Related posts

Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, tourism has been one of the most affected sectors at both the European and the global level. According to the recent annual Economic Trends Report conducted by the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC), tourism is the sector that saw the biggest economic collapse last year. In Europe, travel and tourism GDP declined by 51.4% in 2020, while domestic spending declined by 48.4%, and international spending fell at a sharper rate of 63.8%. Travel and tourism employment fell by 9.3%, equating to a loss of 3.6 million jobs. Vaccines offered the prospect of a sunrise, but recent restrictions to curb rising cases and Omicron variant concerns are once again provoking losses for the tourism industry.

However, the pandemic has also offered a unique opportunity for change, providing a chance for tourism industry stakeholders and popular destinations to reassess their priorities and create a transformative and regenerative vision for the sector.

The climate emergency accelerated the need for the implementation of sustainable tourism practices. As part of the road to recovery for the tourism industry, it is fundamental to foster green investments for protected areas, enabling the development of a more sustainable and inclusive tourism sector. However, there is still a long way to go. Many tourism destinations continue to struggle, particularly those that rely on long-haul tourism or business travel.

Tourism is the economic sector with the most significant potential to generate future growth and employment in the EU. It is important to recognise the industry’s crucial role for Europe’s economy; the EU should take the lead in this regard. The tourism industry needs to be appropriately included in the implementation of Member States’ recovery plans with long-term strategies in order to make the tourism ecosystem more green, digital, and resilient.

People’s willingness to embrace more responsible and sustainable practices when travelling is a critical factor. The European Travel Commission published a handbook on encouraging sustainable tourism practices. It shows that it is necessary to look at demand-and supply-side trends, and determine what people demand to incentivise changes. For example, a preference for more sustainable transport choices can be noticed. One of the handbook’s studies shows that 73% of European travellers agree it is essential for them to support local SMEs. Younger age groups tend to privilege greener practices when they travel. 

In this regard, sustainability-driven tourism policymaking at European level is essential to help decision-makers. At national level, examples of good practices are the “Copenhagen’s ‘Tourism for Good’ Strategy”, a long-term ambition for Greater Copenhagen, and the “Astypalea project” in Greece, a pilot project in collaboration between the Greek government and the Volkswagen Group for sustainable mobility and energy supply on the island of Astypalea.

These projects demonstrate that tourism is a driver of positive change, but that tourism is not the goal in and of itself. It contributes positively to society, building better destinations for locals and visitors. However, it is crucial to adopt a holistic and integrated approach, ensuring that national tourism policy creates the necessary fiscal and legislative framework to implement truly sustainable tourism practices. Transport and infrastructure are areas in which the pressure exerted by visitors can have a significant impact on the destination, and where tourism reform can positively impact the quality of life of locals.

Many European cities, such as Zurich, Oslo, Stockholm, and Frankfurt, are already widely investing in improving public transport, electric and low-emission vehicles, and cycling routes. Nevertheless, additional practical solutions such as educating travellers about their behaviour as tourists could be useful. This would help make people more aware about the impact of their actions on their destinations, for example underlining the fact that it is fundamental to prioritise small, local businesses while travelling. With regard to leisure activities, it is relevant to promote outdoor experiences in nature, eco-friendly accommodation, and “remote escapes” in rural destinations, thus preventing the phenomenon of “overtourism” from taking over again.

Moreover, frameworks such as the European Commission’s European Tourism Indicators System for sustainable destination management can help to monitor these actions and report progress in tourism sustainability. 

Profits from the recovery of tourism will definitively contribute to shape a type of European economic growth better adapted to climate change. A new year is coming, but the path towards the sustainable recovery of European tourism has only just begun.

Irene Paolinelli Economy European Union Sustainability

During the last decade of perma-crisis in Europe, we started to believe in our own impending demise. Suddenly there was money for nothing, China was chomping at our heels and our demographics were catastrophic. All that was left was a long, slow inevitable decline into global insignificance. Fast forward to 2019 and a similar vista appears, this time with the added bonus of catastrophic climate change.  Now Europe teeters on the brink of another economic downturn.

These challenges, while serious and real, can be addressed by a long-term policy reorientation. But to adequately respond to the issue of climate change and to effectively project European interests on a global stage Europe must combat the one issue which is its biggest impediment. Europe needs to remember that thinking big isn’t a crime. Europe needs to understand that investing for the long term is a vital part of economic planning.

