An evaluation of the use of eco-labelling within the
eco-tourism sector
By
Wanjiku Mwangi Githinji
Thesis presented in part-fulfilment of the degree of Master of Science in accordance with
the regulations of the University of East Anglia
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
University Plain
Norwich
NR4 7TJ
August 2006
© 2006 Wanjiku Githinji
This copy of the dissertation has been supplied on condition that anyone who consults it
is understood to recognise that its copyright rests with the author and that no quotation
from the dissertation, nor any information derived therefrom, may be published without
the author’s prior written consent. Moreover, it is supplied on the understanding that it
represents an internal University document and that neither the University nor the author
are responsible for the factual or interpretive correctness of the dissertation.
1
ABSTRACT
Business and industry have a critical role in helping the world achieve Agenda 21 goals
for sustainable development, which are based on the concept that the integrity of the
environment and the economy are inextricably inter-linked. They can do this by
implementing environmental management tools that allow them to develop techniques
and technologies, such as eco-labels, which reduce harmful environmental impacts and
also meet customer expectations consistently in the most cost efficient manner.
An eco-label seeks to inform consumers about the environmental impacts of the products
and services consumed. Eco-labels are designed as a benchmark of excellence and are
meant to encourage a switch towards more environmentally friendly consumption habits.
Tourism eco-labels can therefore be used to communicate to tourists about environmental
issues.
The overall objective of this study was to develop a best-practice framework for ecolabelling in eco-tourism, and thereafter apply it to three specific case studies: the
Ecotourism Society of Kenya’s (ESOK) eco-rating scheme, Green Globe 21’s tourism
certification program, and Ecotourism Australia’s Eco-Certification Program.
The
framework was based on the principles of eco-tourism and eco-labelling, and included
both the nature and operation of the eco-tourism facilities.
All three programs performed well against the best practice framework, and a number of
recommendations were thereafter made regarding potential improvements to the ESOK
eco-rating scheme. These recommendations included: collaboration with other eco-labels,
complementary initiatives and networks; establishing procedures for revising and
amending certification criteria; and ensuring that auditors have the necessary skills to
carry out verification audits.
Keywords: best practice, eco-labelling, eco-tourism, Eco-tourism Society of Kenya,
tourism certification programs.
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables
5
List of Figures
6
List of Abbreviations
7
Acknowledgements
8
1
2
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 9
RESEARCH BACKGROUND ................................................................................ 11
2.1
Tourism ............................................................................................................. 11
2.2
Eco-tourism....................................................................................................... 14
2.3
Eco-tourism in Kenya ....................................................................................... 15
2.4
Eco-labelling ..................................................................................................... 16
2.5
Eco-labelling for eco-tourism ........................................................................... 18
2.6
Limitations of eco-tourism eco-labels .............................................................. 23
2.7
Justification ....................................................................................................... 24
3
METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 27
3.1
Overview........................................................................................................... 27
3.2
Best practice framework ................................................................................... 27
3.2.1
Developing the practice framework.......................................................... 27
3.2.2
The main stages of the best practice framework....................................... 29
3.2.3
The best practice framework..................................................................... 30
3.2.4
Criteria not included within the best practice framework:....................... 42
3.3
Comparative design and critical evaluation...................................................... 43
3.4
Potential weaknesses of this research method .................................................. 44
3.4.1
Subjectivity................................................................................................ 44
4
RESULTS ................................................................................................................. 45
4.1
Overview........................................................................................................... 45
4.2
Setting the standards ......................................................................................... 50
4.2.1
Certification development......................................................................... 53
4.2.2
The program.............................................................................................. 56
4.2.3
Guidance and advice................................................................................. 56
4.2.4
Existing operations ................................................................................... 57
4.2.5
The eco-label............................................................................................. 57
4.3
Assessment........................................................................................................ 57
4.3.1
Environmental Criteria............................................................................. 60
4.3.2
Economic criteria...................................................................................... 62
4.3.3
Social accountability................................................................................. 62
4.3.4
Cultural criteria ........................................................................................ 62
4.3.5
Destination resource protection criteria .................................................. 63
4.3.6
Process-based criteria .............................................................................. 63
4.3.7
The assessment.......................................................................................... 63
4.4
Certifying the assessment ................................................................................. 64
3
4.4.1
Assessment carried out by trained auditors.............................................. 64
4.5
Accrediting certification ................................................................................... 64
4.6
Recognition of the value of the eco-label ......................................................... 65
4.6.1
Publicly available label standards............................................................ 65
5
DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................... 67
5.1
Overview........................................................................................................... 67
5.2
Assumptions...................................................................................................... 67
5.3
Critical evaluation of ESOK’s eco-rating scheme ............................................ 67
5.3.1
Setting the standards................................................................................. 68
5.3.2
Assessment ................................................................................................ 72
5.3.3
Certifying the assessment.......................................................................... 74
5.3.4
Accrediting certification ........................................................................... 74
5.3.5
Recognition of the value of the eco-label.................................................. 75
6
CONCLUSION......................................................................................................... 77
7
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 78
4
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Examples of different types of tourism
Table 2
Potential benefits of tourism eco-labels
Table 3
Developing the best practice framework
Table 4
Applying the best practice framework to the eco-labelling schemes
Table 5
Setting the standards
Table 6
Accommodation categories within the ESOK eco-rating scheme
Table 7
Assessment
Table 8
Certifying the assessment
Table 9
Accrediting certification
Table 10
Recognition of the value of the eco-label
5
LIST OF FIGURES
Box 1
Potential benefits of eco-labels
Box 2
Potential disadvantages of process-based certification programs
Box 3
Potential advantages of performance-based certification programs
6
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ATTA
African Travel and Tourism Association
EIA
Environmental Impact Assessment
EMAS
Eco-Management and Audit Scheme
EMS
Environmental Management Systems
ESOK
Eco-tourism Society of Kenya
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
ISO
International Organisation for Standardization
KTB
Kenya Tourist Board
NEAP
National Ecotourism Accreditation Program
STSC
Sustainable Tourism Stewardship Council
TIES
The International Eco-tourism Society
UNEP
United National Environment Programme
UNEPTIE
United Nations Environment Programme’s Tourism Program
UNESCO
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
WTO
World Tourism Organisation
WTTC
World Travel and Tourism Council
7
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many thanks to my supervisor, Tracey Nitz, for her assistance and guidance.
Special thanks to my parents for their support and encouragement.
8
1 INTRODUCTION
It is estimated that eco-tourism accounts for approximately 20% of total international
travel (TIES, 2000), and when managed appropriately, it generates local employment,
provides local development opportunities and can result in natural conservation
(Diamantis, 2004; Okungu 2001). Therefore, in order to sustain this crucial industry,
technologies and techniques that reduce harmful environmental impacts and contribute to
sustainable development need to be developed and implemented. One such technique is
the use of an eco-label. An eco-label is a voluntary label which seeks to inform
consumers about the environmental impacts of the production, consumption and waste
phases of the products or services consumed (Gallastegui, 2002).
It had been suggested that eco-labels and certification programmes seem to be the best
method to communicate to tourists about environmental issues (Sallows & Font, 2004).
To date, a few schemes have emerged such as:
•
Green Globe 21 which provides tourism operations with a framework to
benchmark their performance, achieve certification and continuously improve
their performance (Spenceley, 2005);
•
Ecotourism Australia’s Eco-Certification Program, which accredits three types of
eco-tourism products: tours, accommodation and attractions (Ecotourism
Australia, 2005);
•
The Blue Flag Campaign which began in the mid-1980’s and specifically
addresses coastal tourism (UNEP et al 1996) and;
•
Fair Trade in Tourism South Africa, a non-profit company registered in South
Africa that promotes sustainable and equitable tourism development through
awareness raising and the facilitation of a voluntary certification programme
(FTTSA, 2005)
9
In 2002, the Kenyan tourism industry established its own eco-rating scheme designed to
further the goals of sustainable tourism by recognizing efforts aimed at promoting
environmental, economic, social and cultural values (ESOK, undated). This voluntary
initiative encourages tourism facilities to work towards three different levels of
certification, and in turn allows the facilities to use the scheme’s logo to promote their
business (ESOK, 2002).
10
2
2.1
RESEARCH BACKGROUND
Tourism
By the late 1990s, the travel and tourism industry topped the list of the world’s largest
industries, reaping US$ 5.3 trillion in export earnings in 1998 alone, equivalent to 11% of
the global gross domestic product (GDP) (Honey & Stewart, 2002a). The increase in the
demand for tourism resulted from factors such as: an increase in leisure time; a
significant growth in real income; increased mobility; as well as technological
improvements in communications and international transportation (Wearing & Nell,
1999). The sheer size of the industry therefore makes it extremely important to consider
its environmental impacts (Chambers, 2004) as well as its social, cultural and economic
impacts.
Since the move away from the mass-tourism approach due to its significantly adverse
environmental impacts, and the subsequent emergence of the word eco-tourism in the
1980’s, eco-tourism has co-evolved with a number of related terms including sustainable
tourism, alternative tourism and nature-based tourism, all of which have been used
interchangeably but incorrectly with it (Weaver, 2001). The table below therefore
provides definitions of the different forms of tourism, as well as various key issues
related to their characteristics:
Table 1: Examples of different types of tourism
Type of
tourism
Mass tourism
Definition
Characteristics
Tourism which has traditionally
•
Large numbers of tourists
lacked interest in the
related to a circuit of mass
environmental, social or
production;
economic impacts of its actions
beyond aspects concerning its
•
Collective consumption by
undifferentiated tourists and;
economic performance.
11
•
Undifferentiated products
(similarity of facilities and
experiences).
Sustainable
A guide and goal for all types of
Tourism
tourism in all types of
environmental resources that
destinations, which creates a
constitute a key element in
balance between social,
tourism development, while
environmental, cultural and
helping to conserve natural
economic interests.
heritage and biodiversity;
•
•
Makes optimal use of the
Respects the socio-cultural
authenticity of host
communities, conserves their
built and living cultural heritage
and traditional values, and
contributes to inter-cultural
understanding and tolerance
and;
•
Ensures viable, long-term
economic operations by
providing equally distributed
socio-economic benefits to all
stakeholders.
Alternative
Forms of tourism that are
Tourism
consistent with natural, social
protection and enhancement of
and community values, and
the quality of the resource base
allow both hosts and guests to
which is fundamental to tourism
enjoy positive and worthwhile
itself;
interaction and shared
•
•
experiences.
Attempted preservation,
Emphasis on ecological as well
as cultural sustainability;
•
Avoids the negative impacts of
12
many large-scale tourism areas
in previously undeveloped areas
and;
•
Economic growth which
improves local conditions but
does not exceed the carrying
capacity of the natural or social
environment.
Nature-based
Travel to unspoiled places to
tourism
experience and enjoy nature.
•
Developed in order to conserve
or protect natural areas;
•
Takes place in natural settings
and;
•
Focuses on specific elements of
the natural environment.
Ecotourism
Responsible travel to natural
•
Minimises impact;
areas that conserves the
•
Builds environmental
environment and improves the
well-being of local people.
awareness;
•
Provides direct financial
benefits for conservation;
•
Locally owned infrastructure
and use of local materials and;
•
Indigenous operations of
enterprises.
(Adapted from: Chambers, 2004; Hall & Boyd, 2005; Honey, 1999; Honey & Stewart,
2002a; Shaw & Williams, 2004; Sindiga, 1999; Tepelus, 2005; Toth, 2002; Wearing &
Neil, 1999; Welford et al, 1999; WTO, 2004)
13
2.2
Eco-tourism
Eco-tourism refers to a segment within the tourism sector, a kind of sustainable tourism,
based on nature and usually following a distinct set of principles and good practice (Bien,
2003). It is this type of tourism that is the focus of this research.
