Tourism at a Climate Crossroads: What COP31 Must Deliver for the Future of Global Travel

As COP31 opens in Antalya, climate change is reshaping tourism’s future, raising urgent questions about destination resilience, investment and global travel.

Global (Tourism Reporter) —The flames reach the holiday coast. The mountains release what the ice can no longer hold. And historic monuments begin adjusting their opening hours to a hotter world.

Tourism no longer needs climate change explained to it. In 2026, the evidence has moved beyond sustainability reports and into the daily operations of destinations, tourism businesses and public authorities.

By late July, more than 434,000 hectares had burned across Europe, according to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Wildfires in France and Spain forced the evacuation of more than 300,000 people, disrupting communities and threatening areas popular with summer visitors. Campsites, holiday villages and tourism infrastructure were among the assets exposed to the fires.

In Rome, the response took a different form. Italy’s Ministry of Culture, working with the Ministry of Tourism and the Municipality of Milan, introduced an August pilot extending the opening hours of major monuments, including the Colosseum, by up to four hours on selected evenings. The initiative was designed to accommodate visitors during cooler periods and improve the management of visitor flows.
Ministero della cultura

In Nepal, the 26 August disaster along the Bhote Koshi and Rasuwa corridor brought another dimension of climate and environmental risk into focus. An ice-rock avalanche generated a devastating flash flood and debris flow, damaging infrastructure and disrupting travel routes. By 28 August, the Nepal Tourism Board reported that 121 tourists had been rescued, while 622 remained unaccounted for.

These were not distant climate scenarios. They were events with immediate consequences for visitor safety, tourism infrastructure, business continuity and destination confidence.

Today, 9 November, COP31 opens in Antalya, Türkiye’s Mediterranean resort city. The conference runs until 20 November and is expected to bring approximately 100,000 participants together, including government delegations, policymakers, scientists, business leaders and civil society representatives.

The choice of Antalya provides a particularly relevant setting for a conversation about tourism and climate resilience. The host city is itself a major tourism destination, with an economy closely connected to the Mediterranean visitor economy.

For the tourism industry, however, COP31 is more than another international climate gathering. It provides a policy and investment focal point for questions that destinations, governments, airlines, hotel operators and investors can no longer afford to treat as distant concerns.

This report examines five critical questions facing global tourism. COP31 may help shape the direction of the industry’s climate response, but the real test will be what governments, destinations and businesses do beyond the negotiating rooms.

What COP31 is — and what tourism has already secured

COP31 runs from 9 to 20 November in Antalya under an unprecedented split leadership arrangement. Türkiye is hosting the conference, with Environment Minister Murat Kurum serving as COP President and leading the voluntary Action Agenda. Australia’s Climate Change and Energy Minister, Chris Bowen, is serving as President of Negotiations, overseeing the formal intergovernmental process. A World Leaders’ Summit is scheduled for 11 and 12 November.

Tourism arrives in Antalya with more institutional recognition than it had just a few years ago. COP29 in Baku marked a breakthrough, giving the sector its first dedicated thematic day within the UN climate conference and providing the platform for the Declaration on Enhanced Climate Action in Tourism. The declaration attracted support from 52 governments, establishing a stronger basis for integrating tourism into national climate policies.

At COP30 in Belém, tourism secured two thematic days, with discussions focused on practical solutions for building a low-carbon, climate-resilient sector. The process produced a Plan to Accelerate Solutions in Tourism, strengthening the sector’s implementation agenda and its links to wider climate action.

But recognition, declarations and dedicated conference days are not the same as measurable progress. Tourism has secured a place in the climate conversation; the more difficult task is turning that recognition into policy, investment and action.

The five questions below examine whether the sector is making that transition.

1. Destination resilience: preparedness is uneven, and mostly reactive

There are two dimensions to climate adaptation in tourism. The first is operational and relatively quick: changing opening hours, shifting travel seasons and redesigning itineraries around extreme heat. The second is structural and much slower: protecting land and infrastructure, investing in early-warning systems, strengthening ecosystems and rethinking where and how tourism development takes place. The events of 2026 have demonstrated how much destinations are doing to adjust visitor activity — and how much more remains to be done to reduce their underlying exposure to climate risks.

Rome’s extended evening opening at the Colosseum illustrates the first approach. During the summer, the monument introduced late-night tours four evenings a week, allowing visitors to explore the site until 11pm and avoid the worst daytime heat. It was a practical response that offered visitors a cooler experience and helped redistribute demand. But it adapted the visitor’s schedule, not the destination’s exposure to rising temperatures. The shift towards cooler destinations — the coolcation trend Tourism Reporter examined in July — reflects a similar pattern: travel demand moves in response to climate conditions, while the underlying risks remain.

