Into The Biosphere: Sustainable/responsible tourism

This has been a week during which it was revealed that Catalonia wishes to become the first tourism region in the world to obtain a Biosphere certification. Which seemed a little odd as Menorca has been a Biosphere for over twenty years: it was declared to be one by UNESCO in 1993. Whatever. Perhaps Menorca isn't a region as such. Anyway, UNESCO has a regional Biosphere which is certified by its Global Sustainable Tourism Council, a body with lofty aims to ensure, inter alia, that "tourism meets its potential as a tool for conservation and poverty alleviation". A Biosphere refers to, among other things, the encouragement of the "social and cultural authenticity of each (tourist) destination and community".

Catalonia's ambition comes at a time when, according to global trends in tourism, "a new traveller" is seeking "creative and sustainable destinations". The argument goes that by promoting sustainability (this Biosphere stuff), a destination can establish greater loyalty from a tourist who, impressed by the efforts to maintain the environment, the local culture, the local heritage, alleviate poverty, etc. etc., will become a repeat tourist. There is a further argument that this approach will enable a destination to in fact increase its tourism in the first place.

Sustainable tourism, responsible tourism and other terms do have specific meanings and grand intentions. But they have also become part of the tourism marketing lexicon for destinations for which they weren't originally intended. Sustainable tourism was derived from sustainable development, initially a UN programme with contemporary origins in the 1980s. Primarily, it was concerned (as was sustainable tourism when it was first conceived) with protection of less-developed parts of the world. Subsequently, the tourism industry latched on to the idea that all this sustainability offered product and marketing possibilities for developed tourist destinations.

This isn't to say that genuine efforts have not been made - as they have - but to come to Catalonia or indeed to Mallorca, how applicable are principles of sustainable (or responsible) tourism? Let's consider a couple. Involve local people in decisions that affect their lives and life chances. Provide more enjoyable experiences for tourists through meaningful connections with local people and a greater understanding of local cultural, social and environmental issues.

While it is undeniable that there are tourists who value the second of these, and do so in Catalonia or Mallorca, there is a vast number who really, let's be perfectly honest, aren't that bothered. And when they are in all-inclusives, their chances of being bothered are significantly lessened. What do advocates suggest? Bussing in loads of locals for the inmates of an all-inclusive to goggle at?

For less-developed parts of the tourism world, there are clear benefits from increasing the volume of tourism so long as this increase stays in harmony with the environment and the needs of the local people. For developed parts, increasing volume runs counter to principles of sustainability/responsbility. The creative or smart tourist destination in the developed world should not be aiming to add more tourists willy-nilly. Instead, it should seek tourists who will maximise economic benefits while keeping social and environmental costs to a minimum.

The argument goes that destinations such as Mallorca have devoted too much attention to constantly increasing numbers of tourists without truly assessing economic benefits, and in the past few days there has been an admission that this is the case. Sort of. It has come from the president of the Balearics, José Ramón Bauzá. In parliament on Tuesday, Bauzá said that there was "no direct relationship between an increase in the number of tourists and variance in Balearics GDP". "The key", he said, was competitiveness profit or loss. Through inference, Bauzá was saying what many have said before. More tourists do not mean greater economic benefits when a proportion of tourist volume contributes little or nothing to the economy or indeed can cause a loss. This is something that has been known about for years but it is not something that politicians and others have chosen to do anything about. The increase in numbers has all they have been worried about.

What Bauzá was saying comes back to a governmental desire for more "quality" tourists, but this does not mean more tourists in total. It means the opposite, and former tourism minister Carlos Delgado, in not so many words, once said as much. But while Bauzá and the PP have sought this course, we now have, repeated this week, the desire of the Mallorcan left-wing for a tourism that will permit "shared prosperity" for the people of the Balearics. From both right and left and so from different political starting-points, a common view appears to be emerging - that the islands' tourism model has to change, and it is a change that may well entail fewer tourists and not more.

Into all of this came an intervention from Gabriel Escarrer of Melià. He said that "the Balearics have to become the elite destination in the Mediterranean": not an elite destination, the elite destination. Meliá is committing itself to ever greater quality, as is the case with the Calvia Beach Resort. This commitment, says Sr. Escarrer, is one that emphasises differentiation from other destinations and - that word again - sustainability. But if Meliá's vision were to be embraced wholeheartedly and were, therefore, Mallorca to be propelled towards tourist elitism, the consequence is clear. It would result in fewer tourists. The current mass could not be converted into the type of tourist that Meliá (and the government) has in mind. And it most certainly could not be converted in this way while lousy and outdated all-inclusives remain.

