Debate on The Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version

   Justin Francis of responsibletravel.com and Harold Goodwin from The International Centre for Responsible Tourism believe that a 'one size fits all' approach to sustainable tourism is not a solution either in terms of offering consumers a useful point of reference, or indeed in the future advancement of the responsible tourism industry. They are calling for a debate around these issues. See www.responsibletravel.com/GSTCdebate to support their campaign and tell us what you think here…

Author	Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version
Olly Wheatcroft Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Visit Members Homepage Add to Buddy List Admin Group Joined: 23 Jul 2007 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 14	Quote Reply Topic: Debate on The Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria Posted: 13 Jul 2009 at 4:44pm
	Justin Francis of responsibletravel.com and Harold Goodwin from The International Centre for Responsible Tourism believe that a 'one size fits all' approach to sustainable tourism is not a solution either in terms of offering consumers a useful point of reference, or indeed in the future advancement of the responsible tourism industry. They are calling for a debate around these issues. See www.responsibletravel.com/GSTCdebate to support their campaign and tell us what you think here…

Harold Goodwin Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Guest Group	Quote Reply Posted: 15 Jul 2009 at 10:04am
	The Weaknesses of the Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria Approach The case for global sustainable tourism criteria has not been made. A coalition of 32 organisations, the Partnership for Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria has spent two years developing sustainable tourism criteria and we understand that these criteria are intended to constitute the “minimum standard that any tourism business should aspire to reach in order to protect and sustain the world’s natural and cultural resources while ensuring tourism meets its potential as a tool for poverty alleviation.” The Inter-American Development Bank is piloting a Tourism Sustainability Scorecard based on the 52 criteria of the GSTC. The pilot will be completed in November 2009. This Tourism Sustainability Scorecard is the latest effort by the Rainforest Alliance to breathe life into the Sustainable Tourism Stewardship Council (STSC) which it has been pursuing since 2003.(1) We believe that the approach is fundamentally flawed and that the resources which have been spent in developing the criteria would be better invested in tangible initiatives to bring to market and transparently report on the actual sustainability and livelihood impacts. The Partnership reports that the draft criteria have been commented on by 2,500 stakeholders and that 4,500 criteria have been analysed.(2) Will this contribution be reported and shared? There are significant weaknesses in the Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria. 1. The Forest Stewardship Council is the model for the STSC. The FSC has been in operation since 1996. Data on market share is scarce, but FSC Germany in 2005 estimated that 4.3% of pulp and paper was FSC certified.(3) Market penetration remains stubbornly low and marginal. 2. The success of the FSC model is questionable and that seeks to create a market premium, for timber, a far less complex product than a holiday or tourism experience. No process of certifying properties can produce a sustainable tourism experience because of the range of activities and impacts not least of the consumer in the destination. The tourist is not merely a consumer, the tourists also have impacts which they need to be challenged to take responsibility for. 3. The criteria are no more than a “wish list”, in the words of the Partnership for Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria “the criteria indicate what should be done, not how to do it or whether the goal has been achieved”. This is another process based initiative which fails to report what has been achieved in reducing water consumption, greenhouse gas emissions per bed night or waste. There is no intention in the STC to measure or report on outcomes. 4. The criteria are very varied and are not clearly ranked. It is not clear that paying less than the legal minimum wage (B.10) is more or less important than waste treatment of carbon emissions. Is using architectural design and decoration harmonious with local traditions (C4) as important as paying above the legal minimum wage? What ranking criteria is the Partnership for Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria going to apply? 5. The certification process is opaque. The consumer cannot know what the tourism business has achieved. Nor is the claim part of the contract between the consumer and the supplier, the consumer cannot take action for breach of contract if the supplied goods and services do not meet the standards claimed. The consumer has no contractual relationship with the certifying agency and cannot seek redress against them for any error of certification. 6. The Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria Certification lacks clear outcome deliverables, meaning and local significance – there is no effort within the scheme to overcome this market weakness. 7. The 52 criteria in the IADB Tourism Sustainability Scorecard reflect the wide range of issues which those consulted have identified. Any cursory examination reveals that the issues are not of equal importance and that they do not reflect the cultural and ecological diversity of the world we live in. Aside from atmospheric and water pollution impacts are local and decisions about priorities should and will be taken locally. Prioritising locally significant issues is important to achieving significant improvement in sustainability –address the import issues rather than secure points for the merely “nice to have”. The case for certification has not yet been made. I know of no substantial evidence that certification delivers for the businesses which fund it or the public agencies which have subsidised and promoted it. If there is evidence that 1. sustainable tourism certification increases the market share of businesses that adopt it, or that 2. there is consumer demand for certification, or that 3. the environmental impacts of tourism have been reduced and that tourism has consequently become more sustainable. Now is the time to share that evidence. I look forward to seeing it. Good news would be welcome. (1) “Sustainable Tourism Stewardship Council: raising the standards a nd benefits of sustainable tourism and ecotourism certification” (Rainforest Alliance, Final report, March 2003) (2) h ttp://www.sustainabletourismcriteria.org/index.php?option=com_surveys&Itemid=32&act=view_survey&survey=GSTC%20User%20Questionnaire (3) http://www.fsc.org/fileadmin/web-data/public/document_center/powerpoints_graphs/facts_figures/2008-01-01_FSC_market_info_pack_-_FINAL.pdf

