Climate Change: Sectoral responses to climate change risks

The UK domestic tourism sector

Section A: Key climate change risks to the UK domestic tourism sector

I have selected the domestic tourism sector for analysis in its preparation and

awareness of climate change impact not only because it contributes 10% of GDP1 and

is therefore a highly valuable economic asset but also because there exists an

interesting dichotomy at the heart of preparedness in the sector where a popular view

of cumulative benefit from climate change for the industry, however misguided, exists

alongside a recognition of the importance of mitigating against the negative effects of

the same change.

The key risks to the UK's tourism sector are partly typical for a northern European

country and also specific to the features of an island, in particular the 7723 miles of

heritage coastline. Firstly, the direct climate impacts of warmer summers and milder

winters present risks of water management to areas of tourist activity. Precipitation

changes, as a result, have seen increased risk of flooding during late summer in recent

years as well as a projected risk of drought.

Indirect climate change impacts on tourist infrastructure are no less damaging. Sea

level rise has an obvious impact on coastal erosion ,30% of the UK's coast is at risk of

depletion with a 2 degrees Celsius increase in mean temperature,2 Loss of beach area

as well as the higher costs of protecting and maintaining waterfronts are no less

significant risks. Related, is a gradual acidification of the waters around the UK with

the related changes in both terrestrial and marine biodiversity. In addition, soil

1 Source: World Travel and Tourism Council

2 IPCC, Global Humanitarian Forum, Stern Report
changes in moisture, acidity and erosion will have a clear impact on natural as well as

heritage sites.

Section B: Responses to climate change risks from two key UK stakeholders

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Regional

Development Agencies will be analysed as to their response to the risks outlined in

Section A. The rationale behind selecting these two public bodies is that the former is

empowered with regulatory powers to achieve risk mitigation on climate change

issues which may impact tourism, while the latter has no regulatory powers thus

works in partnership with the private sector to a far greater degree to achieve similar

goals. Essentially, DEFRA is a good example of a public body working on policy

establishment from a top-down perspective while the RDAs employ a more bottom-

up approach.

DEFRA was formed from the previous Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in

2001 and has specific departmental objectives in place to tackle climate change and

it’s impact on tourism, namely:

1. To protect and enhance the natural environment, and to encourage its

sustainable use within environmental limits

2. An economy and a society that are resilient to environmental risk.

3. Championing sustainable development.

 4. Socially and economically sustainable rural communities

The department achieves the above objectives through a range of legislation but most

critically, it places DEFRA as one of the key leads on fulfilling the domestic agenda

of PSA Delivery Agreement 27: Lead the Global Effort to Avoid Dangerous Climate

Change. In addition, PSA Delivery Agreement 28: Secure a healthy natural

environment for today and the future, provides a legislative framework for sustainable

development which should intersect neatly with the domestic elements of PS27. The

department is also involved in a number of public consultations in areas which are

critical to manage for the protection of tourist sites. These include consultations on

Marine Strategy, National Parks, Coastal Access, Forest Law Enforcement and

Wildlife Conservation Regulations.

The nine Regional Development Agencies were created by the Regional Development

Agencies Act of 1998 with the following objectives:

1. to further economic development and regeneration;

2. to promote business efficiency and competitiveness;

3. to promote employment;

4. to enhance the development and application of skills relevant to employment,

and

5. to contribute to sustainable development.

Clearly, all 5 of these objectives are relevant to developing the domestic tourist sector

at a regional level while objective 5 would seem to have a direct link to the
management of climate change. The RDAs receive their funding from a variety of

government departments including DEFRA while they are ultimately responsible to

the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills with the exception of the London

Development Agency which reports to the Mayor of London. The key strategic

framework for all RDAs is the Regional Economic Strategy which is updated every

three years. As previously mentioned the RDAs have no regulatory powers and, in

this context they seek to achieve their objectives in a variety of ways. The most

obvious of these is by funding projects aimed at addressing them, either directly from

the RDA, or indirectly through a funded body. Secondly, they seek to influence other

stakeholders in the region to take action themselves. Thirdly, they seek to influence

the policies of central government where they might impact on the Region.

I will now look critically examine the measures and initiatives implemented by

DEFRA and the RDAs in respect of climate change mitigation which directly impact

the UK tourism sector and then go onto assess each body's specific contribution to

risk mitigation in the key risk areas in section A.

