Let’s abandon the idea of ​​making France the first sustainable destination in the world 🔑

” There is no good wind for him who does not know where he is going » said Seneca in his time.

Difficult to navigate without a compass and especially without a course. This is somewhat the impression we have when we talk about sustainable tourism, as we are sailing in the dark when it comes to making tourism more responsible.

It would have been necessary ADEME informs us about tourism’s significant share of its greenhouse gas emissionsto enlighten some consciences and trigger a frenzy of strategic ambitions that would oblige all players in the sector to wash greener!

To carry this ambition, the direction was given at the highest level in the state : France was to become the world’s leading sustainable tourism destination.

Read also: Greenhouse gases: tourism must (quickly) act or die?

We can always argue about the exact definition of sustainable tourism, and even about the numbers that cruelly remind us that the more distant clientele we welcome, the less sustainable we are, the ambition to be first always has an effect.

The problem is knowing which tool, which compass, which compass will tell us which route to follow and warn us when the milestone will be reached and thus when France will have (finally) become the world’s leading destination for sustainable tourism .

Everyone will have understood that this goal, which is included in many destination schemes that also want to be first in their category, does not make sense because there is no indicator that would allow this type of ranking and for good reason. We can certainly measure progress, but how can we set such a course without ever setting quantified goals on the subject.

ADEME, which follows this issue of tourism externalities with great self-sacrifice, introduces its latest report on the measurement of greenhouse gas emissions from French tourism for the year 2022, as follows:

” If tourism is an important economic pillar in France, it is also very polluting. In 2022, the sector emitted 97 million tonnes of CO2, i.e. the annual CO2 footprint of 10.5 million French people. It concerns mobility and especially air transport »

We could not be clearer, and the question that naturally arises when reading this new report is the following: how many tons less in the next 5 and 10 years to become the world’s leading sustainable destination? We go from 97 to how many, how, how long?

Never advancing the debate in this sense renders all the edicts, the chin-dumbing and of course this idea of ​​one day being the leading destination in terms of sustainable tourism obsolete.

If we like rankings so much, perhaps we should start by knowing where we rank France based on this sole criterion of greenhouse gas emissions. Well, rather at the end of the ranking, because on this sole criterion of greenhouse gas emissions, the more remote customers we welcome, the further down the ranking we go. THE ” at the same time » to its limits also in tourism.

Without goals and indicators, there will be no direction and therefore no effective strategy. And it’s a shame, because for its part, ADEME sets the course very clearly

The main levers to improve the tourism sector’s carbon footprint and thus achieve a reduction in its greenhouse gas emissions of 40 to 50% in absolute terms by 2030 compared to 2018 in line with the Paris Agreement are:

• To change the origin and mode of transport of tourists. The number of tourists can also become a key parameter.

• To maintain the downward trend in CO2 impacts observed in 2022 over time, it is necessary to adopt transformative public measures, especially to promote more local tourism in the long term.

None of the ministers responsible for tourism since 2018 have taken their numbers and validated these directions. No minister has had the courage to propose to tourism stakeholders to hold a COP dedicated to the tourism economy, which would make it possible to set targets by sector and by destination.

So everyone has a strategy based on their interests, so let’s not be surprised accusations of greenwashing from numerous associations who regularly condemn our paradoxical injunctions.

Among these injunctions is that which consists in establishing ecotourism as THE most promising way to change the situation. I have always considered the prefix “eco” as a simplistic answer to the challenges of ecology, which it must be remembered is a science before it is a political party.

The green pigment of chlorophyll has become a symbol, again somewhat simplified, to make people believe that walking in nature would be more virtuous than walking on the beach, which would be more virtuous than walking in the city. But it doesn’t work that way, because if we traveled 1000 km to come and go in nature, well it was much less ecological than if we traveled 100 km to visit the city museum near us.

We must stop this idea of ​​prioritizing tourism practices according to visitors’ desire to holiday in the countryside or by the sea, in the mountains or in the city.

Understanding the subject of sustainable tourism from this angle means diverting the problems for the sake of convenience through a reductive vision that consists in linking green with nature, nature with ecology and ecology with sustainability. I worked in Auvergne for 10 years, I never thought that Auvergne was more sustainable than other destinations. To think like this is to exclude oneself from any reflection on the CO2 footprint of the stay, it is to exclude oneself from the debate about indicators, social tourism, local leisure activities, mobility, etc.

Ecotourism, or nature tourism, is a segment of vacation, and one of its virtues is to make those who practice it aware of the fragility of nature and the need to respect this nature. In and of itself, that’s not bad, but that doesn’t make them the ones who do it[ le tour du Mont Blanc en treck des « meilleurs touristes » que ceux qui passeront le week-end au Mont St Michel. ]b

ADEME effortlessly reminds us that we are faced with a choice of economic model, not a form of holiday, and it is this economic model that we need to develop and it is closely related to the types of customers we want to welcome as a priority.

To change the paradigm and enable the levers proposed by ADEME, then yes we need a tourist COPwe have to set goals in a position of solidarity because certain sectors, certain areas will have more efforts to make, so we may have to help them more, give them more time.

We need one joint action frameworkbecause without these frameworks we risk seeing the efforts of some being destroyed by the practices of others and seeing the former becoming discouraged. What is the point of supporting and financing low-carbon mobility practices if we simultaneously increase subsidies for low-cost companies. We must put an end to this hypocrisy, especially when there is no more money in the coffers.

The futurist Michel Godet recalled in one of his books the cost of indecision when it came to putting an end to the exploitation of coal mines in Lorraine. Between the moment the decision was made (for economic and not ecological reasons) and the closing of the last well, 30 years passed!

It is not a question of ending tourism, but of reducing its externalities, and we do not have 30 years ahead of us to agree and act!

So if, to facilitate political announcements, it is absolutely necessary to want to be first in a hypothetical ranking list, let us share the goal of being the country that makes the greatest effort and the greatest progress to limit the weight of externalities of tourism , demonstrating more territorial solidarity and funding the most companies and territories entering this path of progress, and I say this as we announce a 35% reduction in ADEME credits in the Finance Bill!

Not very serious if we want to serve as an example to the whole world.

Chairman of the consulting company Futourism:

Jean Pinard is a trained forester and geographer and has always worked in the sports and tourism sector.
Kayak instructor, bus driver, guide, tourist site manager, director of CDT and CRT (Auvergne and Occitanie), Jean Pinard again became a consultant, his first job at SCET, after finishing his studies.