Weaver (2001) explains that the word eco-tourism first appeared within academic
literature in an article entitled ‘Tourism and the environment – towards a symbiotic
approach’ by Romeril (1985) in reference to an earlier paper by Budowski (1976), which
is often cited as one of the earliest references to the concept of eco-tourism. In this article,
Budowski recognized that the relationship between tourism and the natural environment
tended to be one of conflict, but that the potential existed for a relationship based on
symbiosis or mutual benefit (Weaver, 2001, p2).
Weaver (2001) argues that eco-tourism clearly existed as both a concept and a practice
long before the coinage of the term in the mid-1980s, but the new term was quickly
embraced by practitioners and academics as the preferred word for describing tourism
that is environmentally focused and responsible.
The International Ecotourism Society (TIES) defines eco-tourism as responsible travel to
natural areas that conserves the environment and improves the well-being of local people
(Honey, 1999). However, many eco-tourism proponents and practitioners have come to
believe that the principles of eco-tourism should cover all types of locations (urban,
beach, ocean, countryside and mountain destinations) and not only be limited to natural
and fragile areas (Honey & Stewart, 2002a). This is also the premise of this study.
As a development tool, eco-tourism can also advance the following basic goals of the
Convention on Biological Diversity:
•
Conserve biological and cultural diversity by strengthening private and public
protected area management systems and increasing the value of sound
ecosystems;
14
•
Promote the sustainable use of biodiversity by generating income, jobs and
business opportunities in eco-tourism and related business networks and;
•
Share the benefits of eco-tourism developments equitably with local communities
and indigenous people, by obtaining their informed consent and full participation
in the planning and management of eco-tourism businesses (UNEPTIE, 2002)
2.3
Eco-tourism in Kenya
Honey (1999) refers to Kenya as the mzee (elder statesman) of nature tourism and ecotourism in Africa. By 2001/2002, tourism in Kenya had generated approximately Kshs
23.9 billion (over £250 million euro), contributed 8.7% of the GDP, 6.8% of total
employment and 19.2% of total export earnings, as its wildlife and white-sand beaches
attracted about 780,000 tourists annually (NEMA, 2004).
Okungu (2001) proposes that Kenya’s tourism primarily relies on bio-diversity
conservation, which is the basis of eco-tourism, as its 66 conservation areas cover 8% of
the country’s land area, with a large variety of animals, plants and unique land forms
(NEMA, 2004). The country is now one of the global leaders in community-based ecotourism, working with the many local tribes to develop innovative ways to protect the
environment and local culture (Kenya Tourist Board, undated).
The Eco-tourism Society of Kenya (ESOK) was founded in 1996 and is a body whose
objectives include:
•
Fostering tourism practices which conserve the country’s natural environment
and improve the life of associated communities;
•
Developing a framework of environmental management standards for tourist
attractions and facilities and;
•
Devising and publishing eco-tourism regulations and codes of conduct (Okungu,
2001).
15
ESOK’s eco-rating scheme was therefore established in 2002 and eco-rating is defined as
a systematic approach for verifying a tourism organisation’s performance when evaluated
against an agreed suite of environmental, social and cultural criteria (ESOK, undated).
All successful candidates receive a certificate of recognition and are allowed to display or
use the scheme’s logo on their accredited property and promotional material (ESOK,
undated).
Eco-rating is a form of eco-labelling and the eco-rating scheme provides 3 levels of
certification to its applicants referred to as:
•
Bronze eco-rating, whereby the tourism business has scored between 70-105
points;
•
Silver eco-rating, if the tourism business scores between 106-141 points and;
•
Gold eco-rating when the tourism business scores between 142-177 points
(ESOK, 2002, p9).
These points are based on specific criteria developed by the eco-rating committee, a subcommittee of the ESOK executive committee with representation from a broad crosssection of the tourism industry and beyond (ESOK, 2002).
The following sections explain the development of eco-labelling for eco-tourism
schemes:
2.4
Eco-labelling
Eco-labelling (also referred to as environmental labelling) is ‘the voluntary granting of
labels by a private or public body in order to inform consumers and thereby promote
consumer products which are determined to be environmentally more friendly than other
functionally and competitively similar products’ (Salzman, 1991, p 12). The voluntary
mechanism of eco-labelling programs ensures high standards of environmental
performance beyond legislation (Font, 2002b).
16
Eco-labelling is only one type of environmental performance labelling and refers
specifically to the provision of information to consumers about the relative environmental
quality of a product (GEN, 2004). The International Organization for Standardization
(ISO) guidance has developed the following three types of voluntary environmental
performance labels (Gallastegui, 2002; IISD 2001a; ISO 2002):
a) Type I (or eco-labels) are the products of third-party certification programs and
refer to the environmental quality of a product compared with the rest of the
products. They relate to the entire life cycle of the product and are designated as
ISO 140424;
b) Type II labels are one-sided environmental claims by importers, manufacturers or
distributors that refer to specific attributes of the product. They are designated as
ISO 14021, and;
c) Type III labels, which use preset indices and give quantified product information.
These types of labels are designated as ISO/TR 14025.
This focus of this research is on the use of eco-labels, i.e. type 1 labels, within ecotourism schemes. Eco-labels are often designed as a benchmark of excellence (Boer,
2003) and are meant to encourage a switch towards more environmentally friendly
consumption habits (Gallastegui, 2002). As this is a relatively new academic discipline,
there is a lack of rigorous scientific evidence on the definite benefits of eco-labels. A
summary of the potential benefits is therefore provided in the box below, while an
evaluation of the use of eco-labelling within eco-tourism in provided in the following
section:
Box 1: Potential benefits of eco-labels
Promote informed consumer choice thus empowering people to discriminate against
products that are harmful to the environment
Show consumers whether a product is the least environmentally harmful in its
category and not just whether it can satisfy the criteria to make a particular
advertising claim;
17
Improve economic efficiency as they allow manufacturers to make environmentally
beneficial decisions and promote technological innovation;
Provide economic benefits to participants and therefore promote beyond compliance
environmental protection
Enhance market development, as consumers therefore have a direct impact on supply
and demand in the market place, which in turn guides the market towards greater
environmental protection;
Provide industry with a marketing tool;
Promote continual environmental improvement as long as the market for eco-labelled
products remains dynamic;
Enable easy monitoring of claims made by manufacturers and;
Promote certification programs, which have an educational role for customers and
encourage competition among manufacturers
(Source: IISD, 2001b; Rivera, 2002; Salzhaeur, 1991)
2.5
Eco-labelling for eco-tourism
It is argued that the placing of the term ‘eco’ in front of the word tourism has often
resulted in great debate as to what its intent actually is, and in what circumstances it can
actually be applied (Maclaren, 2002).
Maclaren (2002) explains that eco-tourism
organisations such as TIES have therefore supported the development of consistent,
uniform standards of accreditation and certification to establish operational clarity.
It is important to note that the focus of this study remains on eco-tourism certification
schemes, as opposed to accreditation processes. Certification involves a third party giving
written assurance that a product, process, service or management system conforms to
specified requirements (Maclaren, 2002). This differs from accreditation, where an
authoritative body verifies the competence of those doing the certifying or auditing
(Maclaren, 2002). However, certification is only one of a suite of tools required to make
tourism sustainable, and other effective and credible schemes need to be complemented
18
by education, regulation and comprehensive land-use planning (Synergy, 2000; ESOK,
2000).
Certification is a valid instrument used to gather local stakeholders around the common
purpose of defining standards that improve the contribution of tourism to sustainable
development (Font, 2002a). The World Tourism Organisation (WTO) justifies the
importance of certification systems for tourism as they can play an increasing role in
regulating tourism operations as voluntary instruments above legal frameworks. This is
because they address:
a) The environmental performance of companies, operations and destinations;
b) Product quality and;
c) Corporate social responsibility of operations (WTO, 2003).
Tourism certification programmes have, for the most part, been developed by the industry
itself (Synergy, 2000). The oldest of the modern-day tourism certification programs were
established by industry associations and were aimed at measuring quality and cost, along
with health, hygiene, and safety of tourism accommodations, sites and attractions, or
simply measuring the qualifications of tourism professionals (Honey & Stewart, 2002b).
However, in the 1990s, the global environmental movement and rapid expansion of ecotourism stimulated the development of a variety of certification programs that
incorporated environmental, and increasingly socioeconomic, criteria (Honey & Stewart,
2002b).
Certification programs and eco-labels are a departure from the command-and-control
approach traditionally used by environmental policy which, as Rivera (2002) explains
involved mandatory regulations as the preferred policy instrument for promoting
environmental protection. Over the past few years, the command-and-control approach
has been heavily criticized for being costly, inefficient and legalistic, as well as an
obstacle to the improvement of business competitiveness (Rivera, 2002).
19
Certification programs within the travel and tourism industry are usually divided into two
methodologies: (a) process-based using internally created environmental management
systems tailored to a particular business and; (b) performance-based, using externally set
environmental, socio-cultural and economic criteria (or benchmarks) against which a
business is judged (Maclaren, 2002).
Process-based certification programs are all variations of environmental management
systems (EMS) (Honey & Stewart, 2002b). The British Standards Institute defines EMS
as the organisational structure, responsibilities, practices, procedures and resources for
determining and implementing an environmental policy (Netherwood, 1998). EMS was a
tool used primarily within the manufacturing and chemical industry, but since a larger
variety of industries are asking how it could assist them in meeting their environmental
goals and objectives (Barnes & Jerman, 2002), it is now also being used as a tool for
managing the environmental impacts of tourism facilities. Of the formal EMS’s, the two
most commonly used are: ISO 14001, an international standard; as well as the EcoManagement and Audit Scheme (EMAS), which is European Union legislation (Hillary,
2004).
Potential advantages of EMS include their versatility and applicability across industries
and within different industry sectors (Honey & Stewart, 2002b), as well as the fact that
they ensure continual improvement (Sanabria et al, 2003). However, when applied
specifically to eco-tourism, critics of these schemes have suggested a number of
disadvantages. These are provided in the box below:
Box 2: Potential disadvantages of process-based certification programs
High cost, as ISO 14001 certification (excluding compliance) can cost between $500
and $15,000 making it extremely expensive for all but the largest hotels;
Complicated and heavily engineering-oriented process;
Insufficient to guarantee sustainable practices as no minimum threshold is met
They do not cover social, cultural and economic impacts;
The environmental aspects they address may ignore those that are important to host
20
communities, conservation and tourists;
They are less useful to consumers as certified organisations cannot be compared to
each another because there are no common standards and;
They can permit an organisation to earn a logo for setting up a management system,
even though its performance record may be less sustainable than that of other
companies.
(Adapted from: Honey & Stewart, 2002b; Sanabria et al, 2003)
Performance-based certification programs on the other hand, require each company to
reach a threshold level and pre-specified targets, therefore guaranteeing a baseline
performance (Sanabria et al, 2003). This means that they are complex and require
detailed, context-specific adaptation as, for example, what is considered appropriate
consumption of a natural resource in one region is not necessarily the same in another
(Sanabria et al, 2003). Suggested benefits of performance-based certification programs
are provided in the box below:
Box 3: Potential advantages of performance-based certification programs
They are less expensive and therefore applicable to small-to-medium sized
enterprises1 such as eco-tourism facilities;
They can include checklists that are easily comprehensible to both businesses and
consumers;
They measure achievement, not intent, and therefore can promote sustainable
development;
They allow comparison among businesses or products;
They typically involve a range of stakeholders;
They measure performance both within and outside the business and;
They include social, cultural, economic and environmental criteria
(Adapted from Honey & Stewart, 2002b)
1
The European Commission (EC, 2005) defines small-to-medium sized enterprises as enterprises which
employ less than 250 persons, have an annual turnover of not more than 50 million euro, and/or an annual
balance sheet not exceeding 43 million euro.