Xavier Font Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Guest Group	Quote Reply Posted: 21 Jul 2009 at 11:11am
	Certification is not new for tourism, and it has not proven to be the market-based tool that we had all hoped for a few years ago, when I edited the first book on tourism ecolabelling and was main consultant for the Sustainable Tourism Stewardship Council. The academic research done on certification has shown that social standards are weaker, that there are serious challenges for small firms to meet the standards, and that the contents of the standards is not market led and has little significance to the consumer in the purchase process. I believe there is a place for setting standards and showing compliance, but considerable changes need to take place for certificaiton to be a cost effective tool for sustainable production and consumption. This does not mean we should stop trying, but we need to be careful not to develop overly complex, expensive and politicised structures that do not deliver tangible results.

Chris Warren Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Newbie Joined: 30 Sep 2009 Location: Australia Online Status: Offline Posts: 1	Quote Reply Posted: 30 Sep 2009 at 9:44am
	Here are my initial thoughts 1. Taking such a broad approach lacks depth and thus we will only achieve a superficial level of commitment with poor results. 2. The danger in using a worldwide certification branding strategy is that we will encourage the commoditization of tourism experience, exactly what we don't want. 3. There is no linking resources to aid operators. There is a danger that poor analysis will lead to a less than complete picture of strategic sustainable options e.g. most carbon calculators do not fore fill the scope small businesses require, nor do they go beyond Kyoto principals i.e. include air travel 4. The bench marking offered by some certification schemes do not take into account different circumstances. This then gives us an unrealistic world wide bench mark e.g. self contained cottages in rural Australia which collect their own rainwater with live in manger verses cottages in New York State with town water and no resident manager. The water consumption and waste levels will be completely different (I know because I've done this exercise) 5. Certification is not a simple process that you can "add on" to your business. The strategies employed to become sustainable should emanate from ones core brand values thus creating a distinctive proposition. 6. I am not sure why the Tourism Sustainability Scorecard focuses on only Turtles (D2.7) when here in Australia we are about to lose many species from the affects of Climate Change. The thinking must be applied to the different circumstances of the local terrain and biodiversity. In Kangaroo Valley, Australia, we have established a tourism collective commitment to improve our environmental footprint and this has generated increased sales (validated by the National Visitors Survey). The scheme cost our association 20% of our annual income to set up (and lots of volunteer time), but the program is free to members. Furthermore we are happy to share our knowledge and tools to aid others www.visitkangaroovalley.com.au and follow the side bar navigation entitled carbon neutral. However, we would not simply apply the exact same model in other countries e.g. Saudi Arabia because in this market the Quran is the guide to life and its principals advise on "balance". To achieve this balance and encourage others to follow one would apply the teachings of Prophet Mohammed. This would result in a true program appropriate for the people of Saudi Arabia and reflect their culture. They would not necessarily welcome a world wide sustainability program that does not appreciate their rich culture. Therefore the TSS will not appeal to many cultures and peoples. Destinations with Tourist Operator Collectives can both reduce the negative environmental footprint of tourism and drive income to the local community. Their stewardship is by way of local leadership, knowing local issues, applying local solutions that deliver a USP. Otherwise we're all going to end up offering the same sustainable "supermarket" experience, the exact reverse of what bicultural diversity has taught us. Edited by Chris Warren - 30 Sep 2009 at 9:45am