Take the environment. The airline industry is one of the largest sources of global Co2 emissions. Yet, notwithstanding the relative proximity of many of Europe’s main urban centres, high-speed rail in Europe remains “an ineffective patchwork of lines without a realistic long-term plan”. EU funding of 23.7 billion euro in co-funding for high-speed lines since 2000 is minuscule when compared to support levels for other transport modes. At a European level, the overall picture remains one of isolated national systems and incomplete domestic programmes.

Yet, the environmental benefits of high-speed rail are obvious. The development of high-speed networks in France, and more recently in Italy and Spain, have significantly reduced domestic air travel and resulted in reliable transport links between many major cities. Cross-border services – most notably the Eurostar connecting London to Paris/Brussels and Thalys linking Paris to Amsterdam (via Brussels) have become important transport arteries.

So why then the implied reluctance – at both a national and European level – to place high-speed rail at the centre of the EU response to fighting climate change? One reason is the economics of high-speed rail. Such developments are, by their very nature, expensive to construct,  the time taken for such lines to become operational can be substantial (often a decade or more) and during this time they are constantly being subjected to negative media and economic analyses.

China built a comprehensive high-speed rail network in little more than a decade. 

Consider both the proposed Lyon-Turin and London-Birmingham (HS2) rail links. The considerable opprobrium heaped on these projects relates mostly to cost. Unrealistic initial budgets (often required to gain political support for commencement) are used by opponents as an economic basis for seeking to halt the project.  But cost-benefit analyses are, by their very nature, only based on a set of quantitative assumptions regarding issues such as construction costs and passenger numbers. 

The traditional economic analysis ignores wider societal and environmental benefits. In addition, both of these projects also seek to achieve important strategic economic objectives in terms of improving cross border mobility (Lyon-Turin) and tacking increasing regional inequalities (London-Birmingham).

Often expensive (and they are very expensive) high-speed rail projects find it difficult to attract consistent political support. Welded to an election cycle governments find it difficult to coherently develop plans for high-speed rail lines that may take decades to become fully operational. This equates, in many politicians eyes, to decades of considerable government spending without any discernible impact on their re-election prospects.

China built a comprehensive high-speed rail network in little more than a decade. In Europe, proposals for new, or even for upgraded lines, can languish for decades in planning hell.

To counter this reality, the EU should be the perfect mechanism for ensuring consistent financial support for these long term investment projects. The EU should significantly increase co-funding for an earmarked list of strategic priority projects. For example, the approximate 500km distance between Berlin and Munich still takes a minimum of 4 hours to complete by rail.

Likewise, the 400km trip between Brussels and Frankfurt requires a journey time in excess of 3 hours. These train journey times are not sufficient to alter many passengers travel habits regarding short-hop airline flights. Up to 8-10 flights still leave Brussels for Frankfurt (and vice versa) on a daily basis. 

Given the current climate crisis, and Europe’s wish to lead the response, this situation is clearly unsustainable. Tackling climate change is a very expensive business. Europe needs to hop aboard this high-speed train before it leaves the station.

Eoin Drea Economy Energy EU Member States Industry Sustainability

President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change, albeit predictable, presents both challenges and opportunities for the global system of multilevel governance. Various stakeholders are ready to fill the void, including other world leaders, such as the EU, and in particular Germany; US state actors, such as California; and even cities and businesses. Whatever the outcome, the reaffirmed joint commitment to implementing the climate targets is good news for the planet.

Read the full article in the December 2017 issue of the European View, the Martens Centre policy journal.

Eva Palacková Environment Globalisation Leadership Sustainability Transatlantic

Most of the refugees arriving in Europe are fleeing civil war and unrest. However, it is important to recognise how the second-order effects of climate change—which can undermine agriculture and increase competition for water and food resources—are contributing to instability and decisions to migrate.

While migratory decisions are complex, climate change is an increasingly important contributing factor: it is threatening humanity’s shared interests and collective security in many parts of the world. The cumulative effects of these trends have serious implications for the stability of nations that lack sufficient resources, good governance and the resilience to respond.

While there is a need for greater understanding of the detailed causes of migration, as well as the associated economic and political instability, a growing body of evidence links climate change, migration and conflict in troubling ways.

Read the full articlein the June 2016 issue of the European View, the Martens Centre policy journal.

Michael Werz Max Hoffman Environment Migration Security Sustainability

A random Google search for ‘sustainable development’ scores over 220 million search results. The world is talking about sustainability. From financial and economic policies to baby diapers – it could all be branded as sustainable (and it is). This has almost turned sustainability to a cliché.