21
An increasing number of certification programs are now including a mix of both process
and performance standards (Honey & Stewart, 2002b), so as to ensure sound
management practices within an actual performance based framework (Sanabria et al,
2003).The main advantage of this approach is that it has the added benefit of allowing for
sub-sector specific criteria to be developed (such as for accommodation, tour operators
and transport providers), as each sub-sector has different priorities (Sanabria et al, 2003).
This is also the premise of this research.
A tourism eco-label is therefore the award given to a business or activity which meets the
certification criteria, and the following table presents a list of the potential benefits:
Table 2: Potential benefits of tourism eco-labels
Benefactor
Benefits
Governments
Lowers the regulatory costs of environmental protection and;
Helps governments to protect their market niches as ecotourism
destinations, especially when the credibility of the destination is
threatened.
Local
Requires tourism enterprises to respect local culture;
communities
Provides real economic and social benefits and;
Used as a tool to gain increased social equity.
Tourism industry
Limits tourism’s negative environmental impacts by pressuring
tourism enterprises to monitor their environmental performance;
Improves industry practices by encouraging environmentally
sensitive business operations;
Assists the tourism industry in developing standards for
environmentally sensitive tourism services and products and;
Can be extended to certify the environmental soundness of tourist
destinations as well as the natural resources at these destinations.
Tourism
Valid method to show best practice and industry leadership;
enterprises
Reduces operating costs through increased process efficiency;
Improves environmental performance;
22
Provides companies with a marketing advantage over their
competitors;
Promotes the environmental achievements of companies via
marketing campaigns (display of award logos, press releases, etc)
and;
Serves as an incentive for companies to maintain and improve
environmental performance standards, thereby reducing
environmental impacts.
Tourists
Educates tourists regarding the impacts of tourism-related
activities and decisions;
Prompts tourists to act in favor of environmentally sensitive
tourism enterprises through their purchasing decisions and;
Enables tourists to make informed choices while selecting tourism
enterprises for their vacations.
(Adapted from: Bien, 2003; Honey & Stewart, 2002b; Sallows & Font, 2004; Sanabria et
al, 2003; Sasidharan et al, 2002; Starkey, 1998)
2.6
Limitations of eco-tourism eco-labels
Even with all the potential benefits listed in the table above, very few tourism industries
actually operate eco-labels. A worldwide inventory of voluntary initiatives for sustainable
tourism carried out in 2001 by WTO, identified approximately sixty eco-labels and
certificates for environmentally friendly and sustainable tourism practices (WTO, 2002).
Critics of these schemes remain suspicious of the effectiveness of voluntary initiatives to
promote environmental protection (Rivera, 2002) for the following reasons:
a) Font (2002a) explains that there are too many tourism eco-labels, with different
meanings, criteria, geographical scope, confusing messages, limited expertise and
expensive systems, only partly meeting the requirements of the process of
compliance assessment. The result has been confusion for the few consumers who
23
are aware of certification programs to the point of preferring to ignore them (Bien,
2003; Font, 2002a);
b) Eco-labelling is based on the assumption that there is public demand for green
labels (Hamele, 2004). However, research suggests that there are clear differences
between consumer environmental purchasing claims and actual consumer
behaviour (Font, 2002b);
c) Font (2002b) explains that few programs can claim that their applicants increase
business because of being certified or displaying an eco-label, although some
companies have stated that they are more likely to have repeated (or satisfied)
visitors, thanks to the improvements made to be certified and not necessarily
because of being certified;
d) Sasidharan et al (2002) explain that there is growing concern that the small-scale
tourism enterprises of developing countries would not be well-equipped to
conform to the environmental standards and criteria set by international ecolabelling schemes organised in developed nations.
e) Other criticisms of tourism eco-labels include the fact that they are expensive,
they require time, and the criteria tend to focus on environmental management,
not environmental performance (Font, 2002a).
2.7
Justification
To date, there has been a variety of academic literature that critically evaluates the
benefits of eco-labelling, addresses the environmental, economic and social impacts of
eco-tourism, and investigates the criteria used within eco-tourism certification schemes
and eco-labels. Examples include:
24
•
Research conducted to evaluate how well four different certification schemes
addressed social, environmental and economic criteria. The study found that all
the schemes placed more emphasis on environmental criteria and proposed that
further research be conducted to investigate the extent to which enterprises and
authorities have successfully implemented these criteria, as this would have
important implications for the validity of the certification systems’ criteria
(Spenceley, 2004);
•
Research carried out for the World Wide Fund for Nature (Synergy, 2002) which
provided the tourism sector and all other interested parties with an objective,
independent analysis of the current state of tourism certification and;
•
A report on certification and accreditation in sustainable tourism governance
which was used to inform discussion with regards to the feasibility and
desirability of using agency funds for certification and accreditation as tools for
sustainable development, with particular emphasis on developing countries (Font,
2002b). The paper emphasised the necessity of undertaking a cost-benefit analysis
of certification as a sustainable development tool in developing countries.
However, there has not been much work that not only addresses the role of eco-labelling
in eco-tourism, but also attempts to identify what constitutes best practice and apply it to
a specific case study.
Therefore the overall objective of this study was to develop a best practice framework to
evaluate the ESOK eco-rating scheme and make specific recommendations for
improvements of the scheme.
The specific aims were to:
1) Develop a best practice framework for eco-labelling in eco-tourism;
25
2) Critically evaluate the use of eco-labelling in the eco-tourism sector based on a case
study of ESOK’s eco-rating scheme and thereafter make recommendations for its
improvement and;
3) Compare the ESOK eco-labelling scheme with the following eco-tourism certification
programs:
a) Green Globe 21, which in 1994 became the first tourism certification program to
operate at an international level (Sanabria et al, 2003). This program was selected
because it is the world’s only truly global tourism certification program (Koeman
et al, 2002) and has the greatest international reach (Synergy, 2000). Green Globe
was developed from Agenda 21’s principles for sustainable development as they
apply to travel and tourism (Koeman et al, 2002).
The program has four separate standards that are applicable for companies,
communities, ecotourism enterprises, and design and construction activities
(Spenceley, 2005). The study focused on Green Globe 21’s international ecotourism standard, which addresses environmental, social and economic issues;
b) Ecotourism Australia’s Eco-Certification Program, a tourism industry initiative
which has two levels of certification: ecotourism and advanced ecotourism
(Ecotourism Australia, 2003 & 2005). The program was originally launched in
January 1996 as the National Ecotourism Accreditation Program (NEAP)
(Ecotourism Australia, 2003), and was selected as a basis for comparison because
it was developed by the Australian tourism industry, and has therefore drawn on
previous and international experiences to develop a scheme that best reflects its
own local conditions.
26
3
METHODOLOGY
3.1
Overview
The research conducted for this dissertation was desk-based, consisting of an extensive
literature review in order to develop a best practice framework for eco-labelling within
eco-tourism. This was followed by comparative analysis and critical evaluation to
determine the relationship between the three certification schemes selected, as well as
how they related to best practice.
3.2
3.2.1
Best practice framework
Developing the practice framework
The best practice framework was based on the principles of eco-tourism and ecolabelling, and included both the nature and the operation of the eco-tourism facilities. It
was also developed after taking into account the main problems and/or limitations
affecting eco-labelling for eco-tourism, a summary of which can be found in section 2.6.
The framework was designed as a checklist containing a range of 64 criteria that would
need to be present in order for best practice to be carried out, and is therefore not
necessarily what currently happens. The criteria selected were based upon the frequency
with which they were mentioned in a variety of scientific literature (i.e., more than once)
by academic experts in the field of eco-tourism and certification.
In order to develop the framework, an extensive review of academic literature and other
guidance on eco-labelling and eco-tourism was carried out. The main sources of this
information included:
27
a) Scientific literature:
There were a number of journal articles and books that detailed the certification process,
eco-labelling, as well as international eco-tourism initiatives. These included journals
such as: Tourism Management; Journal of Sustainable Tourism; Journal of Cleaner
Production; Sustainable Development and Business Strategy and the Environment. Books
included: Eco-tourism and certification: setting standards in practice (Honey, 2002);
Ecotourism and sustainable development: Who owns paradise? (Honey, 1999);
Environmental labelling in OECD countries (Salzman, 1991) and; Eco-tourism
(Diamantis, 2004).
b) Reports:
Various international organisations conducted studies on certification programs and ecolabels. These documents were accessible via the internet and included: Recommendations
to governments for supporting and/or establishing national certification systems for
sustainable tourism (WTO, 2003); Voluntary initiatives for sustainable tourism:
worldwide inventory and comparative analysis of 104 eco-labels, awards and selfcommitments (WTO, 2002); Sustainable tourism stewardship council: raising the
standards and benefits of sustainable tourism and eco-tourism certification (Sanabria et
al, 2003) and; A simple user’s guide to certification for sustainable tourism and ecotourism (Bien, 2003). A brief summary of a few of the document’s findings can be found
in section 2.7.
c) The internet:
All three programs selected (ESOK eco-rating scheme, Green Globe 21 and Ecotourism
Australia’s Eco Certification Program) had websites containing detailed information on
their schemes. Other international organisations such as WTO, TIES and the United
Nations Environment Programme's Tourism Program (UNEPTIE) also had websites with
extensive bibliographic lists and links to other sites such as: Global Eco-labelling
Network; Consumers Union Guide to Environmental Labelling and; Sustainable Tourism
Stewardship Council.
28
3.2.2 The main stages of the best practice framework
The framework consisted of the following five main stages, adapted from Font (2002a):
a) Setting the standards
This stage involved setting the standards and criteria for developing a certification
program and eco-label.
Criteria for this particular stage were established for: certification development; the
program; participant guidance and advice; whether the eco-label could work in parallel
with existing operations and other initiatives; and the eco-label itself.
b) Assessment
Assessment is the process of examining, measuring, testing or otherwise determining
conformance with requirements specified in an applicable standard, and the criteria used
determine the type of evidence necessary to prove conformity (Font, 2002a). Assessment
is also sometimes referred to as verification or auditing.
This stage included criteria for: standards for performance-based criteria, where an index
of criteria for mitigating the impacts associated with the eco-tourism sector were
developed; standards for process-based criteria; as well as how the assessment should be
carried out.
A mix of both process and performance-based criteria was proposed for this best practice
framework, and the rationalization for this has been provided in greater detail in sections
2.5 and 3.2.3.
c) Certifying the assessment
The certification process is the procedure by which a third party (i.e., the awarding Body)
gives written assurance to the consumer that a product, process, service or management
system conforms to specified requirements (Font, 2002a, p 202).
29
Criteria within this stage included: ensuring that the assessment was initially carried out
by an independent third-party assessor; having trained auditors carry out the assessment;
carrying out random checks of the tourism facility; and periodic follow-up self-audits and
reviews.
d) Accrediting certification
Accreditation Bodies ‘audit the auditors’ and their capacity to certify companies and/or
products (Font, 2002a, p 202). Although accreditation has been criticised for adding one
more layer of verification and bureaucracy, as well as becoming an added expense (Font,
2002a), it is an extremely important stage as it not only builds the credibility and
transparency of the program and eco-label, it also strengthens stakeholder involvement
(Sanabria, 2002).
Criteria within this stage included: having a credible awarding agency and auditor
accreditation.
e) Recognition and acceptance of the eco-label
Font (2002a) explains that the main purposes of these schemes and programs is to lead to
recognition and acceptance by the industry as a strong voluntary standard met by a
crucial mass of players and by the market as a quality symbol as well as a meaningful
difference that influences purchasing behaviour.
This stage therefore set criteria which established whether the label standards and a list of
participating facilities were publicly available.
3.2.3
The best practice framework
The following table presents the framework and provides detailed explanations of the
criteria used to evaluate the three schemes:
30
Table 3: Developing the best practice framework
CRITERIA
1. Setting the standards
(a) Certification
development
Voluntary participation
EXPLANATION
REFERENCES
Is beyond compliance and also
Sallows & Font, 2004
shows best practice and industry
leadership.
