Nominations are now open for the Responsible Tourism Awards 2009 organised by responsibletravel.com and sponsored by Virgin Holidays. The Awards celebrate tourism ventures around the world that make positive contributions to conservation and the economies of local communities.

The Awards are now in their sixth year and are the most prestigious of their kind in the world, with 13 categories receiving a total of over 1,900 nominations in 2008. Last years’ overall winner was New Zealand, other winners included Explore (UK); Kingfisher Bay (Australia); Nkwichi Lodge (Mozambique); Community Action Treks (Nepal); Ecoventura (Equador); Holland America Line (USA); Bycyclen (Denmark); Gamewatchers Safaris (Kenya); Shigar Fort Pakistan; Gambia is Good (the Gambia); Camps International (UK);

This year sees the introduction of an annual theme for the Tour Operator category which focuses on ‘cultural engagement’ of local cultures and communities for 2009.

Justin Francis, founder of the Awards and MD of responsibletravel.com said: “This year will be one of great change for the travel and tourism industry as the global economic situation alters the way we think about our holidays. It is therefore more crucial than ever before that responsible tourism remains high on the agenda and that tourism ventures, destinations and travellers around the world continue to ensure that local communities and environments do not become the forgotten voices.”

Virgin Holidays’ Responsible Business Manager, Rachel McCaffery, said: “It’s a privilege to be on board as sponsor of the Responsible Tourism Awards for the third consecutive year. The event goes from strength to strength, and at Virgin Holidays we are committed to recognising those in our industry that lead the way with new initiatives and solutions to our collective responsibility to a more sustainable future.

The acclaim for both winners and nominees is a great way for us all to be inspired and learn from them all”

Added Amanda Wills, Virgin Holidays MD – “I’m looking forward to yet more inspiration from this year’s nominees and winners. We continue to see these awards as an outward statement of our continued commitment to sustainable tourism solutions, as new community projects, research and industry partnerships drive our own efforts and progress behind the scenes at Virgin Holidays.

And, from prolific travel writer Paul Theroux “In the past, awards were given for Best Meal, Best View, Most Grovelling Staff, Biggest Ballroom, or whatever. It’s encouraging that tourism organisations and individuals are being rewarded for doing something that is ethically right or supporting a position that will help the planet. That’s the greatest lesson of travel: it is a very small and easily bruised planet.”

Nominations should be made online at ResponsibleTourismAwards.com www.responsibletourismawards.com and include the name and contact details of the nomination, plus up to 200 words on why they should win a Responsible Tourism Award. The category of entry should also be specified.
Nominations close on: Monday 15th June 2009

The Interior Department declared the polar bear a threatened species Wednesday because of the loss of Arctic sea ice but also cautioned the decision should not be viewed as a path to address global warming.

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne cited dramatic declines in sea ice over the last three decades and projections of continued losses, meaning, he said, that the polar bear is a species likely to be in danger of extinction in the near future.
But Kempthorne said it would be “wholly inappropriate” to use the protection of the bear to reduce greenhouse gases, or to broadly address climate change.

The Endangered Species Act “is not the right tool to set U.S. climate policy,” said Kempthorne, reflecting a view recently expressed by President Bush.

The department outlined a set of administrative actions and limits to how it planned to protect the bear with its new status so that it would not have wide-ranging adverse impact on economic activities from building power plants to oil and gas exploration.

“This listing will not stop global climate change or prevent any sea ice from melting,” said Kempthorne. He said he had consulted with the White House on the decision, but “at no time was there ever a suggestion that this was not my decision.”

Kempthorne, at a news conference, was armed with slides and charts showing the dramatic decline in sea ice over the last 30 years and projections that the melting of ice — a key habitat for the bear — would continue and may even quicken.

He cited conclusions by department scientists that sea ice loss will likely result in two-thirds of the polar bears disappearing by mid-century. The bear population across the Arctic from Alaska to Greenland doubled from about 12,000 to 25,000 since 1960, but he noted that scientists now predict a significant population decline. Studies last year by the U.S. Geological Survey suggested 15,000 bears would be lost in coming decades with those in the western Hudson Bay area of Alaska and Canada under the greatest stress.

But when asked how the bear will be afforded greater protection, Dale Hall, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, had difficulty coming up with examples.

Better management of bear habitat on shore and making sure bears aren’t threatened by people including hunters, more studies on bear population trends and their feeding habits were among the areas mentioned. “I don’t want to prejudge recommendations for (bear) management,” said Hall whose agency administers the Endangered Species Act.

Environmentalists were already mapping out plans to file lawsuits challenging the restrictive measures outlined by Kempthorne.

“They’re trying to make this a threatened listing in name only with no change in today’s impacts and that’s not going to fly,” said Jamie Rappaport Clark of Defenders of Wildlife and a former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service director.

Members of Congress also were skeptical.

The Bush administration “is forcing the polar bear to sink or swim,” said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., chairman of a House committee on global warming.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., called it “a lifeline for our last remaining polar bears” but said the bear’s survival won’t be assured without limits on oil development in the same Arctic waters where the bears are found.

Despite the new listing, the announcement underscores the need to approve climate legislation that would limit the release of greenhouse gases and avert the future effects on climate change, said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Environment Committee.

Scientists have blamed global warming for the disappearance of sea ice which is vital for the bear’s survival.

Summer ice surrounding the North Pole declined an average of 10 percent per decade since 1979, with a loss of about 28,000 square miles per year, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Last year was the sharpest drop, as the amount of sea ice in September fell to 1.65 million square miles, or 23 percent below the previous low in 2005.

Kempthorne proposed 15 months ago to investigate whether the polar bear should be declared threatened under the Endangered Species Act. That triggered a year of studies into the threats facing the bear and its survival prospects.

A decision had been expected early this year, but the Interior Department said it needed more time to work out many of the details, prompting criticism from members of Congress and environmentalists. Environmentalists filed a lawsuit aimed at forcing a decision and a federal court on April 29 set a May 15 deadline for a decision.

A species is declared “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act if it is found to be at risk of becoming endangered in the foreseeable future. If it does not make progress toward recovery, it can be declared “endangered” meaning it is at risk of extinction and needs even greater protection.

There have long been accusations that Mr Bush’s government has interfered with scientific findings for ideological and political reasons. In the field of reproductive health, it has discredited the effectiveness of condoms for preventing sexually transmitted diseases and refused to authorise emergency contraception. In oncology it has sought to show a link between breast cancer and abortions.

But nowhere has the government’s efforts been more focused than in the field of globalwarming awareness2007 – something Mr Bush has only recently been willing to publicly accept has a link to human activity. Despite the belated acknowledgement, he remains adamantly opposed to an enforced reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr Waxman said his committee had sought documents from the White House that would reveal its strategy but the government had not been forthcoming. He added: “We know the White House possesses documents that contain evidence of an attempt by senior administration officials to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming and minimise the potential danger.”

The committee heard testimony from several scientists, including Dr Drew Shindell, a researcher at Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Mr Shindell said that, in 2004, a title for a paper he had prepared about climate change in Antarctica was “softened” by political appointees at the White House. “I objected, but was anonymously overruled, and the lack of transparency in the process made it very difficult to appeal,” he said.

According to the findings of a survey by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), Mr Shindell’s experience is not unique. Questionnaires sent to scientists at seven federal agencies found that more than 40 per cent had experienced changes to their work which altered the meaning of their findings.

The continuing focus of climate change comes as some 500 scientists gather in Paris this week to complete a United Nations report on how global warming is likely to affect sea levels.

Meanwhile, in Washington, Mr Bush has signed a directive that will give him greater control over government policy statements on public health, the environment and civil rights.