By the coincidence of Catalonia and its Biosphere and of what Bauzá and Escarrer have said, this past week has encapsulated where Mallorca might be heading. While it is Catalonia that is seeking the Biosphere certificate, it can be certain that a close eye will be kept on that. And if Catalonia were to conclude that entering the Biosphere means sustainability and responsibility through fewer tourists, then others may well draw the same conclusion.

Milking The Balearics' Cash Cow

A ten per cent economic impact on the whole of Spain's tourism is what tourism in the Balearics contributes to the national economy. Good thing, bad thing? Forty-five per cent of Balearics Producto Interior Bruto (PIB or GDP) is derived from tourism. Good thing, bad thing?

Exceltur, the alliance for touristic excellence, has calculated the contributions of tourism to the PIBs of regions of Spain. The Balearics' contribution is greater than that of any other region. Significantly greater. The Canaries lag some fourteen percentage points behind in second place. And behind the Canaries, a long way behind, are Valencia (Benidorm and all with 12.6%) and Andalusia (Costa del Sol and all with 12.5%). Exceltur, to the delight of the regional government, was able to show that the tourism PIB in 2013 had leapt above the level for 2008, the year before the effects of crisis really took hold. It has taken five years for there to be recovery, but recovery there has been and in 2013 the PIB increased by 5.7%.

On the one hand this is good news. Very good news. But on the other hand it isn't good. It is very bad. Almost half the islands' economic activity is generated by one industry. The Balearics is about as close as you can get to having a single-product economy. Tourism is a strength, a mighty strength, but it is also a mighty weakness. If the Balearics were a nation, the panic buttons would have been pressed long, long ago. Compare the Balearics with nations that have a high reliance on tourism. The Dominican Republic, according to the 2014 World Travel and Tourism Council's report, generates 13.3% GDP from tourism. In The Maldives it is 28%. Two developing economies, but with far lower dependence upon tourism. The Balearics is not a developing economy. It is developed, but a developed economy is not supposed to have only one main industry.

When one looks at how Exceltur arrives at its 45% calculation, one wonders why this percentage isn't in fact greater. Three-quarters come from direct effects, such as hotel and restaurant activity. The other quarter is made up from ancillary and supply industries, one of them being construction. It would be interesting to delve deeper into this calculation. Much construction, such as roads, unarguably has an effect on tourism, as does, for instance, building for medical services. When Jaime Martínez, the tourism minister, announced provisions within the recent tourism decree, he said that "all infrastructure has much to do with tourism". He was not wrong in this regard, even if he was bending an argument to justify the legalistic regularisation of land on which Son Espases is built and its inclusion within the framework of tourism legislation.

Fortunately, the Balearics is not a nation. Fortunately for Spain and for the Spanish economy, the Balearics can provide a hugely significant contribution to national wealth. And also fortunately for the nation, Balearics tourism generates almost 40% of the islands' tax revenues that are deposited with the national treasury. These economic and tax contributions make the Balearics the nation's largest tourism cash cow. One region, one industry, and the cow is milked for all it's worth.

One should look at these figures in the context of arguments that the regional government has with national government over financing. The direct investment fund for Balearics infrastructure is low by comparison with other regions, while the income the Balearics receives via the redistribution of tax revenues generated by all regions is vastly inferior to revenues the islands raise, 40% of them coming from one industry. The unjustness of this distribution should be obvious, and it is made more unjust because of the massive reliance on tourism.

When such a reliance exists, there is an inherently high level of risk, especially as tourism can be a volatile industry. The Balearics is lucky in this respect. Despite volatility, Balearics' reliability allows it to withstand shocks to the system. Tourism PIB slumped by 6% in 2009, but recovery was relatively swift. But luck and reputations for safety and reliability should not be allowed to dominate. The treatment of Balearics tourism as a national cash cow badly needs addressing. Economists, academics and even some journalists have been saying so for years. There should be a greater level of state financing but it should come with the proviso of being targeted at economic diversification in the Balearics. 45% tourism PIB is untenable, as is the 35% of employment - direct and indirect - which comes from tourism but that gives rise to the absurdity of the six-month working year.

45% sounds good, but it isn't. The regional government might be able to glow in the light of the increase, but it should be planning the opposite. When that 45% is down to a less dependent level will be the time to celebrate.