Participatory mechanism to
Multi-stakeholder2 involvement
define standards
and collaboration when developing Sindiga, 1999
Boulden et al, 2003;
the standards, as lack of
communication undermines the
credibility of eco-tourism
certification.
Local community input is
extremely important as they have
the greatest range of knowledge of
their ecology, and can therefore
assist in managing the resources in
a sustainable manner.
Developed by specific
The certification programs needs
country
to be developed and operated to fit
WTO, 2003
the geographical, political, socioeconomic and sectoral
characteristics of each country, so
that it recognizes local
environmental, social, economic
and cultural standards.
2
Stakeholders include tourism industry actors, government, international NGO’s, local communities,
environmental activists and the media (Tepelus & Cordoba, 2005).
31
Applicable to all types of
The system should be open to all
Sanabria et al, 2003;
eco-tourism facilities3
potential applicants and they
WTO, 2002; WTO,
should have easy access to the
2003
application or participation
process.
Different priorities for
Allows for the development of
WTO, 2003
different eco-tourism sectors sub-sector specific criteria, e.g.,
for accommodation, tour
operators, transport providers and
tourist attractions.
Specific, measurable
A combination of both process-
process and performance-
based mechanisms and
based criteria
performance measures to ensure
Sallows & Font, 2004
sound management practices
within an actual performance
based framework.
Collaboration with other
The scheme should provide access
Bien, 2003; WTO,
eco-labels, complementary
to environmental technologies,
2003
initiatives and networks
equipments and techniques by
creating alliances with other
organizations and initiatives that
can provide assistance for this
purpose.
There should also be regular
meetings for certified companies
to promote the exchange of
experiences.
Training and capacity
Examples include courses,
WTO, 2003
3
Hotels, resorts, marinas, travel agencies, tour-operators, ground and water transportation services, airlines
(Sasidharan et al, 2002)
32
building
workshops and distance learning.
Phased participation
A graded certification scheme
Bien, 2003; Sallows
encourages greater participation
& Font, 2004; WTO,
from companies that may want to
2003
become more sustainable in their
operations, but feel the need to
start small and aim for the top over
a longer period of time.
As the criteria are set on different
scales, this ensures a framework of
continual improvement as it
motivates companies to work to
improve their ratings in
subsequent audits.
Established procedures for
Procedures have to be in place for
Bien, 2003; WTO,
revoking certification
revoking certification
2003
Established procedures for
Procedures have to be in place for
Bien, 2003; WTO,
voluntary withdrawal
voluntary withdrawal
2003
Established procedures for
Procedures have to be in place for
Bien, 2003; WTO,
appeals
appeals
2003
Established procedures for
Procedures have to be in place for
Bien, 2003; WTO,
revising or amending
a formal, open participation
2003
criteria
(among interested parties) periodic
revision and update of criteria
(e.g., every 2-3 years). This
ensures that the criteria are
continuously checked and
improved.
(b) The program
Clearly stated objectives
Objectives derived from a written
WTO, 2002
33
mission statement whereby
integrated sustainable
development is seen as the
common overall goal, eco-tourism
is the sector and the eco-label the
tool
Clearly laid out steps
The program should provide clear
WTO, 2003
information on the criteria, costs,
benefits etc, and the guidance
documents clear, easy to
understand and fill in
Publicly laid out steps
The program should provide easily
WTO, 2003
accessible information on the
criteria (costs, benefits etc)
through a variety of media
including the internet, email,
telephone and an information kit
Set minimum and
The program should have a set of
mandatory standards
common minimum and individual
WTO, 2003
criteria that are all compulsory.
Encouragement/rewarding
The program should show tangible
of best practice and
benefits for applicants (e.g., cost
continual improvement
savings, marketing advantage etc)
Stakeholder feedback
In order to allow stakeholders to
mechanism
report on their satisfaction, as well
WTO, 2003
WTO, 2003
as monitor and report on the
participants’ performance (through
the internet, email and telephone)
(c) Guidance and advice
Guidance at each stage of
The program should offer constant
WTO, 2002; WTO,
the process
assistance and advice for all
2003
34
participants (e.g., phone hotline,
individual consultancy and advice
independent from final application
or certification).
Technical advice to
The scheme should provide
organizations participating
technical consultancy options or
in the scheme
facilitate technical assistance for
WTO, 2003
applicants. E.g., to introduce
advanced management techniques
and technology that meets the
certification criteria.
(d) Existing operations
Fits in with existing
The program should be designed
operations of the facility
to work in parallel with the
Bien, 2003
facility’s existing operations and
other regulations e.g.,
occupational health and safety,
environmental management plan
(e) The eco-label
Clear language
A highly recognizable logo, which
Salzhaeur, 1991;
allows all stakeholders (especially
WTO, 2002
consumers) to understand its
meaning with ease
Used only when the
In order to award achievement and
product/service has met the
maintain the integrity of the label.
Honey, 2002
criteria
Dated
To ensure all stakeholders,
Honey, 2002
particularly consumers, know that
the logo is current.
Issued for a specific period
Certification, use of the logo and
WTO, 2003
related benefits should be granted
35
for a pre-determined period, after
which re-assessment and
verification should be conducted
to ensure continuous compliance
with the same or higher criteria
2. Assessment
(a) Covers the following
Based on economic, social,
All performance-
performance-based criteria:
environmental and cultural
based criteria adapted
standards as clearly defined
from; Bien, 2003;
components.
Cater, 1993;
Diamantis, 2004;
Sallows and Font,
2002; Sanabria, 2002;
Sindiga, 1999; WTO,
2003.
Environmental criteria:
Environmental impact
To determine and mitigate any
assessment (EIA) conducted
potential significant environmental
for setting up the operation
impacts.
or construction of
establishments
Liquid and solid waste
The direct effects at the licensees
generation
should be measured and monitored
regularly with key data.
Energy consumption,
The direct effects at the licensees
reduction and efficiency
should be measured and monitored
regularly with key data.
Water consumption,
The direct effects at the licensees
reduction and efficiency
should be measured and monitored
regularly with key data.
Hazardous substances
The direct effects at the licensees
36
reduction, handling and use
should be measured and monitored
regularly with key data.
Noise reduction
The direct effects at the licensees
should be measured and monitored
regularly with key data.
Air quality impacts
The direct effects at the licensees
should be measured and monitored
regularly with key data.
Transport impacts
The direct effects at the licensees
should be measured and monitored
regularly with key data.
Visual impacts and light
The direct effects at the licensees
should be measured and monitored
regularly with key data.
Measurement of specific
Golf, beaches, driving in national
impacts related to the type
parks and so on.
of activities carried out
In keeping with the natural
To ensure the integrity of the local
environment of the area
species and habitat is maintained
by e.g., not introducing any exotic
plant species to the area
Appropriateness of location
To ensure that the location of the
facility is suitable for the type of
activities being carried out or that
the facility does not result in
conflict with the local community
Biodiversity conservation
To ensure that conservation efforts
are being carried out
Minimal site disturbance,
To ensure that minimal
landscaping and
disturbance of the natural
rehabilitation
landscape is carried out
37
Economic criteria:
Creation of local
Community participation has the
employment
capacity to increase local income
and employment, develop skills
and thereby empower local
communities. This thereby fuels
economic growth, ensures
equitable distribution of resources
and in the process alleviates
poverty.
Supply chain
Sustainable purchasing policies
management/pressure
Use of locally sourced and
Creation of local employment
produced materials (and
food)
Social accountability:
Outreach and educational
Creates awareness of potentially
programs offered to guests
significant adverse impacts
Stakeholder participation,
The extent of stakeholder
organization and
involvement is important, as the
involvement
program should ensure that it is
not just token or superficial
participation
Fair treatment of personnel
In terms of pay, working
conditions, equal opportunities and
recreation.
Codes of practice provided
Codes of practice ensure that
for eco-tourism operators
tourists become fully aware of the
and eco-tourists
damaging potential of their stay
and modify their behavior and
expectations accordingly. They
38
include:
•
Respecting the sensitivities of
other cultures;
•
Keeping abreast of current
political and environmental
issues, especially that of the
local area;
•
Abiding by the rules and
regulations of natural areas;
•
Using tour guides well versed
in and respectful of local
cultures and environments;
•
Never intentionally disturbing
or encouraging the disturbance
of wildlife or wildlife habitats
and;
•
Keeping vehicles to designated
roads and tracks
Employee training and/or
Ensures capacity building
education
Appropriateness of land
To ensure that the facility was
acquisition/tenure
obtained in a fair and honest
manner
Cultural:
Conservation of local
Includes consulting with and
culture, heritage and
involving the local community
authenticity
Destination resource
protection:
Habitat/ecosystem/wildlife
This is important as it is the
39
maintenance and
resource on which eco-tourism is
conservation
dependant
Overall environmental
This is important as it is the
protection
resource on which eco-tourism is
dependant
(b) Covers the following
process-based criteria:
Formal/informal
Commitment to make an
Font, 2002a; Sallows
environmental management
improvement every management
& Font, 2004
system
cycle (annually), according to each
facility’s plans and resources.
(c) Conducting the
The assessment should be carried
Bien, 2003; WTO,
assessment:
out through a combination of the
2003
following different activities:
Desk-based review of
To ensure that the organization is
relevant information
operating under relevant
WTO, 2003
legislation
Initial self-assessment by
To enable the organization to
the facility through a
become aware of the impacts of
questionnaire
their activities
On-site visit by independent
An independent audit ensures the
assessor
credibility and transparency of the
WTO, 2003
Font, 2002a
process
Measurement of impacts
To assess the impacts of the
(sampling)
organisation against relevant
WTO, 2003
legislation and audit against any
targets and objectives
Non-conformance report
The report identifies areas within
submitted to the applicant
the company that need
Bien, 2003
improvement
3. Certifying the
40
assessment
Assessment carried out by
Verification audits should be
trained auditors
conducted by suitable trained
WTO, 2003
auditors
Random checks/inspections
Follow-up control should be
WTO,2003
conducted after certification
Periodic (annual) follow-up
Follow-up control should be
audits
conducted after certification to
WTO, 2003
monitor impacts and ensure
continuous improvement
4. Accrediting certification
Credible awarding agency
Consumers should trust the
Salzhaeur, 1991
credibility of the Body that awards
the label, as well as its expertise in
judging the positive and negative
impacts of products or services.
The Body should be independent,
objective and accountable.
Auditor accreditation
To ensure credibility and
Sanabria, 2002
transparency
5. Recognition and
acceptance of the eco-label
Publicly available label
So that consumers and other
Boulden et al, 2003,
standards
stakeholders can make more
Honey, 2002
detailed comparisons and informed
decisions
Accessible list of facilities
Raising awareness among
participating in the program
stakeholders by e.g., having an
WTO, 2003
annual accessible list of certified
companies (on the internet,
newspaper etc) and; awarding the
‘hotel of the year’ and/or ‘beach of
41
the month’.
3.2.4
Criteria not included within the best practice framework:
a) Affordability
Research suggests that organisations perceive environmental protection as a cost to their
companies and a threat to their competitiveness (Anglada, 2000). For instance, as
explained in Box 2, the high costs of process-based certification programs such as ISO
14001 certification can act as a barrier to EMS implementation. The perceived cost of
certifying to a coherent standard can therefore make certification not equitable, as not all
firms will have the same potential to access such programs (Font, 2002b).
Therefore, the fees for the eco-labelling schemes should be accessible, combined with
obvious value for money and applied equitably to all applicants and licensees (WTO,
2002; Font, 2002b). This includes all types of fees such as publication, testing and
administration.
However, determining criteria for affordability within this best practice framework was
not undertaken because cost is not a generic criterion and depends on a number of factors.