pruepayne Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Newbie Joined: 02 Oct 2009 Location: United Kingdom Online Status: Offline Posts: 1	Quote Reply Posted: 09 Oct 2009 at 4:21pm
	At its core the GSTC aims to unite the international model of sustainable tourism with a set of unified criteria to which each and every business in the industry should aspire. The criteria included in the GSTC focus on sustainable management, socio-economic, cultural heritage and environmental aspects of tourism and have drawn upon the merits of numerous other labels to arguably create the most extensive set of criteria yet seen within a certification programme. Certification programmes, however, are not without their flaws and the GSTC is not immune to the critiques that have plagued many of its rivals. My own small scale project into certification schemes highlighted some interesting results which in the main corresponded with much of the existing literature on the subject. I analysed the findings from two perspectives, the consumer and the enterprise. What the GSTC, as well as many of its contenders in certification, does not do is address the consumer profile to which it is aimed. The demand for sustainable lifestyles, I found, does exist, but without the funding, marketing and promotion to push these labels into the limelight there simply is not the consumer demand for certification. This is particularly apparent when the consumer is unaware of what the label represents and for what it has been awarded. It is fundamental that labels are truly transparent. The consumer is a skeptical beast that needs to trust what it is buying into understand fully the implications involved in not only the label, but their current purchasing decisions. From the enterprise perspective the confusion surrounding ecocertification is perhaps even more perplexing. There exists a very real pressure to work towards sustainable tourism and certification proves to be one way for businesses to ‘prove’ their efforts and be awarded a label in return. In reality many businesses do not need to alter many of their existing practices as the labels can often be too simplistic in their criteria, thus exacerbating the greenwash affect that is plaguing the market. For those businesses wanting the more elite of labels a substantial amount of money can be frequently invested and as of yet there is no evidence to suggest that this investment is worthwhile, especially as previously noted there is little consumer demand for the labels. Ultimately a business will want an increased market share for the efforts made and this aspect has not been openly addressed by the GSTC. Equally there appears to be little information supplied as to how the objectives of the scheme are to become a reality for the enterprises involved. Most crucial in this debate is the ‘one size fits all’. Where the GSTC differs from most certification schemes is the global market into which it is aimed and the presumption that one set of criteria can be applicable to all countries involved both on a national and local scale. This is potentially its unique selling point but also its largest downfall. The GSTC cannot guarantee that this certification label will become embedded within the consumer conscience in the tourism industry and cannot therefore reassure the enterprises involved that they will reap the tangible benefits of financial investment within certification. It not only the consumer that requires trust in a label, but the enterprises also. Despite such critiques, however, it is important to note that these schemes do promote a more sustainable management system within the market. If those involved, even on a small scale, can become more economically, socially and ecologically more responsible in their actions just to be rewarded with a label then it is to be commended. Certification is by no means failing to alter the face of responsible tourism, it is just a much slower process than previously assumed. Certification needs international support by the governments, businesses and crucially the public to succeed in its objectives, without any one of these the certification schemes will only continue to penetrate a much smaller percentage of the market than its potential suggests.
	Prue

Debate on The Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria

The Weaknesses of the Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria Approach