Sustainability, however, isn’t about things. It all comes down to individual behaviour that ‘meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (the Brundtland Commission, 1980s). Currently, unsustainability is a lifestyle. The environment and resources serve us here and now without a long-run perspective. The unsustainable economic model collapsed and burdened future generations with the consequences. And societal challenges such as demography, employment, education and skills are undermining the stability of our communities.

The big question is how to establish the sustainable mind-set and encourage sustainable behaviour in order to turn away from unsustainability. A very good answer is through the process of education. Higher education has a major role in shaping individuals because it is a transition period to real life. Higher education institutions (HEIs) facilitate personal development and change. Universities form micro communities where institutional environment could foster creativity, productivity, social responsibility and environmental awareness. On the one hand, university campuses have the potential to become a model for environmental, social and economic sustainability. On the other hand, students bring along high motivation, energy and fresh thinking. Thus, higher education is a stable platform for ideas that belong to younger generations.

The challenges:

The idea of sustainability relates to HEIs in a simple twofold way. One vector is the concept of a sustainable university. The second vector covers the idea of integrating sustainability in the actual curricula. However, there is a catch – a list of pending obstacles to sustainability is to be ticked off:

• The risk of running sustainability as a marketing technique. Words and phrases that have to do with sustainable have become taglines. Simply put, painting a building green does not make it sustainable.
• Limiting the perception to an environmental concept only, excluding the two other pillars – society and economy.
• Introducing sustainability in higher education curricula requires plenty of efforts for HEIs and a small number of them are willing to invest time and money in it.
• Sustainability principles are not compulsory for HEIs and their curricula. Thus, some HEIs are true pioneers in the field while a large group of the organisations lag behind.
• 40 years after Stockholm Earth Summit in 1972 no sustainability strategy is being implemented in the field of higher education. Thus, there is no path to follow and no strategic approach in setting goals and measuring their implementation and impact.
• UN’s Decade of Education for Sustainable Development 2005 has not influenced significantly policy making at EU level due to the fact that higher education is still heavily dependent on strictly national policies and 28 different policies are implemented.

Conclusions:

Despite the fact that the Europe 2020 strategy has set a target to achieve sustainability, a limited range of tools is available when it comes to higher education. The variety of crises (financial, economic and debt crises) that clouded over the EU made the process of introducing sustainability to higher education even slower.

The idea of sustainable development is a horizontal process that involves different governmental agencies and levels of governance – local, national, and European. Sustainability is a bottom-up process and it requires commitment and leadership. This is why all stakeholders should equally contribute to achieving the goal.

The long-term outcome from integrating sustainability in the higher education is the establishment of a mind-set and values that will be embedded in all fields of our lives. Through education, our social, economic and environmental behaviour could become sustainable by default.

Recommendations:

To higher education institutions:

• Include the three pillars of sustainability in the organisations’ mission statements and strategic goals.
• The sustainable development education requires multidiscipline approach. Instead of being a separate isolated subject (where it exists), it has to be an integrated part of large number of subjects such as economics, finance, strategic management, human resources management, engineering, medicine, etc.
• Introduce sustainability policies based on standard frameworks such as the Environmental Management Systems and ISO 14000 / ISO 14001. The framework should focus on several aspects – facilities, waste, transportation, energy, administration, etc.
• Develop sustainable campuses because they create a micro environment capable of shifting students’ mind-sets. More HEIs should establish sustainability information desks/centres at their campuses in order to generate further interest among students.
• Form partnerships on sustainability with local governments, businesses, NGOs and foundations. This will provide access to additional research capacity and funding.
• Aim at project-based learning and practical involvement in sustainability initiatives. Universities could recruit volunteers among the students who have good knowledge on sustainability. They could form groups for generating sustainability ideas, activities and cause a snowball effect for many other students.

To the EU member states:

• Focus on translating sustainability to HEIs and students so they could “buy” the idea. Currently there is no big demand for sustainability, since most of the HEIs and students do not appreciate the benefits of it. Universities consider it a burdensome budget item.
• The EU Member States should be encouraged to bind accreditation and evaluation of higher education institutions to sustainable development. A special set of criteria could be established that would influence the accreditation and ranking of HEIs.
• The 2014-2020 programming period should play a vital role in funding schemes for sustainable development in higher education through operational programmes at national level.
• Funding for public HEIs should include sustainability research grants, awarded for sustainability projects. Budgeting should shift to performance based, taking into consideration sustainability criteria.

To the European Commission:

• The next European Commission should work even closer with the member states to achieve a harmonised approach in integrating sustainability in higher education across the EU.