One major factor is location, because what is affordable in Australia, for example, may
prove to be prohibitive in Kenya. Determining an affordable cost that is applicable to all
three schemes would therefore have required interviews with various stakeholders, which
was beyond the scope of this research project.
b) Health and safety
Another criterion that was not included within the scope of this dissertation was health
and safety. Apart from the fact that the scientific literature consulted for this research did
not include health and safety within their range of criteria, most organisations consider
the health and safety of their employees and consumers as an entirely separate issue of its
own accord. Therefore, the inclusion of health and safety criteria within the framework
42
would perhaps overlap with an organisation’s existing operations, resulting in an
unreasonably bureaucratic burden.
3.3
Comparative design and critical evaluation
In order to determine the relationship between the three certification schemes selected, as
well as how they all related to best practice, comparative design was used. Bryman
(2004) explains that this research method embodies the logic of comparison as it implies
that social phenomena is best understood when compared in relation to two or more
meaningfully contrasting cases or situation.
A quantitative approach was used to evaluate the three schemes against the best practice
framework. A scoring system, based on expert judgment and adapted from Synergy
(2000), was developed whereby each criterion was given a score from 1 – 3, where:
•
1 represented the program not addressing the criteria;
•
2 represented the program addressing the criteria to some extent (perhaps as
part of another issue) and;
•
3 represented the program explicitly addressing the criteria.
The weighting system was designed in order to avoid a complex and time-consuming
methodology, which may have produced confusing results. The weighting system was
developed because it was simple and logical and could be used as a guide to determining
desirable tendencies. This meant that the methodology was consistent and transparent,
and therefore systematic and replicable, producing results which were derived in a
scientifically rigorous manner and stated quantitatively. Any assumptions made, gaps
identified and uncertainties encountered are listed in section 5.2.
At the end of the weighting, a total was calculated from all three schemes. The total was
derived from adding up all the scores. The scheme with the highest score was determined
to be the closest to best practice.
43
The comparative analysis and evaluation allowed for the schemes to be compared against
each other, and any similarities, strengths and weaknesses to be identified.
Recommendations were thereafter made regarding improvements to the ESOK eco-rating
scheme. These can be found in the section 5.
3.4
3.4.1
Potential weaknesses of this research method
Subjectivity
The choice of a simple, logical scoring system to assess the three schemes was important
because it allowed for quantitative results to be determined, ensuring that the process was
scientific, systematic, transparent and replicable. However, scoring the schemes against
the best practice framework was to some extent a value judgement, which may have lent
an air of subjectivity to the study. Determining the methodology for this research was
dependant on factors such as resources (including time) as well expert judgement, which
was to some extent, also a value judgment.
44
4
4.1
RESULTS
Overview
There were a total of 64 criteria developed for the best practice framework and each
criterion was given a score from 1 – 3, where:
•
1 represented the program not addressing the criteria;
•
2 represented the program addressing the criteria to some extent (perhaps as
part of another issue) and;
•
3 represented the program explicitly addressing this criteria.
The following table details the application of the best practice framework to the three
eco-labelling schemes: ESOK’s eco-rating scheme, Green Globe 21 and Ecotourism
Australia’s Eco-Certification Program, and at the end presents the total scores:
Table 4: Applying the best practice framework to the eco-labelling schemes
Eco-rating
scheme
Green Globe
21
Ecotourism Australia’s
Eco-Certification
Program
1. Setting the standards
(a) Certification development
Voluntary participation
3
3
3
Participatory mechanism to
3
2
3
3
1
3
2
3
2
1
3
2
3
3
3
define standards
Developed by specific
country
Applicable to all types of
eco-tourism facilities
Different priorities set for
different eco-tourism sectors
Specific, measurable
process and performancebased criteria
45
Collaboration with other
2
3
3
3
3
3
Phased participation
3
3
3
Established procedures for
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
Clearly stated objectives
3
3
3
Clearly laid out steps
3
3
3
Publicly laid out steps
2
3
3
Set minimum and
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
eco-labels, complimentary
initiatives and networks
Training and capacity
building
revoking certification
Established procedures for
voluntary withdrawal
Established procedures for
appeals
Established procedures for
revising or amending
criteria
(b) The program
mandatory standards
Encouragement/rewarding
of best practice and
continual improvement
Stakeholder feedback
mechanism
(c) Guidance and advice
Guidance at each stage of
the process
Technical advice to
46
organizations participating
in the scheme
(d) Existing operations
Fits in with existing
2
2
2
Clear language
3
3
3
Used only when the
3
3
3
Dated
3
3
3
Issued for a specific period
3
3
3
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Noise reduction
3
3
3
Air quality impacts
3
3
3
operations of the facility
(e) The eco-label
product/service has met the
criteria
2. Assessment
Covers the following performance-based criteria:
(a) Environmental
criteria:
EIA conducted for setting
up the operation or
construction of
establishments
Liquid and solid waste
generation
Energy consumption,
reduction and efficiency
Water consumption,
reduction and efficiency
Hazardous substances
reduction, handling and use
47
Transport impacts
1
2
3
Visual impacts and light
3
2
3
Measurement of specific
1
3
3
3
3
3
Appropriateness of location
2
3
3
Biodiversity conservation
3
3
3
Minimal site disturbance,
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
Fair treatment of personnel
3
1
3
Codes of practice provided
3
3
3
impacts related to the type
of activities carried out
In keeping with the natural
environment of the area
landscaping and
rehabilitation
(b) Economic criteria:
Creation of local
employment
Supply chain
management/pressure
Use of locally sourced and
produced materials (and
food)
(c) Social accountability:
Outreach and educational
programs offered to guests
Stakeholder participation,
organization and
involvement
for eco-tourism operators
and eco-tourists
48
Employee training and/or
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
education
Appropriateness of land
acquisition/tenure
(d) Cultural:
Conservation of local
culture, heritage and
authenticity
(e) Destination resource
protection:
Habitat/ecosystem/wildlife
maintenance and
conservation
Overall environmental
protection
Covers the following process-based criteria:
Formal/informal
environmental management
system
The assessment
Desk-based review of
relevant information
Initial self assessment by the
facility through a
questionnaire
On-site visit by independent
assessor
Measurement of impacts
(sampling)
3. Certifying the assessment
49
Assessment carried out by
1
3
3
Random checks/inspections
3
3
3
Periodic (annual) follow-up
3
3
3
Credible awarding agency
3
3
3
Auditor accreditation
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
168
177
185
trained auditors
audits
4. Accrediting certification
5. Recognition of the value of the eco-label
Publicly available label
standards
Accessible list of facilities
participating in the program
TOTAL SCORE
As presented in the table above, the scheme that operated closest to best practice was
Eco-tourism Australia’s Eco-Certification Program with a total score of 185 out of 192.
This was followed by Green Globe 21 with a score of 177, and finally the ESOK ecorating scheme with 168. Sections 4.2 – 4.6 provide information on the specific stages of
the best practice framework in greater detail.
4.2
Setting the standards
The table below presents the scores for the first stage of the best practice framework,
where the potential total score was 78:
50
Table 5: Setting the standards
Eco-rating
scheme
Green Globe Ecotourism Australia’s
21
Eco-Certification
Program
(a) Certification development
Voluntary participation
3
3
3
Participatory mechanism to
3
2
3
3
1
3
2
3
2
1
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
Phased participation
3
3
3
Established procedures for
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
define standards
Developed by specific
country
Applicable to all types of
eco-tourism facilities
Different priorities set for
different eco-tourism sectors
Specific, measurable
process and performancebased criteria
Collaboration with other
eco-labels, complimentary
initiatives and networks
Training and capacity
building
revoking certification
Established procedures for
voluntary withdrawal
Established procedures for
appeals
Established procedures for
revising or amending
criteria
51
(b) The program
Clearly stated objectives
3
3
3
Clearly laid out steps
3
3
3
Publicly laid out steps
2
3
3
Set minimum and
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
Clear language
3
3
3
Used only when the
3
3
3
Dated
3
3
3
Issued for a specific period
3
3
3
TOTAL SCORE
70
74
75
mandatory standards
Encouragement/rewarding
of best practice and
continual improvement
Stakeholder feedback
mechanism
(c) Guidance and advice
Guidance at each stage of
the process
Technical advice to
organizations participating
in the scheme
(d) Existing operations
Fits in with existing
operations of the facility
(e) The eco-label
product/service has met the
criteria
52
In this first stage, Ecotourism Australia’s Eco-certification Program had the highest
score, followed by Green Globe 21 and ESOK’s eco-rating scheme. Sections 4.2.1 –
4.2.5 provide information on this particular stage in greater detail:
4.2.1
Certification development
In terms of certification development, all three schemes explicitly addressed the
following criteria:
•
Voluntary participation;
•
Specific, measurable process-based and performance-based criteria;
•
Training and capacity building;
•
Phased participation;
•
Established procedures for revoking certification;
•
Established procedures for voluntary withdrawal and;
•
Established procedures for appeals.
The following sections detail which criteria were not explicitly addressed by the
particular schemes during the certification development phase:
a) Participatory mechanism to define standards:
Green Globe 21 was developed by the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC), a
London-based organization composed of CEOs of major tourism corporations (Koeman
et al, 2002). This meant that it did not have multi-stakeholder involvement when defining
the standards and key stakeholders such as local communities, environmental activists
and other tourism industry actors were not consulted.
Both the other schemes were developed in a participatory process as a range of
stakeholders were consulted. The ESOK eco-rating scheme, for example, was developed
at two workshops held in Nairobi and Mombasa, Kenya, and delegates included
53
representatives from local universities, tour operators, the Kenyan Tourist Board (KTB),
UNEP, local media, local community members and the ESOK committee (ESOK, 2000).
b) Development by specific country:
As Green Globe 21 is an international standard, it was the only scheme not developed by
a specific country. The other two schemes were developed in their respective countries.
c) Applicability to all types of eco-tourism facilities:
Of the three schemes, only Green Globe 21 was explicitly applicable to all types of ecotourism travel and operations including: administrative offices; aerial cableways; airports;
airlines; bus companies; hotels; car hires; cruise ships; farm stays; golf courses;
exhibition halls; convention halls; vineyards; tour operators; tour companies; marinas;
railways; restaurants; trailer parks; as well as protected areas and communities (Koeman
et al, 2002).Ecotourism Australia’s eco-certification program was developed for
accommodation, tours and attractions (Ecotourism Australia, 2003), while the ESOK ecorating scheme was only applicable to destinations and specifically the following
accommodation categories:
Table 6: Accommodation categories within the ESOK eco-rating scheme
Accommodation
sector
Lodge
Definition
A form of accommodation associated with game park tourism,
found in remote areas away from cities
Camp (permanent or
A camp is usually made up of several tents, situated at a distance
semi-permanent)
from each other. This form of accommodation is associated with
game park tourism and community based eco-tourism
Hotel
A form of accommodation associated with towns and cities,
catering for business travelers, conferences and leisure travelers
Private home
This form of accommodation is generally associated with small
privately owned family homes involved in game park tourism,
located in remote areas away from cities
54
Banda
This type of accommodation is associated with adventure-based
tourism such as mountaineering, fishing, etc, and is located in
remote areas, away from the city. Bandas are usually selfcatering, with basic amenities provided
(Adapted from ESOK, 2002)
d) Different priorities set for different eco-tourism sectors:
Green Globe 21 was the only scheme that explicitly set different priorities for different
eco-tourism sectors. Although the scheme dealt with the entire travel and tourism
industry, its flexibility allowed it to take into account the specifics of different sectors of
travel and tourism operations (Koeman et al, 2002). Ecotourism Australia’s scheme also
allowed for some sub-sector specific criteria for accommodation, tours and attractions.
