, as
well as with regard to the long term consequences of projects. However, the five case
studies presented here show that none of the destinations follows the methodology of
measure- ment – decarbonisation – offsetting. Scotland has arguably gone through a
comprehensive assessment and planning process, but the volume growth of its tourism
industry entailing increasing emissions is unquestioned, and may make it ultimately
impossible to achieve the goal of “carbon neutrality”. All the countries presented here
would thus profit from a review of their approaches towards the concept.
On a critical note, “carbon neutral”, “carbon free”, “climate neutral” and “car- bon
clear” may be emerging buzzwords in the field of sustainable tourism, which are now
employed by a growing number of regions (e.g. www.kangaroovalleytourist.asn.au), hotel
chains (www.scandic.com) and hotels (www.sonevaresorts.com), tour operators
(www.fritidsresor.se) and airlines (www.natureair.com; www.sas.com). With climate change
now high on the international agenda, any such ambition, however unrefined or distant,
seems to make a rapid entry into the global media spotlight. So far, it has served such
tourism entities as a good marketing strategy. As a solution to the growing emissions from
tourism, however, current approaches to “carbon neutrality” appear often neither credible
nor efficient. They may, in their current form, rather be seen as discourses created to justify
business-as-usual tourism development with a view towards self-regulation, and might in
practice even prevent the implementation of serious climate policy measures.

Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude to numerous colleagues, including Bernard Lane, Kim
Schumacher, Robert Mu¨ller, Martha Honey, Carlo Aall, Paul Peeters, John Broderick,
Susanne Becken and Daniel Scott for providing information or advice on the first draft of
this paper. All views expressed in this paper are entirely my own.
 Notes on contributor/s
Stefan Go¨ssling is a professor at the Department of Service Management, Lund University/Sweden
and research coordinator at the Centre for Sustainable and Geotourism at the Western Norway
Research Institute. His research interests include the interrelationships of tourism and climate
change, development processes in SIDS, and mobility. Most recent publications are Sustainable
Tourism Futures (Routledge, with David Weaver and C. Michael Hall) and Climate Change and
Aviation (Earthscan, with Paul Upham), both forthcoming in 2009.

Notes
1. Radiative forcing is the change in the net, downward minus upward, irradiance (expressed in W
m−2) at the tropopause due to a change in an external driver of climate change, such as, for example,
a change in the concentration of carbon dioxide or the output of the Sun. Radiative forcing is
computed with all tropospheric properties held fixed at their unperturbed values, and after allowing
for stratospheric temperatures, if perturbed, to readjust to radiative-dynamical equilibrium. Radiative
forcing is called instantaneous if no change in stratospheric temperature is accounted for. For the
purposes of this report, radiative forcing is further defined as the change relative to the year 1750 and,
unless otherwise noted, refers to a global and annual average value. Radiative forcing is not to be
confused with cloud radiative forcing, a similar terminology for describing an unrelated measure of
the impact of clouds on the irradiance at the top of the atmosphere
(http://www.ipcc.ch/glossary/index.htm).
2. In October 2007, the annual assembly of ICAO decided against requiring airlines to limit GHG
emissions through participation in the European ETS. Instead, ICAO created a panel to develop a
comprehensive climate change plan for the international aviation industry. The 42 countries in the
European group of ICAO strongly disagreed with the decision by making a “reservation” against the
resolution, indicating that these member states may choose to ignore the resolution on legal grounds
that it compromises the EU’s capacity to achieve its international GHG emission obligations under the
Kyoto Protocol (Environment News Service, 2007).
3. Annex I Parties include the industrialised countries that were members of the OECD (Organ- isation
for Economic Co-operation and Development) in 1992, plus countries with economies in transition
(the EIT Parties), including the Russian Federation, the Baltic States, and sev- eral Central and
Eastern European States. Non-Annex I Parties are mostly developing countries
(http://unfccc.int/parties and observers/items/2704.php).