Kalin Zahariev Education Environment Sustainability

The cost of health service is going to rise a great deal in coming years.This is due to the ageing of the population and to the cost of medical treatments at the end of people’s lives. Rising incomes in society also lead to higher expectations of health services and higher pay costs within the health service. Advances in medical technology make better treatments available, but these treatments are often costlier than the (less effective) treatments they replace.

POLICY CHOICES MAKE A DIFFERENCE

But there are choices that can be made. For example, on certain assumptions, a McKinsey study suggested that the cost of the health service in Ireland in 2040 could range between 10% of GDP and 18%, depending on policy choices. In the UK the range is between 11% and 14% of its GDP, and the range in the US is between 24% and 26%.

SO DO OUR OWN DECISIONS ON USING THE SERVICE

What can be done to contain costs? I saw a report of a British NHS report on Accident and Emergency visits which suggested:

+ one million of the 5.2 million annual visits to A and E were avoidable
+40% of patients who visit A and E are discharged needing no treatment at all
+ 50% of Ambulance call outs could be managed at the scene without going to hospital
+ 20% of GP consultations could be dealt with by self care or a visit to a pharmacy

These statistics suggest that there is plenty of room to encourage people to learn more about looking after their own health. The challenge is to devise policies that incentivise this in a responsible way.

John Bruton Economy Social Policy Sustainability

Vít Novotný Crisis Economy Growth Sustainability

The EU Summit last week discussed the digital economy, a youth guarantee, apprenticeships, and the European Semester. During the Semester, each EU state will have an input to the policies of each of the other states. Hopefully, they will learn from each other.

But it would be a mistake to think that the main ingredients of a solution to the economic problems of the countries of the eurozone will be found at European level, because the problems did not, in the main, arise at European level. Although they had the same currency, some countries did much better than others did. Between 2008 and 2013, the growth in the euro zone ranged from plus 6% growth in Slovakia, to minus 6% in Greece. Some countries (Bulgaria, Sweden and Germany) grew faster than the United States between 2008 and 2013, while most of the other EU countries saw their economies contract.

It is good that, at EU level, we will now, through the European Semester, have detailed peer review of one another’s growth policies, including market liberalisation, taxation and public spending. But it would be a great pity if this encouraged national governments to delegate strategic thinking, about how to maximise the growth of their own economies, to the European Union.

Growth promoting reforms, whether these reforms be

+ of professional restrictions,
+ of slow and costly courts systems
+ of welfare systems that penalise work,
+ of educational systems that leave too many 15 year olds unable to read properly,
+ or of public sector wage and pension policies that are unaffordable,

will all differ from country to country, and can only be made on a country by country basis. The EU cannot do that job for national governments. They must do it themselves.

EUROPE MUST TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE EUROZONE BANKING SYSTEM

The EU has some things it must do. It must set up a single banking system for the euro zone. Given that most money takes the form of bank credit of some kind, it makes no sense to have a single currency without a single banking system. It makes no sense either that, at the moment, a badly run, and possibly insolvent bank in a well run country can borrow much more cheaply than can a well run and solvent bank in a country whose public finances are in a mess. These things can only be put right by EU action. Nor is it right that European arrangements to deal with banking and currency problems should be held hostage to the decision of the constitutional court of one country (Germany).

THE NEXT GENERATION WILL BE LESS ABLE TO REPAY THIS GENERATION’S DEBTS THAN THIS GENERATION IS TO MAKE SAVINGS

I find the arguments against “austerity”, in countries whose governments are spending more than they are collecting, to be lacking in rigorous thought. If a state is spending more than it is taking in by taxes, to borrow more today is simply to decide to pass the “austerity” on to a later generation, and to do so with interest! As a result of compound interest, a future generation will have to repay a lot MORE that the present generation will have borrowed. But the next generation will be far LESS able than we are to meet our bills that this one is.

This is because, 35 years from now, there will be two Europeans at work for every European who is retired, whereas today there are four Europeans of working age for every European who is retired. Thus the future burden of debts taken on today will have to borne out of the earnings of a smaller number of working people than are at work today. And those working people will also have to provide for a larger number of retired people than this generation has to cater for.

I wonder what the anti austerity protesters think of that!

John Bruton Banking Crisis Economy Sustainability

Jürgen Matthes, co-author of a new CES study on public finances and growth talks about how to counter the dangers of self-defeating austerity and the four objectives that have to be taken into consideration when implementing smart fiscal consolidation measures.

Jürgen Matthes Crisis Growth Macroeconomics Social Policy Sustainability