However, ESOK had only developed one eco-rating scheme questionnaire, which was
provided to all tourist accommodation facilities.
e) Collaboration with other eco-labels, complimentary initiatives and networks:
Both Green Globe 21 and Ecotourism Australia’s Eco-Certification Program created
alliances with other eco-labels, complementary initiatives, network schemes and
programs. Eco-tourism Australia’s scheme, for example, provided its members with
access to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) – Ecotourism Australia, World Heritage Tourism Partnership Program, as
well as collaborative opportunities with other complementary programs such as:
EcoGuide Australia Certification Program, which provides trained staff and guides and;
Respecting our Culture (ROC) Tourism Development Program, which endorses tourism
businesses that deliver indigenous visitor experiences (Ecotourism Australia, 2003).
However, ESOK was still in discussions with international eco-rating companies to create
an alliance that would allow eco-rated facilities to have a similar rating on the
international company’s database, thus giving the ESOK rated facilities international ecorating status (ESOK, 2002).
55
f) Established procedures for revising or amending criteria:
Green Globe 21 and Ecotourism Australia’s Eco-Certification Program both had
established procedures for revising and amending their criteria on an ongoing basis. The
ESOK eco-rating scheme did not appear to address this criterion.
4.2.2
The program
All three schemes explicitly addressed the following criteria:
•
Clearly stated objectives
•
Clearly laid out steps
•
Set minimum and mandatory standards
•
Encouragement and rewarding of best practice and continual improvement
•
Stakeholder feedback mechanism
The following sections detail which criteria were not explicitly addressed by the
particular schemes during the program development phase:
a) Publicly laid out steps:
When compared to the other schemes, the ESOK eco-rating scheme did not appear to
provide easily accessible information on its criteria. Green Globe 21 provided
information via its website through visual guides and detailed explanatory notes, as well
as on a CD ROM, while Ecotourism Australia’s Eco-Certification Program provided
information via its website. All these documents (including application forms,
information on the standards, sample checklists and reports) were all easily accessible
and could also be posted to potential participants, if requested. However, the ESOK ecorating scheme did not seem to have the same amount of easily accessible information as,
for example, the eco-rating scheme handbooks and questionnaire could only be obtained
as a hard copy from the ESOK secretariat or committee members.
4.2.3
Guidance and advice
All three schemes provided both:
•
Guidance at each stage of the process and;
56
•
Technical advice to organizations participating in the scheme.
Guidance was provided through a variety of mechanisms including individual
consultancy and advice on a number of technical as well as legal issues.
4.2.4
Existing operations
Although all three programs were designed to work in parallel with the organizations
existing operations, they did appear to create more paperwork, which would ultimately
add another level of bureaucracy.
Green Globe 21, for example, required that an Environmental and Social Sustainability
Policy be developed by an organization, if this had not already been developed e.g., as
part of an EMS. Also, the application form for Ecotourism Australia’s program was more
than 120 pages in length which could take a long time to complete.
4.2.5
The eco-label
All three schemes had eco-labels which:
4.3
•
Used clear language;
•
Were only used when the product or service has met the criteria;
•
Were dated and;
•
Were issued for a specific period.
Assessment
The table below presents the scores for the second stage of the best practice framework,
where the potential total score was 93:
57
Table 7: Assessment
Eco-rating
scheme
Green Globe Ecotourism Australia’s
21
Eco-Certification
Program
Covers the following performance-based criteria:
(a) Environmental
criteria:
EIA conducted for setting
1
1
3
up the operation or
construction of
establishments
Liquid and solid waste
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Noise reduction
3
3
3
Air quality impacts
3
3
3
Transport impacts
1
2
3
Visual impacts and light
3
2
3
Measurement of specific
1
3
3
3
3
3
Appropriateness of location
2
3
3
Biodiversity conservation
3
3
3
Minimal site disturbance,
3
3
3
generation
Energy consumption,
reduction and efficiency
Water consumption,
reduction and efficiency
Hazardous substances
reduction, handling and use
impacts related to the type
of activities carried out
In keeping with the natural
environment of the area
landscaping and
58
rehabilitation
(b) Economic criteria:
Creation of local
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
Fair treatment of personnel
3
1
3
Codes of practice provided
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
employment
Supply chain
management/pressure
Use of locally sourced and
produced materials (and
food)
(c) Social accountability:
Outreach and educational
programs offered to guests
Stakeholder participation,
organization and
involvement
for eco-tourism operators
and eco-tourists
Employee training and/or
education
Appropriateness of land
acquisition/tenure
(d) Cultural:
Conservation of local
culture, heritage and
authenticity
(e) Destination resource
protection:
Habitat/ecosystem/wildlife
59
maintenance and
conservation
Overall environmental
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
82
84
91
protection
Covers the following process-based criteria:
Formal/informal
environmental management
system
The assessment
Desk-based review of
relevant information
Initial self assessment by the
facility through a
questionnaire
On-site visit by independent
assessor
Measurement of impacts
(sampling)
TOTAL SCORE
In this second stage, Ecotourism Australia’s Eco-certification Program again had the
highest score, followed by Green Globe 21 and ESOK’s eco-rating scheme. Sections
4.3.1 – 4.3.7 provide information on this particular stage in greater detail:
4.3.1
Environmental Criteria
All three schemes explicitly addressed the following environmental issues:
•
Liquid and solid waste generation;
•
Energy consumption, reduction and efficiency;
•
Water consumption, reduction and efficiency;
60
•
Hazardous substances reduction, handling and use;
•
Noise reduction;
•
Air quality impacts;
•
Keeping within the natural environment of the area;
•
Biodiversity conservation and;
•
Minimal site disturbance and rehabilitation
The following sections detail which environmental issues were not explicitly addressed
by the particular schemes:
a) EIA conducted for setting up the operation and construction of establishments:
Only Ecotourism Australia’s Eco-Certification Program addressed this criterion.
b) Transport impacts:
The ESOK eco-rating scheme did not address transport impacts at all, while Green Globe
21 addressed these impacts as part of another issue (e.g., within air quality impacts from
vehicle emissions) rather than independently.
c) Visual impacts and light:
Both the ESOK eco-rating scheme and Ecotourism Australia’s Eco-Certification Program
addressed this impact independently. Green Globe 21 again addressed this impact as part
of another issue.
d) Measurement of specific impacts related to the type of activities carried out:
ESOK’s eco-rating scheme was the only program that did not measure specific impacts
related to the types of activities carried out. Ecotourism Australia’s Eco-Certification
Program for example, addressed specific impacts of a range of activities that included:
walking, camping, boat use, aircraft use, fishing, and so on.
61
4.3.2
Economic criteria
All three programs explicitly addressed all the economic criteria within the best practice
framework, which included:
•
Creation of local employment;
•
Supply chain management and;
•
Use of locally sourced and produced materials (including food).
4.3.3
Social accountability
All three schemes explicitly addressed the following criteria:
•
Stakeholder participation, organization and involvement;
•
Codes of practice provided for eco-tourism operators and eco-tourists and;
•
Employee training and/or education.
The following sections detail which criteria were not explicitly addressed by the
particular schemes during the social accountability phase
a) Outreach and educational programs offered to guests:
Green Globe 21 did not appear to address this criterion in as much detail as the other two
schemes. It only ensured that the aims of Green Globe 21 were communicated to tourists
visiting the facilities, as opposed to ensuring that the tourism facilities offer some sort of
educational program.
b) Appropriateness of land acquisition/tenure
None of the three programs addressed this criterion.
4.3.4
Cultural criteria
All three programs explicitly addressed the cultural criterion within the best practice
framework, which was the conservation of local culture, heritage and authenticity.
62
4.3.5
Destination resource protection criteria
All three programs explicitly addressed all the destination resource protection criteria
within the best practice framework. These were:
•
Habitat, ecosystem and wildlife conservation
•
Overall environmental protections
4.3.6
Process-based criteria
The three programs ensured that process-based criteria were explicitly included within
tourism facilities. The criteria ranged from Green Globe 21 and Ecotourism Australia’s
Eco-Certification Program’s condition that all organizations develop, implement and
maintain a formal documented EMS such as ISO 14001, to ESOK’s eco-rating scheme
which aimed to ensure that the organizations had a written environmental policy related
to the impact and management of land, water, energy, sewage and solid waste.
4.3.7
The assessment
All three schemes ensured that the following criteria were included within the actual
assessment:
•
Desk based review of relevant information
•
Initial self-assessment by the facility through a questionnaire
•
On-site visit by an independent assessor
The following section details which criterion was not explicitly addressed by the
particular schemes during the assessment phase:
a) Measurement of impacts
ESOK’s eco-rating scheme did not appear to ensure that sampling was conducted.
63
4.4
Certifying the assessment
The table below presents the scores for the third stage of the best practice framework,
where the potential total score was 9:
Table 8: Certifying the assessment
Eco-rating
scheme
Green Globe
21
1
3
Ecotourism Australia’s
Eco-Certification
Program
3
Random checks/inspections
3
3
3
Periodic (annual) follow-up
3
3
3
7
9
9
Assessment carried out by
trained auditors
audits
TOTAL SCORE
In this stage, both Ecotourism Australia’s Eco-certification Program and Green Globe 21
achieved best practice. Section 4.4.1 provides information on this particular stage in
greater detail:
4.4.1
Assessment carried out by trained auditors
Although ESOK’s eco-rating scheme ensured that the assessment of the tourism facilities
was carried out by member of the eco-rating committee, it was unclear as to whether the
auditors were trained and/or experienced in order to carry out such types of audits.
4.5
Accrediting certification
The table below presents the scores for the fourth stage of the best practice framework,
where the potential total score was 6:
64
Table 9: Accrediting Certification
Eco-rating
scheme
Green Globe
21
Credible awarding agency
3
3
Ecotourism Australia’s
Eco-Certification
Program
3
Auditor accreditation
1
1
1
TOTAL SCORE
4
4
4
In this stage, all three schemes achieved the same score. This is because none of them
dealt with auditor accreditation, i.e.., auditing the auditors.
4.6 Recognition of the value of the eco-label
The table below presents the scores for the final stage of the best practice framework,
where the potential total score was 6:
Table 10: Recognition of the value of the eco-label
Publicly available label
Eco-rating
scheme
Green Globe
21
2
3
Ecotourism Australia’s
Eco-Certification
Program
3
3
3
3
5
6
6
standards
Accessible list of facilities
participating in the program
TOTAL SCORE
In this stage, both Green Globe 21 and Ecotourism Australia’s Eco-Certification Program
achieved best practice. The following section provides information on this particular
stage in greater detail:
4.6.1 Publicly available label standards
Although ESOK’s eco-rating scheme did provide a list of label standards, they were not
entirely publicly available. This is because they had to be obtained from the ESOK
65
secretariat or from eco-rating committee members, as opposed to via other sources such
as the internet, which is a service that the other schemes offer.
66
5
5.1
DISCUSSION
Overview
With regard to the overall performance of all three schemes, each of them performed well
against the best practice framework. Eco-tourism Australia’s Eco-Certification Program
scored the highest in almost all of the five stages, closely followed by Green Globe 21.
5.2
Assumptions
When applying the best practice framework and thereafter evaluating the programs, the
following assumption was made: if the information regarding a particular criterion of any
of the three programs was not found after an extensive review of all relevant information,
it was therefore assumed that the program did not address it at all. An example of this is
the fact that none of the programs addressed the appropriateness of land
acquisition/tenure criterion within the social accountability phase of the assessment stage
or the auditor accreditation criterion in the fourth stage of the framework.
5.3
Critical evaluation of ESOK’s eco-rating scheme
As presented in the results, ESOK’s eco-rating scheme operated least closest to best
practice, when compared with the other two programs. It had a total score of 168 out of a
possible 192, while Green Globe 21 and Ecotourism Australia’s Eco-Certification
Program scored 177 and 185 respectively.