DEFRA's main response to implementing the regulatory framework in PSA Delivery

Agreement 28 is the Adapting to Climate Change Programme which, in itself, is

driven by the findings of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. The

Review itself claims that; “Adaptation will be crucial in reducing vulnerability to

climate change and is the only way to cope with the impacts that are inevitable over

the next few decade” From this basis it is clear that DEFRA, through the ACCP, is

adopting an adaptation strategy to address climate change impact, as distinct from a

mitigation strategy. In practice, an adaptation strategy accepts the inevitable

consequences of climate change and works to both change the behaviour and practices

of individuals and businesses to achieve a paradigm shift on reducing impact on the

environment. DEFRA highlights several areas under Phase 1 of the ACCP running to

2011, which have a direct relevance for managing climate change impact on tourist

infrastructure and assets. These are in critical national infrastructure, particularly

energy infrastructure and networks, which are increasingly at risk from flooding.

Many tourist assets are located in rural regions where flooding has become more

prevalent. Transport infrastructure is a further key impact and also subject to

increased flooding and extreme weather events. Clearly, tourist sites require

uninterrupted access and the impact of drought on tourist waterways, canals and

rivers, is also of concern. Both terrestrial and marine biodiversity are identified as

being subject to both loss and gain of species. As far as sectoral impacts are

concerned, the ACCP identifies both benefit and damage to the tourist sector,

highlighting an increased opportunity for developing lower-cost outdoor tourist sites

as well as the increased risk of weather damage to existing heritage assets.

The ACCP makes reference to mitigation measures but fails to outline any proposals,

either provisional or regulatory. It is the case that the Climate Change Act of 2008

provided a legally binding emissions reduction of 80% by 2050 and this is the key

mitigation strategy of the UK government and it may be argued that any agency can

do much to mitigate increased precipitation, warmer summers and sea level rises,

however, mitigation measures on a practical scale are absent from the ACCP. In such

areas as soil erosion on natural heritage sites, programmes of tree planting and stricter
quotas on logging are examples of mitigation measures which could be enforced by

DEFRA but are not part of the department's adaptation strategy.

Where the ACCP lacks mitigation measures it also lacks sufficient funding, partly due

to the nature of Phase 1 which baselines adaptation costs, however tourist sites and

private suppliers cannot be expected to fully fund DEFRA's adaptation plans in the

short term. A more encouraging initiative, the Rural Development Programme, is

funded by the EU and monitored/implemented by DEFRA and it's implementation

partners. Through the programme £3.9 billion has been made available until 2013 in a

number of areas focussed on economic regeneration and sustainable development in

rural areas of England. This includes up to £500 million to be spent on support for the

conservation of the rural heritage and to maintain the attractiveness of rural areas as

tourist destinations. Further, a condition of investment is that it is made in such a way

that; “harnesses and builds upon environmental quality. The fund will invest, more

specifically, in diversification into non-agricultural activities, the chief of which may

be tourist-related, encouragement of tourism per se and the conservation and

upgrading of the rural heritage.

The strategic gap which so far emerges in DEFRA's response to climate change and

its impact on tourism in the rural areas is quite simply that the main climate change

strategy does not give sufficient attention to tourism as a discrete sector with its own

climate change adaptation needs while the second main funding strategy, although

beneficial to transition toward rural tourism from other activities such as farming,

does not go far enough in placing climate change preparedness at the centre of the

planning agenda.
The Regional Development Agencies may have a more immediate impact on

providing an impetus to tourism sector mitigation and adaptation initiatives, not least

at the delivery level, as the RDAs are key implementation partners for both of

DEFRA's main climate change-related strategies. The objectives of the RDAs are set

out in the Regional Economic Strategy (RES) of each region. The RES is a document

created and maintained by the RDA for the whole region and not simply a document

to guide the RDA, it is intended to guide the work of other organisations also. Each

RDA updates their RES on a regular basis (approximately every three years) by

consulting widely with their partners, and stakeholders in the region, including local

government, voluntary organisations, private organisations, and other interested

groups. The RES must be submitted to the BIS for formal approval. The RDAs work

together in a number of areas, with different RDAs taking the 'lead' role in varying

policy areas.