4. CO2-equivalent emission is the amount of CO2 emission that would cause the same time-integrated
radiative forcing, over a given time horizon, as an emitted amount of a longlived GHG or a mixture of
GHGs. The equivalent CO2 emission is obtained by multiplying the emission of a GHG by its Global
Warming Potential (GWP) for the given time horizon. For a mix of GHGs, it is obtained by summing
the equivalent CO2 emissions of each gas (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm).
5. BAA is the company that controls seven major airports in the UK, including London Heathrow,
Gatwick and Stansted, and Scotland’s Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow airports.

References
Association of European Airlines. (2007). European Parliament’s vote on emissions trading scheme: A
massive blow to industry and passengers, a barely measurable step for the environment. Retrieved
November 13, 2007, from http://files.aea.be/News/PR/Pr07–030.pdf
Ba¨ckstrand, K., & Lovbrand, E. (2006). Planting trees to mitigate climate change: Contested dis-
courses of ecological modernization, green governmentality and civic environmentalism. Global
Environmental Politics, 6(1), 50–75.
Becken, S. (2002). Analysing international tourist flows to estimate energy use associated with air travel.
Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 10(2), 114–131.
Becken, S. (2007). Tourists’ perception of international air travel’s impact on the global climate and
potential climate change policies. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(4), 351–368.
Benitez, P., McCallum, I., Obersteiner, M., & Yamagata, Y. (2007). Global potential for carbon seques-
tration: Geographical distribution, country risk and policy implications. Ecological Economics, 60(3),
572–583.
Boon, B., Schroten, A., & Kampman, B.E. (2007). Compensation schemes for air transport. In P.M.
Peeters (Ed.), Tourism and climate change mitigation. Methods, greenhouse gas reductions and
policies (pp. 77–90). Breda, The Netherlands: NHTV.
British Government Panel on Sustainable Development. (1999). Sequestration of carbon dioxide. An- nex
A. Retrieved June 11, 2007, from http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/panel-sd/position/co2/ anna.htm
Brown, K., & Corbera, E. (2003). Exploring equity and sustainable development in the new carbon
economy. Climate Policy, 3(1), 41–56.
CIA World Fact Book. (2008). Various sites. Retrieved January 31, 2008, from https://www.cia.gov/
library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html
Costa Rica Tourism Board. (2007). Various papers. Retrieved January 28, 2008, from http://www.
visitcostarica.com/ict/paginas/novedades.asp
Dobles Mora, R. (2007). Costa Rica’s commitment on the path to becoming carbon-neutral. Retrieved
May 15, 2008, from http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2007/issue2/0207p42.htm
Environment News Service. (2007). Aviation industry rejects Europe’s climate emissions trading sys- tem.
Retrieved March 1, 2008, from www.ens-newswire.com/ens/oct2007/2007–10–02–03.asp
EU Parliament. (2007). Amendments of the European Parliament legislative resolution of 13 November
2007 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Coun- cil amending
Directive 2003/87/EC so as to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas
emission allowance trading within the Community. Retrieved February 18,
2008, from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT ± TA ± P6- TA-
2007–0505 ± 0 ± DOC ± XML ± V0//EN&language=EN
European Commission. (2006). Summary of the impact assessment: Inclusion of aviation in the EU
greenhouse gas Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS). Commission staff working document.
European Commision, Brussels.
FAO. (Food and Agriculture Organization) (1993). Forest resources assessment 1990. Tropical Coun-
tries. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
FAO. (Food and Agriculture Organization) (2006). Global forest resources assessment 2005. Global
Assessment of Growing Stock, Biomass and Carbon Stock. Rome: FAO.
Gibbard, S.G., Caldeira, K., Bala, G., Phillips, T.J., & Wickett, M. (2005). Climate effects of global land
cover change. Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
Go¨ssling, S. (2002). Global environmental consequences of tourism. Global Environmental Change,
12(4), 283–302.
Go¨ssling, S., & Hall, C.M. (2008). Swedish tourism and climate change mitigation: An emerging conflict?
Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 8(2), 141–158.