The structural response is more difficult. The European Commission has warned that wildfire management needs to move beyond emergency response towards prevention, preparedness and recovery. Its March 2026 communication on integrated wildfire risk management, followed by a Council recommendation in June, called for a more comprehensive approach to reducing risks before fires break out. Brussels’ new Sustainable Tourism Strategy, presented on 4 November, also proposes an EU Tourism Crisis Coordination Network to improve preparedness and coordination among tourism authorities. These initiatives acknowledge that fragmented responses are part of the problem.

Mountain and nature-based destinations face hazards that can develop with little warning. Nepal’s devastating August flood in the Bhote Koshi river system illustrates the danger. Researchers at the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) investigated an ice-and-rock avalanche that entered the Lhende Khola, creating a debris blockage and a temporary lake. When the blockage failed, a powerful surge of water, sediment and boulders travelled downstream. The episode underlines why monitoring upstream conditions, strengthening early-warning systems and sharing risk information across borders are essential to protecting communities, infrastructure and tourism corridors.

The planning gap is also visible at national level. An academic study of Saint Lucia reviewed 16 national policy and planning documents and found that only two referred to sea-level rise in the context of tourism. The research illustrates how climate risks can remain insufficiently integrated into tourism development decisions, even in destinations where coastal exposure is central to the visitor economy. The finding is specific to Saint Lucia, but the broader policy question extends well beyond one island.

COP31’s contribution could lie in making adaptation more measurable and accountable. At COP30 in Belém, countries adopted 59 indicators under the Global Goal on Adaptation, alongside the two-year Belém–Addis process to refine their methodologies and support their use in national planning. UN Tourism has also called for tourism to be incorporated into national adaptation plans and for climate-risk information to inform destination planning. The challenge now is to make these frameworks meaningful for tourism ministries and destination authorities — not simply as international reporting commitments, but as practical tools for deciding where to invest, what to protect and how to prepare.

2. Infrastructure: the assets underpinning the visitor economy

Airports, ports, hotels and utilities are the physical foundations of tourism. Many sit where climate hazards concentrate: along coasts, deltas, islands and river mouths.

A peer-reviewed Newcastle University study published in 2021, a leading global assessment, found that 269 airports were exposed to coastal flooding. With 2°C of warming, that number could rise to 364, while 100 airports could lie below mean sea level by 2100. “These coastal airports are disproportionately important to the global airline network, and by 2100 between 10 and 20% of all routes will be at risk of disruption,” said Professor Richard Dawson. Bangkok’s Suvarnabhumi and Shanghai Pudong ranked highest for exposure, while London City was the UK’s most exposed airport. The researchers concluded that adaptation costs would be modest relative to global infrastructure spending. However, airports in places with limited resources or no space to relocate could become unviable.

Yet infrastructure planning remains inadequate. A California study of 43 coastal airports, including Los Angeles International and San Francisco International, found that many could face exposure within 20 to 40 years. Its lead author said most of the aviation industry had not implemented adaptation strategies. “We’re looking at where water touches infrastructure, but we have no idea how this infrastructure is going to behave towards water,” said Sarah Lindbergh. A separate 2025 study examining Venice and Fiumicino airports, alongside the port of Marghera, highlighted comparable vulnerabilities in the Mediterranean.

Hotels face similar exposure. The Saint Lucia study found that erosion associated with a one-metre rise in sea level would affect every coastal resort with an inventoried beach asset. Investors emphasise that utilities matter as much as buildings: the resilience of energy, water and communications systems determines whether hotels can continue operating after extreme events.

Much of this infrastructure is publicly owned or operated by utilities and port authorities. Protecting it therefore requires public investment, not just private adaptation spending. That brings the discussion to the third question.

3. Climate finance: the money is not reaching the places that need it

The figures are stark. UNEP’s Adaptation Gap Report 2025 estimated that developing countries would need US$310 billion annually by 2035 under modelled cost estimates, rising to US$365 billion based on needs identified in national plans. International public adaptation finance stood at US$26 billion in 2023, down from US$28 billion in 2022. Adaptation needs are therefore 12 to 14 times current flows. On current trends, the Glasgow commitment to double adaptation finance from 2019 levels by 2025, reaching roughly US$40 billion, will be missed.

The headline targets offer less reassurance than they suggest. The New Collective Quantified Goal commits to at least US$300 billion annually by 2035, covering mitigation and adaptation combined. UNEP considers this inadequate for adaptation alone. COP30 called for adaptation finance to be at least tripled by 2035, but the baseline and allocation of responsibility remain contested, and the call is not binding. UNEP estimates that private finance could realistically provide about US$50 billion annually for public adaptation priorities, up from roughly US$5 billion. However, it cautions that private capital cannot replace concessional public finance and that support must not deepen vulnerable countries’ debt burdens.

For tourism-dependent economies, the shortfall is even more acute. Global Centre on Adaptation research estimates island economies need about US$12 billion annually, compared with just over US$2 billion in international public finance. Many island nations also carry public debt exceeding 60 per cent of GDP. Loans offer little relief to governments already approaching their borrowing limits.

