There is a major difference between our approach and that of the GSTC, it is a difference of principle.

Our focus is on urging and supporting businesses and others in the sector to take responsibility and to act, to make tourism more sustainable and to transparently communicate to their clients, and other stakeholders, what they are doing, how they are doing it and what they have achieved. How much have they reduced energy and water consumption, increased local procurement and improved working conditions? This approach is based on transparent reporting[1] rather than on opaque certification.

Sustainable Tourism issues vary from place to place, a function of geography and socio-cultural priorities; there have been many attempts to define what is meant by Sustainable Tourism, there will be many more. There are many lists and there will be more. Long lists do not encourage the prioritisation of locally important issues, prioritisation is essential to action. Just imagine if all the resources of time and money expended over the last two years in developing a list had been deployed on addressing issues on the ground.

It is disappointing that the GSTC has chosen to personalise this debate. The Communications Chair of the GSTC has called on us to engage in a candid and useful conversation that leads to creating positive change in our industry.

This reply is intended to contribute to that conversation. We understand that the purpose of the GSTC is now to create a GSTC-Recognised programme.

To be GSTC-Recognised means that the standard meets 100% of the GSTC Criteria. Standard owners can work with certification bodies that in turn can market the fact that they use a GSTC-Recognised standard.^[2]

We welcome the clarification that there is no plan to attach weightings to the criteria and that it would be irresponsible and inappropriate to set priorities for local issues at a global level.^[3]

Whilst no doubt many will think this less ambitious objective is worthwhile there will be many who have concerns about this approach.

• By creating a long list of minimum criteria the GSTC has established a set of criteria which for GSTC-recognition is mandatory but where each is of equal importance with all the others a lowest common denominator approach to building a consensus. Not all issues are equally important. If the priorities are to be decided locally off a long list what is the point of having the list?
• The certification process is opaque even if a particular certificate has been awarded by a GSTC-recognised accreditation body the consumer will know only that all 37 criteria have been considered. They will not know which have been given greater weight, nor what real progress has been made, for example, in reducing water consumption or greenhouse gas emissions. The GSTC Indicators are merely a base line, they provide a catalogue of suggestions on how to measure the impact of the Criteria and they say that it will be for 130 sustainable tourism certifications worldwide that clearly dictate (sic), for the region they operate in, what to do and how to measure it.

• The sustainability of GSTC remains a challenge  it is unclear what benefit any national certification scheme would gain by being GSTC-Recognised, or indeed why a certification programme would pay to be GSTC Recognised.

The debate will continue, new criteria will emerge others will be dropped. The debate will move on as businesses in the tourism sector are challenged to transparently report, amongst other things, on their progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, water and waste and their contribution to battling child abuse and increasing their contribution to local economic
development.

This is more than an academic debate, whether the GSTC-Recognised  programme contributes to efforts to make tourism more sustainable in our finite world will depend whether the GSTC is able to convince donors, accreditation schemes and ultimately the travelling public that GSTC-Recognised means anything for them. Travelife and GTBS in the UK are achieving some consumer recognition whether GSTC-Recognition adds anything we doubt.

Harold Goodwin and Justin Francis

Veronica Tonge, one of the ICRT's alumni, organised a one day conference at the Ski & Snowboard Show at Earls Court last week addressing the question What would Responsible Skiing look like? 90 people from ten countries participated and heard a diverse group of speakers from Responsible Skiing, ABTA The
Travel Association, The Ski Club of Great Britain, Neilson Active,
Eurostar, Snowcarbon, Alpe D'Huez, The Austrian National Tourist Board,
Crystal Ski, Whistler Blackcomb, The Green Tourism Business Scheme and
Exodus.

Krippendorf came to responsible tourism as a result of his critique of the negative impacts of tourism in alpine resorts and it was no surprise that skiing raises lots of issues – around pistes, artificial snow, ski lifts, energy, water, waste, congestion and traffic, �trampling� and disturbance, planning and architecture, seasonality, the maintenance of smaller businesses and viable local communities – with which we are familiar from warmer destinations.  Many of the callenges are familiar, although the response in the particular natural and cultural environments of snow resorts reflect the particular environment.

You can find out more about the conference at www.responsibleskiing.com/responsible-skiing-conference-2011.html and download the presentations and audio files

Tomorrow sees the screening of Not My Life

“Not My Life is the first documentary film to depict the
horrifying and dangerous practices of human trafficking and modern
slavery on a global scale.

Filmed on five continents over a period of four years, Not My Life
unflinchingly, but with enormous dignity and compassion, depicts the
unspeakable practices of a multi-billion dollar global industry whose
profits, as the film's narration says, “are built on the backs and in
the beds of our planet's youth.”