Go¨ssling, S., Borgstro¨m-Hansson, C., Ho¨rstmeier, O., & Saggel, S. (2002). Ecological footprint analysis
as a tool to assess tourism sustainability. Ecological Economics, 43(2/3), 199–211.
Go¨ssling, S., Broderick, J., Upham, P., Peeters, P., Strasdas, W., & Ceron, J.-P. (2007). Voluntary carbon
offsetting schemes for aviation: Efficiency and credibility. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15(3), 223–
248.
Go¨ssling, S., Peeters, P., & Scott, D. (2008). Consequences of climate policy for international tourist
arrivals in developing countries. Third World Quarterly, 29(5), 869–897.
Go¨ssling, S., Hultman, J., Haglund, L, Ka¨llgren, H., & Revahl, M. (in press). Voluntary carbon
offsetting by Swedish air travellers: Opportunities and obstacles. Current Issues in Tourism, in press.
Government New Zealand. (2007a). Prime minister’s statement to parliament. Retrieved January 24,
2008, from http://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/prime±minister%e2%80%99s±
statement±parliament±0
Government New Zealand. (2007b). Launch of emission trading system. Retrieved January 24, 2008,
from www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=30691
Government Norway. (2007). Et bærekraftig reiseliv. Retrieved January 24, 2008, from http://www.
regjeringen.no/upload/NHD/Vedlegg/strategier2007/reiselivsstrategi07-kap3-baerekraftig.pdf
Helm, D., Smale, R., & Phillips, J. (2007). Too good to be true? The UK’s climate change record.
Retrieved June 15, 2007, from http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1 Pub SPM-v2.pdf
Hille, J., Storm, H., Sataøen, H., Aall, C., & Holden, E. (2008). Miljøbelastningen fra norsk forbruk og
norsk produksjon 1987–2007. En analyse i forbindelse med 20-a˚rsjubileet for utgivelse av rapporten
‘Va˚r Felles Framtid’ og lanseringen av ma˚let om en bærekraftig utvikling. VF-rapport
2/08. Sogndal, Norway: Vestlandsforsking.
Iceland Ministry for the Environment. (2007). Iceland’s climate change strategy 2007. Re- trieved May
15, 2008, from http://eng.umhverfisraduneyti.is/media/PDF skrar/Stefnumorkun i loftslagsmalum
enlokagerd.pdf
IIED. (1995). Citizen action to lighten ecological footprints, An IIED research project supported by the UK
DOE, IIED, London.
IPCC. (2007). A report of working group I of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Summary for
policy makers. Retrieved November 28, 2008, from www.ipcc.ch.11.
Jackson, R.B., Jobba´gy, E.G., Avissar, R., Roy, S.B., Barrett, D.J., & Cook, C.W. (2005). Trading water for
carbon with biological carbon sequestration. Science, 310, 1944–1947.
Pa´ıs quiere ser primera nacio´n con balance neutro de carbono. (2007, 21 February). La Nacion.
Retrieved January 28, 2008, from http://www.nacion.com/ln ee/2007/febrero/21/ aldea1002694.html
Mendes, L.M.Z., & Santos, G. (2008). Using economic instruments to address emissions from air
transport in the European Union. Environment and Planning A, 40(1), 189–209.
Miljøverndepartementet. (2007). Stortingsmeldning 34. Norsk klimapolitikk. Retrieved January 24,
2008, from http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/md/dok/regpubl/stmeld/2006–2007/Stmeld-nr- 34–
2006–2007-.html?id=473411&epslanguage=NO
Miljøverndepartementet. (2008). Avtale om klimameldingen. Retrieved January 23, 2008, from
http://www.regjeringen.no/Upload/MD/Vedlegg/Klima/avtale klimameldingen.pdf
Moragoda, Milinda, Minister for Tourism Sri Lanka. (2007). Earth lung. Carbon clean Sri Lanka.