The sector faces two additional barriers. The first is bankability: Caribbean experience suggests that the main constraint is often a lack of investment-ready projects, not simply insufficient funding. The second is classification. UNEP’s review of implemented adaptation measures groups activity under biodiversity, agriculture, water and infrastructure. Tourism is not listed as a separate category — an observation from the report’s classification, not a finding explicitly made by UNEP. Destinations may therefore have to frame a reef, seawall or water system under one of these headings to qualify for funding.

Tourism can also generate domestic adaptation finance. Palau’s entry tax raised about US$14.5 million in 2025, while a separate nature fee contributed another US$3.4 million, largely supporting its national marine sanctuary, according to Pew researchers. Such levies can be contentious in destinations already struggling with visitor pressure. For small island states, however, they provide a rare source of locally raised funding for conservation and resilience.

COP31’s test is whether the commitment to triple adaptation finance gains a clear baseline, a credible delivery pathway, grant-based support and an access mechanism that small island tourism economies can actually use — without further deepening already heavy debt burdens.

4. Aviation and transport: growth and decarbonisation on different clocks

Tourism’s expansion depends on aviation. Boeing’s 2026 outlook projects passenger traffic doubling by 2045, while the global aircraft fleet grows by about 80 per cent. Aviation’s transition to lower-carbon operations is moving more slowly.

IATA estimates sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) production will reach around 2.4 million tonnes in 2026, equivalent to just 0.8 per cent of aviation fuel consumption, at a cost to airlines of US$4.3 billion. SAF is expected to deliver about 65 per cent of the emissions reductions aviation needs by 2050. “Five years after committing to achieve net zero by 2050, SAF production will only account for 0.8 percent of airline fuel use this year,” IATA Director General Willie Walsh said in June. He has also questioned whether the 2050 target remains achievable, given shortages of sustainable fuel and eligible carbon credits.

Aviation is not a formal COP negotiating item; its emissions are addressed through the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and national or regional frameworks. COP31 can nevertheless influence the sector indirectly. Carbon-market rules are under discussion, and IATA identifies access to CORSIA-eligible credits as a constraint. IATA expects CORSIA to cover around 85 per cent of international aviation emissions from next year, while the EU debates the reach of its emissions trading system across aviation and maritime transport. IATA estimates that extending the EU system to flights already covered by CORSIA could cost European aviation about €280 billion between 2027 and 2040. This industry estimate is contested, but the underlying question remains: will international aviation rely on a global framework or confront overlapping regional obligations?

Passenger sentiment suggests climate action matters. IATA’s 2026 survey found 89 per cent of passengers supported emissions reductions. A similar proportion considered flying essential and wanted it made sustainable rather than restricted.

The wider transport system matters too. EU plans for high-speed rail by 2040, night trains, integrated ticketing and a seamless travel area could shift some journeys from air to rail. But that option is unavailable to many island states, Pacific nations and African destinations, where aviation is often the only link to international markets. IATA’s new Director General, Saadia Zahidi, who took office on 1 November, has framed the challenge as extending “the benefits of connectivity to more people and economies around the world”. A transition that leaves remote tourism economies less connected would undermine that ambition.

What to look for in Antalya — and what not to wait for

Four tests will reveal whether COP31 is moving tourism climate commitments closer to implementation.

First, whether the call to triple adaptation finance secures a clear baseline, delivery timetable and grant-first approach that vulnerable economies can access without accumulating unsustainable debt.

Second, whether the Global Goal on Adaptation indicators become practical tools for tourism destinations to measure and report progress, and whether tourism is meaningfully integrated into national adaptation plans.

Third, whether the signals emerging from discussions on carbon markets and aviation fuels provide a credible decarbonisation pathway — one that reduces emissions without undermining the connectivity of remote and island economies.

Fourth, whether Tourism Day on 18 November produces finance-ready project pipelines, stronger partnerships and commitments that can be tracked beyond the conference, rather than another declaration of intent.

These are important tests, but COP outcomes are consensus-driven, negotiations are often slow, and tourism is not a formal negotiating bloc. The sector cannot afford to make its climate response dependent on what governments agree in Antalya.

Destinations, investors and tourism businesses already have the tools to begin. Climate-risk assessments can become part of destination planning. Resilience standards can inform investment decisions. Early-warning systems can protect exposed tourism corridors, while transparent reporting can help governments and businesses measure progress and identify where resources are most urgently needed.

The larger challenge is to recognise that climate resilience is no longer simply an environmental responsibility. It is an economic, investment and competitiveness imperative. It will influence where visitors travel, where airlines operate, where insurers provide cover and where investors are prepared to commit capital.

COP31 may help determine the direction of global climate action, but it will not determine which destinations are prepared to survive the consequences of climate change. That responsibility rests with the governments, businesses and investors making decisions now.

For global tourism, the real measure of success in Antalya will not be the number of declarations issued or commitments announced. It will be whether the industry leaves with a clearer route from climate ambition to funded action — and whether destinations begin building resilience before the next disaster forces them to.