The primary goal of any RDA initiative which either targets or impacts climate

change planning and preparedness as regards regional tourism will have an economic,

profit-led basis as a general aim of the RDAs is to generate surplus for every pound

invested. Within that context, the integration of the Regional Tourist Boards under

RDA responsibility in 2003 has increased the requirement for profit making in

tourism projects. The tendency to neglect sustainability and environmental protection

may be marked in a revenue-led body but, nevertheless, 20% of all land regeneration

activities engaged by RDAs between 2003 and 2006 were aimed at creating new

tourism sites.3 These have included a Waterfront Construction Impacts project which
3Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform, Impact of RDA spending –
aims to remediate poor site conditions on Liverpool Waterfront and provide a

museum and public space;

a new arts complex in Colchester to support a popular tourist attraction that has

outgrown its existing premises and the Eden Project on 160 acres of derelict land in

Cornwall.

The RDAs' paper on “Tackling Climate Change in the Regions” provides an overview

of their commitment to carbon reduction in all capital build projects and regeneration

schemes on a national level. One key output of this paper is that all Regional

Economic Strategies must include planning for carbon reduction. However this is

merely expressed through “identifying the impact of major investment decisions on

carbon reduction targets”4 and fails to provide and additional funding to any sector,

including tourism, to offset investment in carbon reduction and other mitigation

measures related to climate change.

In the next section I will look at each of the key risk areas identified in section A as

related to the impact of climate change on domestic tourism. I will assess each of

DEFRA and the RDAs response to the risk as well as provide specific evidence of

success or otherwise.

Firstly, the direct impact on tourism development of coastal erosion and change.

While most coastal towns emerged as a result of location and local commerce, the

second half of the 20th century gave rise to problems that coastal communities and

local authorities have found difficult to deal with. The weakening of traditional

National report – Volume 1 – Main Report

4Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform, Impact of RDA spending –
National report – Volume 1 – Main Report, p.23
coastal industries, the increase in cheap foreign travel from the 1960s and the seasonal

nature of English tourism all created endemic problems for coastal towns. Despite

these issues, there are reasons for optimism with regard to the future, with some

indications as to increasing levels of employment growth in seaside resorts .

Additionally, while hard data relating to a renaissance in domestic tourism is yet to

emerge, there are certainly signs of growth in an evolving market of short breaks and

weekend trips . Growing appreciation of the environmental impact of aviation and

long distance holidays also creates an opportunity for English tourist destinations. The

coast remains a popular place to live, work or visit. Nevertheless, with the growing

importance of coastal tourism to the economy allied with the real threat of

catastrophic erosion, DEFRA has made only £28 million available to support

adaptation to climate change impact on coastal tourist areas. DEFRA points to careful

land use planning and building design as leading the adaptation efforts in this area. To

this end DEFRA is funding 15 “Coastal Change Pathfinder Authorities” to look at

new methods of planning, managing and adapting to coastal change as well as

offering Coastal Erosion Assistance Packages. Again, funding is the issue with each

package worth no more than £1 million and mainly earmarked at assessing how local

tourism enterprises can be supported but providing little or no funding for actual

adaptation measures.

The RDAs are making more of an impact in this area, in particular, the North West

Development Agency (NWDA) which supports the coastal initiatives through the

Climate Change Visitor Economy project. One particular success here has been the

Sefton Coastal Dunes scheme which is noteworthy in that it is a natural tourism asset

with the potential to attract national and overseas visitors. Through comprehensive
research of the Sefton Dunes water table and variability in water table levels the

CCVE project has produced a Sefton Coast Management Scheme headed by a

commercial body, the Sefton Partnership. The Sefton Coast Management Scheme was

originally developed on the principle that the great majority of visitors, especially at

peak times, are there to visit the coast rather than the dunes and, as such, it is possible

to manage visitor flows and protect the ecological integrity of the dune habitats. The

scheme acquired an international reputation for reconciling visitor pressure with

conservation needs along a dune coastline – a new opportunity now exists for the

Sefton Partnership to provide an international demonstration project for anticipating

and managing the response to a changing climate and thus promote the site to an

international market. This success shows the strengths of the RDAs in managing

climate change adaptation in the tourism sector. They are able to provide economic

incentives to local tourist businesses to make the adaptive changes that will contribute

to lessening the impact of, in this case, rising sea levels. The establishment of a

limited partnership to promote the changes for commercial benefit locks in the cycle

of revenue and investment.