Sections 5.3.1 – 5.3.5 discuss these results in greater detail, and take into account both the
strengths and weaknesses of ESOK’s eco-rating scheme when compared against best
practice, as well as the other programs:
67
5.3.1
Setting the standards
This was the first stage of the best practice framework and as explained previously,
involved setting the standards and criteria for the development of the certification
program and eco-label.
Strengths of the eco-rating scheme:
The fact that the eco-rating scheme was developed in the Kenya, by a number of
stakeholders as a result of various workshops, meant that it was able to recognise local
environmental, social, cultural and economic standards, whilst setting specific,
measurable process and performance-based criteria.
Like the other two programs the eco-rating scheme was a voluntary program; included
training and capacity building schemes; consisted of phased participation; and had
established procedures for revoking certification, voluntary withdrawal as well as
appeals. The advantages of these approaches are provided in table 3, which provides
detailed explanations of the reasoning behind these best practice framework criteria.
During certification development, the eco-rating scheme also put in place: clearly stated
objectives and steps; clearly laid steps for potential participants; set minimum and
mandatory standards; encouragement and rewarding of best practice and continual
improvement and; a stakeholder feedback mechanism. These were all extremely
important as they ensured that potential participants were aware of the eco-rating
schemes objectives, likely benefits and possible costs, and also provided a means for
stakeholders to report on the participants’ performance as well as their satisfaction.
The ESOK eco-rating scheme provided guidance to potential participants through various
mechanisms that included individual consultancy, relevant information, as well as
technical advice, all of which were independent from the certification process. Examples
of relevant information included the provision of copies of current environmental
legislation to participants.
68
The eco-label itself was easily recognisable and allowed all stakeholders to understand its
meaning with ease. As the scheme consisted of levels of certification (i.e., phased
participation) there were three labels representing bronze, silver and gold eco-rating
respectively. The eco-label was dated and issued for a year, and only used when the
product or service met the specified criteria.
Weaknesses and recommendations for improvement of the eco-rating scheme:
(i) Different priorities set for different eco-tourism sectors
As explained in the results section, the standards for the eco-rating scheme were
developed primarily for the accommodation sector. Research suggests that the main
disadvantage of focusing on a specific target group is that since other tourism sectors are
ignored, sustainability is ultimately not taken as a common task of all the businesses as
they tend not to address the economic, environmental, social and cultural impacts of their
activities equally (WTO, 2002).
Font (2002a, p 201) argues that tourism eco-labels will have to wrestle with the difficulty
of setting up standards for every tourism sub-sector where the impacts are different, and
at the same time allowing for site-specific differences. The ESOK eco-rating scheme
would therefore need to gradually include criteria for different eco-tourism sectors, such
as those for Ecotourism Australia’s Eco-Certification Program (tours and attractions) and
ultimately borrowing from Green Globe 21, which explicitly set different priorities for
various eco-tourism sectors while being flexible enough to take into account the specifics
of different sectors of travel and tourism operations. These standards could be developed
in a participatory manner with a range of stakeholders, based on lessons learned from
other eco-labelling schemes.
The eco-rating committee would also benefit from including all tourism sectors because
gaining more licensees could strengthen their visibility in the international market and
their financial situation, as they offer more products to the tour operators and consumers
(WTO, 2002). This could potentially lead to more certified products being bought and
69
higher awareness among tour operators of the possible benefits of eco-labels (WTO,
2002).
(ii) Collaboration with other eco-labels, complementary initiatives and networks
ESOK was still in discussions with international eco-rating companies in order to
collaborate with them. There was however, local support from KTB, which included
subsidised rates for advertisement on the KTB website, as well as other benefits that
included free assessments in alternative forms of energy by a number of local companies
(ESOK, 2002).
However, the eco-rating committee should also create alliances with regional networks
and initiatives such as the African Travel and Tourism Association (ATTA) which
provides networking opportunities for tourism operators, exhibits members’ products at
international travel trade shows and distributes news stories to its members on tourism
related subjects through its newswire (ATTA, undated). Collaboration and co-operation
with other initiatives leads to mutual benefits and a stronger share of more sustainable
tourism products (WTO, 2002).
(iii) Established procedures for revising or amending criteria
Both Green Globe 21 and Ecotourism Australia’s Eco-Certification Program had in place,
a formal and periodic revision of criteria, and research suggests that 50% of eco-labels
regularly update their criteria (WTO, 2002). This is not apparent in the ESOK eco-rating
scheme, which should ensure that the criteria are continuously checked and improved
upon, and also reflect changes in national or international legislation.
By ensuring legislative compliance and anticipating future legislation, tourism companies
participating in the eco-rating scheme will therefore be able to avoid penalties for noncompliance, and as Starkey (1998) suggests, develop an awareness of likely changes in
environmental legislation allowing the companies to plan for these changes and make
appropriate investment decisions.
70
(iv) Publicly laid out steps
When compared with the other schemes as well as best practice, the eco-rating scheme
did not appear to provide easily accessible information on the criteria (including cost,
benefits etc). Even though the steps were clearly laid out, they could only be obtained
upon request.
In order to ensure that all relevant stakeholders and interested parties are able to access
the steps to obtain an eco-label, it is important to ensure that the information is easily
accessible. The eco-rating committee should ensure that the information is easily
accessible to:
•
The staff of participating tourism companies, e.g., through the organisation’s
intranet, notice boards and staff training, and;
•
All other interested stakeholders, e.g., through the ESOK website, and
information kits such as visual guides with detailed explanatory notes, as used by
Green Globe 21.
(v) Existing operations
Even though all three schemes were designed to work in parallel with the tourism
organisations’ exiting operations, they did appear to create more paperwork. However, of
the three programs, the ESOK eco-rating scheme created less extra work, as for example,
its application form was relatively easy to complete, as it only consisted of 20 pages and
came with a handbook, compared with Ecotourism Australia’s Eco-Certification
Program’s form, which was more that 120 pages in length.
In order for the eco-rating scheme to be effectively integrated within an organisation, it
needs to fit in with other activities, and requires the co-operation and involvement of all
employees, including top management. The eco-rating committee would need to work
closely with the tourism facilities in order for them to, for example, assist them in
updating the criteria and standards to become more flexible and easily adaptable, and
therefore work in parallel with existing operations and other regulations.
71
Another possibility could be that after initial review, representatives from the eco-rating
committee would assist the companies to adapt the criteria according to the number of
staff, financial resources, activities, and other characteristics of the company.
5.3.2
Assessment
This was the second stage of the best practice framework which enabled
recommendations to be provided to applicants on how to improve their performance and
achieve further progress (WTO, 2003),
Strengths of the eco-rating scheme:
Like the other two programs, the eco-rating scheme used a hybrid of performance and
process-based criteria. Performance-based criteria consisted of a range of environmental,
economic, social and cultural standards, while the process-based criteria comprised of a
written environmental policy related to the impact and management of land, water,
energy, sewage and solid waste.
Weaknesses and recommendations for improvement of the eco-rating scheme:
(i) EIA conducted for setting up the operation and construction of the establishment
The eco-rating scheme did not require an environmental impact assessment (EIA) to be
carried out for the construction and operation of tourism establishments. EIA is a
systematic process that examines the environmental consequences of development
actions in advance (Glasson et al, 2005), and its purpose is to facilitate sound integrated
decision making that explicitly includes environmental considerations, and also supports
the ultimate goal of environmental protection and sustainable development (Sadler,
1996).
The eco-rating scheme could therefore ensure that participants of the program conduct
EIAs for any other proposed eco-tourism developments, allowing significant
environmental impacts to be identified and mitigated.
72
(ii) Environmental and social impacts not addressed
There were a number of environmental and social issues that were not addressed by the
eco-rating scheme. These included: transport impacts; measurement of specific impacts
related to the type of impacts carried out and; appropriateness of land acquisition and
tenure.
The three criteria should be addressed independently in order to ensure that all potential
impacts are identified and mitigated. These absent criteria illustrated the importance of
regularly updating criteria in order to make any necessary amendments or improvements,
as well as fill any gaps.
Also, once the eco-rating scheme allows for the development of sub-sector criteria (i.e.,
does not only cover the accommodation sector), then measurement of specific impacts
can be carried out.
(iii) Measurement of impacts
The eco-rating scheme did not appear to ensure that sampling was conducted by
independent auditors during the assessment stage, or at any other stage. The initial
assessment should include scientific environmental sampling and monitoring in order to
assess the impacts of the organisation against relevant legislation, and audit against any
targets and objectives.
This would involve monitoring of terrestrial and marine ecology, soil, ground and surface
water, noise, raw materials, visual impacts, traffic and emissions to air. Sampling would
be carried out over a period of time, using suitable patterns such as random or systematic
sampling during the initial assessment, as well as later on when periodic and random
inspections are carried out.
73
5.3.3
Certifying the assessment
This was the third stage of the best practice framework and as explained previously, was
whereby the awarding Body gave written assurance to the applicant (and the industry in
general) that the product or service conformed to the specified requirements.
Strengths of the eco-rating scheme:
The eco-rating scheme ensured that a non-conformance report identifying areas that
required improvement was submitted to the applicant, and once certification was
approved, random checks as well as annual follow-up audits were carried out by the ecorating committee.
Weaknesses and recommendations for improvement of the eco-rating scheme:
The auditors comprised of representatives from the eco-rating committee, who although
may have had knowledge of the Kenyan tourism industry, academic qualifications and
demonstrated interest and knowledge of sustainable tourism development (ESOK, 2002)
may not necessarily have the necessary skills of trained auditors. Hillary (1998) suggests
these skills include knowledge of: environmental issues including environmental science
and technologies; auditing and verification philosophies and techniques; management
systems and practices including internal controls and; environmental laws and regulation.
Having these skills and competencies would have made it a more effective and credible
assessment.
5.3.4
Accrediting certification
This was the fourth stage of the best practice framework whereby an authoritative body
verifies that a body is competent to carry out specified tasks, i.e., when the accreditation
bodies ‘audit the auditors’ (Font, 2002a).
74
Strengths of the eco-rating scheme:
The eco-rating committee, which awards the eco-labels, was credible as it was developed
in a transparent manner by variety of local stakeholders from both within and outside the
tourism industry.
Weaknesses and recommendations for improvement of the eco-rating scheme:
The eco-rating scheme, along with the other two programs, did not address auditor
accreditation. Font (2002a) suggests that since this is where costs start adding up, many
tourism eco-labels miss this step. However, it is important to note that if carried out
appropriately, accreditation can build credibility and transparency, mainly because it
strengthens stakeholder involvement (Sanabria, 2002). It has been suggested that
accreditation bodies represent forums for continuous improvement as they help
certification programs stay abreast of changing international law (Sanabria, 2002).
The eco-rating program could therefore look into becoming accredited, which could work
as a ‘licence’ to perform certification based upon agreed principles and standards
(Sanabria, 2002). The Rainforest Alliance, an international environmental NGO, has
implemented a project known as the Sustainable Tourism Stewardship Council (STSC)
which is currently investigating the possibilities for creating an international accreditation
body for sustainable tourism and eco-tourism. The eco-rating committee could therefore
consult with the STSC on this matter, as they also need to establish willingness to join
from tourism certification programs (Sanabria et al, 2003).
5.3.5
Recognition of the value of the eco-label
This was the fifth and final stage of the best practice framework which set criteria to
establish whether the label standards and a list of participating facilities were publicly
available.
75
Strengths of the eco-rating scheme:
The eco-rating scheme through its website and newsletters, provided a list of certified
organisations, and also enabled certified facilities to advertise themselves on the KTB
website, as well as be included in any media opportunities.
Weaknesses and recommendations for improvement of the eco-rating scheme:
Although the eco-rating scheme did provide a list of label standards, they had to be
obtained upon request. Making them easily accessible using the same media used to list
participating facilities would enable consumers and other stakeholders to make informed
decisions and detailed comparisons.