While acknowledging that trafficking and slavery are universal crimes, affecting millions of human beings all over the world, Not My Life
zeroes in on the fact that the vast majority of trafficking and slavery
victims are indeed children. This fundamental truth, says the film's
director, Oscar� nominee Robert Bilheimer, raises profound questions
about the very nature of our civilization. “What kind of society
cannibalizes its own children?” Bilheimer asks. “Can we do these sorts
of things on such a large scale and still call ourselves human in any
meaningful sense of the term?”

For full details and some clips form the film go to http://notmylife.org

This week the EU�s Council of Ministers approved a new EU Consumer Rights Directive. It is expected to be published in the EU's Official Journal shortly and then transposed into national laws, probably before the end of 2013.

The new legislation
will outlaw �opt outs�, consumers will have to opt in to purchases. It is
likely that this will also apply to charitable donations.

More inforamtion at www.ukecc.net/sub.asp?id=328

There has been considerable criticism of the negative impacts of tourism
in Kerala.[1]
Since 1997 there has been local government reorganization in Kerala with the
introduction of a decentralized three tier system called �Panchayathi Raj
System�. The state government transferred the power and budget to local panchayats
(villages) with the full participation of the local people by constituting
Grama Sabhas (Peoples� Forums).[2]
 

Michot in a 2010 review of Pro-Poor Tourism in Kumarakom recognizes the
scale of the challenge which the panchayat leaders working with the government
of Kerala faced in increasing the economic benefits to local communities.
Michot concludes that the project in Kumarakom already shows �positive outcomes
on economic and social empowerment of the local community� although Michot concludes that there are particular
reasons why the initiative was successful there and questions how replicable it
is. [3]

Kerala at state and local
government level faces major challenges in their joint endeavor to increase the scale of earnings which
the local communities are able to make from tourism in Kerala. With more than
seven million domestic arrivals and half a million international visitors there
is considerable potential for tourism to contribute to livelihoods.

Kumarakom is one of the first destinations in India which has
successfully implemented Responsible Tourism practices in 
with the active participation of local people through their local government
structures. In Kumarakom the Responsible Tourism programme has included the development
of three excursion programmes which enable visitors to experience village life
and provide additional livelihoods for local people. There are two groups of
farmers who have organised to sell vegetables to the Karshaka samithis (450
farmers in 10 groups) and Samrudhi homestead farmers (510). A Price Fixing
Committee agreed a consensus price for vegetables being sold to hotels and a
Quality Committee sought to resolve issues around the quality of produce sold
to the hotels. The Geethabhai employs 21 people selling vegetables to the
hotels and since the Responsible Tourism initiative began they now have seven
acres of rice. Earamattom is a new enterprise headed by a woman providing
vegetables, catering, tailoring and performing cultural shows. Another
entrepreneur is earning Rs20,000 per month selling an average of 20 models of
traditional boats, a snake boat and traditional angling.[4]

The programme has been reviewed by Dr. N. C. Narayanan, Indian Institute of Technology , Mumbai, the process will be developed and the initiative will be rolled-out to a further 10 sites. The transparent process of reporting, the open forum for discussions about the programme to date and the willingness to have the programme externally reviewed has meant that the strengths and weaknesses of the initiatives have been assessed and the lessons learned, laying a strong basis for the extension of the approach across the state.

In a leaked letter, George Osborne wrote: �APD is fundamentally a revenue raising duty and currently raises around �2.5billion per year.�

Treasury officials acknowledged that the Chancellor�s comments in his leaked letter � describing APD as �fundamentally a revenue raising duty� � represented Government thinking.

Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2047332/Osborne-admits-green-Air-Passenger-Duty-just-revenue-raiser.html#ixzz1abP8OkEN

Following the launch of the National Minimum Standard for Responsible Tourism (NMSRT) in September businesses claiming to practise responsible tourism will need to
prove that their activities comply with the National Minimum Standard for Responsible Tourism (NMSRT) criteria, which
include the certification and accreditation by the South African National Accreditation System (SANAS). Those who have
been certified will be recognised by government and will also qualify
for privileges.

All tourism businesses that have been accredited will be issued with a
certificate by an accredited tourism certification body. The NDT as the
custodian of the NMSRT will work with SANAS to implement the
accreditation of certification bodies.

Official Media Release

The first weekend of the Masters in Responsible Tourism Management at Leeds Met coincided with our Indian summer. As usual there is an enthusiastic group with diverse backgrounds form banking, campaigning, PR and marketing and from several countries as well as from the UK tourism industry. Driving home one of our new students listening to Radio 4�s the Bottom Line on R4 heard Rita Clifton, Chairman of  Interbrand, say that: �Businesses who don�t do the right thing get punished in the end.�

Quite so.