In June 1992 world leaders and representatives of non-governmental organisations gathered in Rio de Janeiro for what was officially called the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development but which unofficially became known as the Earth Summit. There had never been a gathering like it, there had never been an agenda like it. The results of the deliberations were summed up in the Rio Declaration. Its 27 principles ranged from "the role of man" through environmental legislation and impact assessments, the roles of women and youth to co-operation between the state and its people.
At that time, my interest in the Earth Summit was that of business and management applications. Together with two leading business journalists, I tried to make sense of the volume of papers and documents that the summit produced and to publish in a cogent and greatly summarised form what they meant or might mean for business. And from all the thousands upon thousands of words that Rio spawned, two words came out. The world had truly discovered the notion of "sustainable development".
With this term firmly embedded into the business lexicon, industries within industries were formed. The genuine and the charlatan leapt aboard the sustainable bandwagon. Consultants, advisors, Harvard scholars were offering business solutions to save the planet and local communities. Some meant it; others didn't. This post-Rio feverishness found no greater expression in and no better business activity than tourism. The Rio principles could have been written with tourism in mind.
Thus, sustainable development - simplified to sustainability - became specific. The leitmotif of sustainable tourism emerged, championed by those with environmental and social-consciousness integrity but also bastardised as platitudinous propaganda by elements of the tourism industry forever on the lookout for a marketing and competitive edge.
Sustainable tourism morphed into responsible tourism, the latter a more comprehensible term; comprehensible, that is, to a consumer base for whom "sustainable" was too abstract a word. The two terms are interchangeable, but whichever is used they mean the same thing or they can mean very little or nothing. It all depends on how genuine those who promote them are. A consequence is that today's tourism industry - not all of it certainly - is characterised not by sustainable development but by what I would call sustainable dissonance: an inconsistency between what is claimed and what is practised. Dissonance demands that individuals find a way of reconciling competing notions or beliefs. Thus, the tourism industry is inhabited by sustainability propagandists who, were they to be truthful, know that it is little more than propaganda.
Two years after the Rio summit, a Swedish hotel chain, Scandic, embraced sustainability in a way that no other chain had done. This commitment has been carried on, and every aspect of its business is guided by environmental and social consciousness. I was reminded of Scandic by an article for the "Hosteltur" magazine community in which the author, Arturo Cuenllas Soler, questioned how well rooted this responsibility is in the Spanish tourism industry and how committed the industry actually is to it. He recognised, as do I, that there are hotel chains and tour operators that have done a great deal in terms of environmental programmes and energy management, but the point he makes is my own: sustainability, responsibility go way beyond environmental factors and they embrace all sorts of stakeholders - employees, local people, local governments, customers, suppliers. Everyone.
If you go back to 1992, this was a time of economic recession. For the tourism industry, recession gave rise to what in the Mediterranean was then a rarely offered tourism package - the all-inclusive. Subsequent downturns have reinforced this offer, but coincidental with the rise of AI (and now also a quasi-AI) was that of sustainability. Here was something which, in public relations terms, could be used to offset the negativity of AI. Hotels and tour operators have pinned their colours to an environmental agenda mast but not to the full sustainability package. They might claim to - sourcing local produce, generating employment etc. - but all types of hotel can do this. For local communities, such as Mallorca's resorts, this has been specious propaganda, but it is propaganda that has been developed because the tourism industry and government know only too well that AI does not adhere to principles of sustainability. Sustainable dissonance, therefore.
The point about AIs and sustainability is that once upon a time in Mallorca, although the environment was treated with disrespect, certain sustainability conditions did exist. Local resort economies could flourish because of a symbiotic, mutually beneficial relationship. Now, however, there is tourism - and a great deal of it - which is parasitic. It leeches off resources such as sun and water and gives too little back in return. How, therefore, does this square with messages from hotels and tour operators regarding responsible or sustainable tourism?
Whether you call it sustainable or responsible, if this brand of tourism is to be genuinely meaningful it has to be far more open to the needs not just of the environment but also to those of local people and local communities. But it has to go further still. As Arturo Cuenllas notes, there are the customers as well. The tourists. Their attitudes have to change, as do those of tour operators. Corralling people into AI or quasi-AI is the antithesis of sustainability, and they know it.
Will such a change come about? It is highly unlikely, and so while it remains improbable, claims made for sustainability and responsibility are empty ones.
Showing posts with label Responsible tourism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Responsible tourism. Show all posts
Thursday, March 19, 2015
Friday, March 13, 2015
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