76
6
CONCLUSION
Welford (1998) explains that the ultimate aim of corporate environmental management
must be to reach a situation where companies operate in a way that is consistent with the
concept of sustainable development. Even though tourism businesses, and specifically
eco-tourism companies, may comprise of small-to-medium sized enterprises, they
collectively exert significant pressures on the environment through their pollution,
resource use and waste generation, as the travel and tourism industry is one of the world’s
largest industries.
The use of tourism eco-labels and certification programs enable consumers to
discriminate against products or services that are harmful to the environment, and allow
tourism facilities to improve their economic efficiency, as they make environmentally
beneficial decisions and promote technological innovation.
The three programs evaluated performed well against best practice because they took into
account the various limitations and criticisms of such voluntary initiatives. The programs
used a mix of both process and performance-based standards, they provided technical
guidance and support to their members, and the two schemes developed in their
respective countries were designed in a participatory manner that included a range of
stakeholders.
There is however, a need for further research that was beyond the scope of this study. An
investigation into the costs of eco-labeling schemes should be carried out, in order to
ascertain certification fees that are accessible and applied equitably to all applicants, so
that eco-tourism organizations do not continue to perceive environmental protection as a
cost to their companies and a threat to their competitiveness.
77
7
REFERENCES
Anglada, M., L. (2000) Small and medium sized enterprises’ perceptions of the
environment. In R. Hillary (ed) Small and medium sized enterprises and the environment:
Business imperatives. Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, p 61-73
ATTA (undated). About ATTA. Available at: http://www.atta.co.uk/about-atta.aspx Last
accessed, 23 July 2006
Barnes P. & Jerman P. (2002). Developing an environmental management system for a
multiple-university consortium. Journal of Cleaner Production. 10: 33-39.
Bien, A. (2003). A simple user’s guide to certification for sustainable tourism and
ecotourism. TIES, Washington DC.
Boer J (2003). Sustainability labelling schemes: the logic of their claims and their
functions for stakeholders. Business strategy and the environment. 12: 254- 264
Boulden, J., Escudero, R. & Weiss, R. (2003). Designing and marketing an ecocertification program: field research, analysis and recommendations. Available at:
http://www.ecotourism.org/onlineLib/Uploaded/Certification%20Summary%20Paper%2
0for%20TIES%20by%20GWU.pdf Last accessed, 30 June 2006
Bryman A (2004). Social Research Methods. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Budowski, G. (1976). Tourism and environmental conservation: conflict, coexistence or
symbiosis? Environmental conservation. 31 (1): 27-31
Cater, E. (1993). Ecotourism in the third world: problems for sustainable tourism
development. Tourism management 14: 85-90
78
Chambers, T. (2004). Environmental assessment of a ‘mass tourism’ package holiday
and a ‘responsible tourism’ package holiday, using life cycle assessment and ecological
footprint analysis. MSc Thesis, University of East Anglia, Norwich
Diamantis, D. (2004) Eco-tourism management: an overview. In: D. Diamantis (ed)
Ecotourism. Thompson Learning, London p 3-26
EC (2005). The new SME definition: user guide and model declaration. Available at:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/enterprise_policy/sme_definition/sme_user_guide.p
df Last accessed: 27 February 2006
Ecotourism Australia (2003) Eco-certification programme application document: third
edition Available at: http://www.ecotourism.org.au/EcoCertification3.pdf Last accessed
01 March 2006
Ecotourism Australia (2005) The eco-tick assurance for: operators, protected area
managers,
local
communities
and
travellers.
Available
at:
http://www.ecotourism.org.au/eco_certification.asp Last accessed 01 March 2006
ESOK (2000). Developing an eco-rating scheme for Kenya: Workshop report. ESOK,
Nairobi.
ESOK (2002). The ESOK eco-rating scheme handbook. ESOK, Nairobi
ESOK
(undated).
About
the
ESOK
eco-rating
scheme.
Available
at:
http://www.esok.org/?q=node/view/26. Last accessed: 23 February 2006
Font, X. (2002a). Environmental certification in tourism and hospitality: progress,
process and prospects. Tourism management. 23: 197-205
79
Font, X. (2002b). Critical review of certification and accreditation in sustainable tourism
governance. Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds.
FTTSA (2005). Tourism Certification Programme. Available at:
http://www.fairtourismsa.org.za/. Last accessed: 03 August 2006
Gallastegui I. G. (2002). The use of eco-labels: a review of the literature. European
Environment 12: 316-331.
GEN
(2004).
Introduction
to
eco-labelling.
Available
at:
http://www.gen.gr/jp/pdf/pub_pdf01.pdf. Last accessed 21 February 2006
Glasson, J., Therivel R. & Chadwick, A. (2005). Introduction to Environmental Impact
Assessment. Routledge, London.
Hall, C. M. & Boyd, S. (eds) (2005). Nature-based tourism in peripheral areas. Channel
View Publications, Clevedon, p 3
Hamele, H. (2004). Eco-labels for tourism in Europe: Moving the market towards more
sustainable practices. Available at: http://www.ecotourism.org/onlineLib/Uploaded/Ecolabels_tourism_Europe_Hamele.pdf, last accessed 19 June 2006
Hillary, R. (1998).Environmental auditing: concepts, methods and developments.
International journal of auditing. 2: 71-85
Hillary, R (2004) Environmental management systems and the smaller enterprise.
Journal of cleaner production. 12: 561-569
Honey, M. (1999). Ecotourism and sustainable development: Who owns paradise? Island
Press, Washington.
80
Honey, M. (2002). Conclusions. In: M. Honey (ed) Eco-tourism and certification: setting
standards in practice. Island Press, Washington DC, p 357-371
Honey, M. & Stewart, E. (2002a). Introduction. In: M. Honey (ed) Eco-tourism and
certification: setting standards in practice. Island Press, Washington DC, p 1-29
Honey, M. & Stewart, E. (2002b). Evolution of green standards. In: M. Honey (ed) Ecotourism and certification: setting standards in practice. Island Press, Washington DC, p
33-71
IISD
(2001a).
Environmental
Labelling:
How
it
works.
Available
at:
Available
at:
http://iisd.ca/business/howitworks.htm. Last accessed 18 July 2001
IISD
(2001b).
Environmental
Labelling:
What
can
it
do?
http://iisd.ca/busines/whatcanitdo.htm. Last accessed 18 July 2001.
ISO (2002) Environmental management –the ISO 14000 family of international
standards. http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/prods-services/otherpubs/iso14000/family.pdf Last
accessed 25 July 2006
Kenya Tourist Board (undated). Kenya leads the way in eco-tourism. Available at:
http://www.magicalkenya.com/default.nsf/news1/DF5257C95B56D0B643256B490037A
BBD?opendocument&l=1 Last accessed 23 February 2006
Koeman, A., Worboys, G., De Lacy, T., Scott, A. & Lipman, G. (2002). Green Globe: A
global environmental certification program for travel and tourism. In: M. Honey (ed)
Eco-tourism and certification: setting standards in practice. Island Press, Washington
DC, p 2999-324
Maclaren F. T. (2002). A strategic overview of ecotourism accreditation and
certification: the road forward. Available at:
81
http://www.worldtourism.org/sustainable/IYE/Regional_Activites/Brazil/cases/TIES.htm
Last accessed: 06 February 2006
NEMA (2004). State of Environment Report, 2003, Kenya. NEMA, Nairobi
Netherwood A (1998) Environmental Management Systems. In R. Welford (ed)
Corporate Environmental Management 1: Systems and Strategies (2nd Ed). Earthscan
Publications, London p 37-60.
Okungu S. (2001) Kenya’s strategy/programmes for the development and management of
eco-tourism in national parks and protected areas. Seminar on Planning, Development
and
Management
of
Ecotourism
in
Africa,
Maputo.
Available
at:
http://www.worldtourism.org/sustainable/IYE/Regional_Activites/Mozambique/Mozamb
ique-cases/Kenya-Okungu.htm Last accessed: 29 January 2006
Rivera, J. (2002). Assessing a voluntary environmental initiative in the developing world:
the Costa Rica certification for sustainable tourism. Policy sciences 35: 333-360.
Romeril, M. (1985). Tourism and the environment – towards a symbiotic relationship.
International journal of environmental studies 25: 215-218
Sadler R (1996). Environmental assessment in a changing world: evaluating practice to
improve performance. International study of the effectiveness of environmental
assessment. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Canada.
Sallows, M. & Font X (2004).Ecotourism certification, criteria and procedures:
implication for ecotourism management. In: D. Diamantis (ed). Eco-tourism, Thompson
Learning, London, p 89-109.
Salzhauer, A. L. (1991). Obstacles and opportunities for a consumer ecolabel.
Environment, 33 (9) 10-15, 33-38
82
Salzman, J. (1991). Environmental labeling in OECD countries. OECD, Paris
Sanabria, R. (2002) Accreditation: certifying the certifiers. In: M. Honey (ed) Ecotourism and certification: setting standards in practice. Island Press, Washington DC, p
325-356
Sanabria, R., Skinner, E., Font, X., Eaglen, A. M., Sallows, M. & Frederiksen, M. (2003).
Sustainable tourism stewardship council: raising the standards and benefits of
sustainable tourism and eco-tourism certification. Rainforest Alliance, New York,
Sasidharan, V., Sirakaya, E. & Kerstetter, D. (2002) Developing countries and tourism
ecolabels. Tourism management. 23: 161-174
Shaw, G. & Williams, A., M. (2004). Tourism and tourism spaces. Sage publications,
London, p 115.
Sindiga, I. (1999). Alternative tourism and sustainable development in Kenya. Journal of
sustainable tourism. 7(2): 108-127
Spenceley A (2005). Certification tools for tourism in Africa: social environmental and
economic criteria. TIES, University of Witwatersrand, South Africa.
Starkey R (Ed) (1998). Environmental issues series: environmental management tools for
SMEs: a handbook. European Environmental Agency, Copenhagen
Synergy (2000). Tourism certification: An analysis of Green Globe 21 and other
certification programmes. Godalming, WWF-UK
Tepelus, C. M. (2005). Aiming for sustainability in the tour operating business. Journal
of cleaner production. 13: 99-107
83
TIES (2000).Ecotourism statistical fact sheet: General tourism statistics. Available at:
www.ecotourism.org/research/stats/files/stats.pdf . Last accessed 21 February 2006
Toth, R. (2002). Exploring the concepts underlying certification. In: M. Honey (ed) Ecotourism and certification: setting standards in practice. Island Press, Washington DC, p
73-101.
UNEP, WTO & FEE (1996). Awards for improving the coastal environment: the example
of the blue flag Paris, UNEP.
UNEPTIE (2002). What is ecotourism? Available at:
http://www.uneptie.org/pc/tourism/ecotourism/home.htm#whatisecotour
Date last accessed: 02 February 2006
Wearing, S. &
Neil, J. (1999). Ecotourism: impacts, potentials and possibilities.
Buterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Weaver, D. (2001). Ecotourism. John Wiley and Sons Australia Ltd, Milton..
Welford R. (1998). Environmental issues and corporate environmental management. In:
R. Welford (ed) Corporate environmental management 1: systems and strategies (2nd
edn), Earthscan Publications, London p 1-12
Welford, R., Ytterhus, B. & Eligh, J (1999). Tourism and sustainable development: an
analysis of policy and guidelines for managing provision and consumption. Sustainable
Development 7: 165-177
WTO (2002). Voluntary initiatives for sustainable tourism: worldwide inventory and
comparative analysis of 104 eco-labels, awards and self-commitments. WTO, Spain.
84
WTO (2003). Recommendations to governments for supporting and/or establishing
national certification systems for sustainable tourism. WTO, Madrid.
WTO (2004). Sustainable development of tourism: concepts and definitions. Available at:
http://www.world-tourism.org/frameset/frame_sustainable.html, last accessed 20 June
2006
85