Retrieved January 23, 2008, from http://www.earthlung.travel/files/pdf001.pdf
New Zealand Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy. (2006). Retrieved January 24, 2008, from
http://www.eeca.govt.nz/eeca-library/eeca-reports/neecs/report/draft-nzeecs-06.pdf
Office of the Prime Minister. (2008). Broad agreement to boost national climate efforts. Retrieved January
24, 2008, from http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/smk/Press-Center/Press-releases/ 2008/Broad-
agreement-to-boost-national-climat.html?id=496872
Peeters, P., Williams, V., & Go¨ssling, S. (2007). Air transport greenhouse gas emissions. In P.M.
Peeters (Ed.). Tourism and climate change mitigation. Methods, greenhouse gas reductions and
policies (pp. 29–50). Breda, The Netherlands: NHTV.
Reich, P.B., Hobbie, S.E., Lee, T., Ellsworth, D.S., West, J.B., & Tilman, D. (2006). Nitrogen limitation
constrains sustainability of ecosystem response to CO2. Nature, 440(7086), 922–925.
Reuters. (2007). Costa Rica pledges to be ‘carbon neutral’ by 2021. Retrieved January 28, 2008, from
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N07289157.htm
Sausen, R., Isaksen, I., Grewe, V., Hauglustaine, D., Lee, D.S., & Myhre, G. (2005). Aviation radiative
forcing in 2000: An update on IPCC (1999). Meteorologische Zeitschrift, 14, 555–561.
Scandinavian Airlines. (2008). SAS group annual report & sustainability report 2007. Re- trieved May
15, 2008, from http://www.sas.no/upload/SAS%20Norway/PDF/Konsernets milj% C3%B8rapport.pdf
Schulze, E.-D., Valentini, R., & Sanz, M.-J. (2002). The long way from Kyoto to Marrakesh: Impli- cations
of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations for global ecology. Global Change Biology, 2002(8), 505–518.
TIG. (Tourism Innovation Group) (2007a). A vision of innovation. Retrieved January 29, 2008, from
http://www.tourisminnovation.com/
TIG. (Tourism Innovation Group) (2007b). Sustainable tourism practices. Retrieved January 29, 2008,
from http://www.tourisminnovation.com/aboutSustainability.html
UNEP. (United Nations Environment Programme) (2008). Climate neutral network. Re- trieved May
15, 2008, from http://www.climateneutral.unep.org/cnn contentdetail.aspx?m= 130&amid=125
UNFCCC. (2001). Report of the conferences of the parties on its seventh session held at Marrakesh
from 29 October to 10 November 2001.
UNFCCC. (2007a). New Zealand’s greenhouse gas inventory 1990–2005. Retrieved January 30,
2008, from http://unfccc.int/national reports/annex i ghg inventories/national inventories
submissions/items/3929.php
UNFCCC. (2007b). Initial national communication under the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change. Sri Lanka. Retrieved January 28, 2008, from http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/
natc/srinc1.pdf
UN News Service. (2007). United Nations World Tourism Organization Assistant Secretary-General and
Spokesperson Geoffrey Lipman. Retrieved March 7, 2008, from http://www.un.org/radio/
news/html/13606.html
UNWTO. (2007a). Davos Declaration. Climate change and tourism. Responding to global challenges.
Retrieved January 29, 2008, from http://www.unwto.org/pdf/pr071046.pdf
UNWTO. (2007b). Responding to climate change with concrete action. Retrieved January 29, 2008, from
http://www.unwto.org/media/news/en/press det.php?id=1401&idioma=E
UNWTO-UNEP-WMO. (United Nations World Tourism Organization, United Nations Environment
Programme, World Meteorological Organization) (2008). Climate change and tourism: Respond- ing
to global challenges. In D. Scott, B. Amelung, S. Becken, J.-P. Ceron, G. Dubois, & S. Go¨ssling
(Eds.). United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), United Nations Environmental
Programme (UNDP) and World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Madrid: UNWTO.
Wilson, E.O. (1985). The biological diversity crisis. BioScience, 35, 700–706.
Yeoman, I., Lennon, J., Blake, A., Galt, M., Greenwood, C., & McMahon-Beattie, U. (2007). Oil
depletion: What does this mean for Scottish tourism? Tourism Management, 28(5), 1354–1365.