Maintaining biodiversity in national parks and other natural landscapes is another key

risk area which is under threat from global warming and the direct impact of tourist

footfall. As mentioned previously, climate change will result in the loss of native

species and the acquisition of non-native species. Maintaining a balance while

conserving current biodiversity is a challenge that both DEFRA and the RDAs are

dealing with. The England Biodiversity Strategy aims to; “ensure biodiversity

considerations become embedded in all main sectors of public policy”. DEFRA is a

key implementation and monitoring agency for the strategy. Unusually, the agency
has recognised the economic value of biodiversity as a tourism resource 5 The agency

has, perhaps as a result of recognising the economic potential, scored some success in

protecting declining species with the proportion of recovering species rising faster

than the decline. One example is the recovery of the Heath Fritillary butterfly which

has been accelerated by improvements to woodland management in Kent. Another

example is the Mineral Valleys project where colliery sites in West County Durham

have been remediated to provide extensive juniper plantations and natural habitats for

the Great Crested Newt and the Red Squirrel amongst others. Both these initiatives

have worked due to selection of partners who have the funding (Heritage Lottery

Fund) and the expertise, (Natural England) to carry through implementation to a

successful outcome.

Many of the RDAs initiatives in the area of biodiversity focus on providing enhanced

visitor experiences around existing wildlife sites rather than direct intervention in

conservation and management. There have been a number of successful schemes in

establishing visitor centres at existing tourist sites, however there is growing evidence

of land reclamation and reuse to attract new species in areas such as Saltholme near

Stockton, by One North East, the development agency for that area, where pools,

grasslands and reedbeds have been established to attract an estimated 100,000

visitors6

5Working with the grain of nature – taking it forward: Volume I Full report on progress under the
England Biodiversity Strategy 2002 – 200, p.83
6 “Wildlife tourism initiative gets funding go ahead from One North East”: One North East News
Section C: Recommendations for recommendations for how the preparedness and

overall response of the tourism sector to climate change can be improved

The most pressing recommendation is to consider tourism in national policies on

climate change adaptation. Climate change is not considered to any great extent

in current tourism-oriented policy. We have seen that the key Climate Change Act has

a very narrow emissions-control based mitigation framework. Although, carbon

reduction measures have been promoted by DEFRA and incorporated into the RDAs

Regional Environmental Strategies there is little or no focus on either how the tourism

sector would contribute to these reduction targets or, more importantly, a national

strategy specific to tourism, looking at mitigation and adaptation of the specific risks

of coastal erosion, soil depletion, water management, biodiversity maintenance,

physical access etc, which will grow in their impact on tourism development.

In natural heritage sites climate change will give added pressure to land managers. If

the quality of landscapes is to be preserved, then increased resources will be required,

including additional investment. Innovative funding measures, such as visitor payback

schemes, should be looked at. Mitigation, rather than waiting until problems appear, is

the most cost effective response.

The aim of regional tourism policy, driven by the RDAs, to increase visitor levels

needs to be questioned. It is worth launching a national study of how planned

increases will impact the local environments and whether an expansion policy really

adds any benefit to strengthening tourism sector resilience to climate change.

Alongside this study, the RDAs, in collaboration with funding and specialist partners

would be encouraged to increase opportunities to further develop niche markets

such as nature-based tourism, of which they currently have a very strong record

The quality of the natural and cultural heritage is vital to the generation of economic

prosperity through tourism, to the life quality of communities and to the visitor

experience. All these stakeholders can benefit from:

• improving the interaction between protected areas, biodiversity and local tourism

interests,

• visitor management and monitoring,

• increasing contributions to conservation and management from visitors and tourism

businesses through measure such as green accreditation schemes

• increasing the quality of products and services

In fact, managing visitor pressure through such measures as diversifying seasonal

visitors over the year would reduce soil erosion and damage to sensitive areas such as

heathland and moorland. A further reduction on visitor impact would be for RDAs to

work with tourism sites to reduce the need for private transport to and from sites.

Bearing in mind that much access to rural sites is not cost effective for commercial

transport operators RDAs need to secure subsidies to public transport providers. The

reduction in greenhouse gas emissions as a result, can be credited to the Regional

Economic Strategy targets for carbon reductions

Finally, at a national level, DEFRA needs to reform in at least two ways. Firstly, it

needs further planning powers. The energy portfolio should be transferred from the
Department of Trade and Industry so that energy planning and regulation can form a

proportionate input to the carbon emissions which DEFRA is tasked with monitoring.

Secondly, DEFRA needs to reduce it's research and advisory role at least as far as

climate change is concerned as there is a surfeit of studies available from both the

public and the charity sector to provide evidential proof that adaptation is needed

immediately. DEFRA should, instead, work more closely with RDAs and local tourist

businesses to provide increased funding for tourist enterprises to be able to invest in

adaptation measures to engender a bottom-up resilience to climate change across the

tourism sector.