Back to the speakers' list
Back to the program

 

Can Government policy ensure the sustainable development of the tourism industry ?

Martin BRACKENBURY - President of the Business Council of the World Tourism Organisation (WTO), London, United Kingdom

 

 

Martin Brackenbury is President of the International Federation of Tour Operators, Chairman of the World Tourism Organisation Business Council, Chairman of the Federation of Tour Operators (UK), Chairman of the adventure travel group Trekinvestco (Exodus and Peregrine Adventures), Director of International Relations at Airtours Plc and The Director of the Christel DeHaan Travel & Tourism Research Institute at Nottingham University (UK).

I - INTRODUCTION

It is both a privilege and a pleasure to have been given this opportunity to participate in a debate on what I regard as the critical challenge confronting tourism at the present time.

The implications of tourism growth on destination countries is the number one issue. The need for responsible tourism to ensure that balanced and sustainable growth is achieved and where there are limits to growth to recognise them and plan for them is only going to become greater and more urgent as time passes.

Within the huge range of topics covered in this conference the question I have been asked to answer is :

“Can Government policy ensure the sustainable development of the tourism industry ?”

The short answer to this question is a qualified no. And with that I suppose that I could sit down.  However, that is not what the organisers intended.

So, in this brief presentation I intend to map out the background, the issues, the responsibilities and some of the solutions.

Unfortunately the debates on these issues are often confusing. Confusing because people tend to take a small scale anecdote from some project in some remote area and from that create a general thesis or, out of ignorance of the facts, blame activities or sectors for inactivity when, although much needs to be done, much useful activity is taking place. Or people confuse some issues of noxious emissions and green house gases with other questions of bio-diversity. Good campaigning getting in the way of good science. Confusing too because governments have different powers to act in different countries and people respond in different ways. So, out of this confusion are there any good answers to the question that I have been asked ?

  

II - THE BACKGROUND

Let us begin with the background. At one time planet earth could look after itself. Imbalances in the natural world were relatively quickly, if painfully resolved, and new balances and symbioses obtained. The human race is the culprit. By its ability to bend aspects of the natural world to its will we have interference on a grand scale. With the dramatic growth in the numbers of the human race new and unhealthy imbalances have occurred. In the past, without the benefit of science and humanitarian aid, excessive numbers of the human race were corrected, as in the natural world, by starvation and death sometimes involving fights for territory of their own kind for habitat. There are areas of Africa where this is happening today.

To avoid permanent and potentially deadly conflict, rules were established for land ownership and use, for crops and livestock and for fishing. These, and other measures, were designed for the benefit of the human race. We now have elaborate frameworks of laws governing land use planning in most countries of the world. We have a plethora of laws for protecting the consumer, for protecting workers, for protecting citizens, for protecting companies and so on.

So what has changed ? What has changed is the realisation of certain members of the human race that the exploitation of planet earth was leading to unintended consequences. Somehow the age old concepts of overcrowding and overgrazing, known to generations of farmers, were never expected to effect the whole world. In particular, people did not recognise that the combination of population growth with the application of science exponentially increased the possibilities of damage.

But recognition of the issue does not mean that solutions are going to be easy to achieve.

To change the human race from exploiters of the earth to the defenders of bio-diversity and protection of the ozone layer is conceptually difficult and practically and politically hazardous when 4.5 bn of the 6 bn members of the human race are living on less than 2 USD per day and are wondering from where the next meal is coming.

Bio-diversity is threatened : first through the human race taking land and habitat away from species; second through extermination of species that humans want to eat or that threaten humans and crops ; thirdly through pollution and fourthly through thoughtless protection of species causing imbalances in the food chain.

So where and how does tourism have an impact ?

Tourism is the mass migration of millions of people for a short period to places to which they do not belong. Some of these people may see themselves as belonging to a small superior segment of tourism but they are all tourists just the same.

These people vacate their own houses, and are thus less of a burden on the environment at home but have the impact of sometimes doubling the local population whose infrastructure has been designed for half that number. The arrival of such large numbers of people with different habits and traditions brings with it adaptation of local cultures to reach out to these rich visitors. There is often a resulting feeling of resentment that emerges if their wealth depends upon the visitors. Then, what had started as an extension of hospitality became a business : repetition led to largely anodyne responses to anonymous people. And so modern high volume tourism began its journey through the developing world.

If societies were all of a piece, with the checks and balances of political, legal and marriage systems, reinforced by myth, ritual and religion honed over centuries so that people were sure of their identity and place in the world then the arrival of a rich alien social group was bound to upset the status quo.  And it has.

Interaction changes people. On the one hand we call this development on the other we describe it as cultural deprivation. It depends upon your perspective.

The perspective of many local participants in tourism is that interaction and learning can lead to capacity building of skills and knowledge that in turn can lead to an emergence from poverty and deprivation to a much more rewarding life.

Another perspective is one provided by those affected by tourists who do not benefit from them. Some of these people complain that tourism benefits only the few and the community loses out.

A third perspective is provided by the tourists. Specifically the tourists who believe that they are civilised and can see a situation from other people’s shoes. These tourists identify with the previous perception and look for all the evidence they can to reinforce their perception that tourists bring little benefit.

These same people who choose to talk about what seems to be an oxymoron ‘a multi-cultural society’ tend to be the same ones who are calling for the protection of cultural integrity against the invading hordes of tourists (who are seen as effervescent in their vulgarity and lack concern for anyone but themselves).

What these different perceptions seek to demonstrate is that the fixed mindset of groups of individuals are definitely making it more difficult to find appropriate solutions.

To be a tourist, in many ways, is a selfish act. It is an indulgence. We dress it up as something necessary :  A need for rest and relaxation, an opportunity to get away from it all, a need to get fit, a need to learn about other cultures, a need to rebuild relationships but it remains an indulgence, a selfish act.

The actors in this game of tourism are the unthinking tourists, the responsible tourists, the caring tourists (and NGO’s), the tourism intermediaries, the hotels, airlines and other commercial enterprises, the local people involved in tourism and the local people who are not, but who are affected by it, and lastly the environment.

  

III - THE ISSUES ARE

Does it matter what kind of tourist you are ?
Can unthinking tourists be transformed into responsible, if not caring, tourists?
What role should the intermediaries play towards tourists ?
What role should the intermediaries play towards the local people involved in tourism in the developed and developing world ?
What role should the intermediaries play ?
What role should government play in ensuring sustainability of the tourism industry ?

Let us take each question in turn : 

'Does it matter what kind of tourist you are ?’

The answer is in the damage that can be done. If people go to a pleasure factory like Benidorm in mainland Spain or Playa de las Americas in Tenerife then arguably they can do little damage as the places are designed largely for people wanting to ‘let go’ and to forget about their normal responsibilities. In these situations, for these market segments, the municipalities have to take full responsibility for litter, cleanliness of beaches, water, waste, noise and so on.

But the more delicate the habitat, the less aware are the local people of the consequences of tourism, the more careful and responsible the tourist has to be.

In addition, where governments have little power to intervene successfully through lack of resources or, as is often the case, that they have much higher and more urgent priorities to address than the impact of tourists, then there is an enhanced need for the tourist to be careful and responsible.

The next question that follows is :

'Can unthinking tourists be transformed into responsible, if not caring, tourists ?'

The answer has to be dependent upon who you are trying to influence. If the objective of the tourist is to 'let go' and forget about responsibilities then whatever influence is brought to bear is almost bound to fail. In the UK 46 % of package tourists fall into this category (ABTA Mori Survey October 2000).

But, if they go to places like Benidorm or Playa de las Americas does it matter ? Not a lot.

On the other hand, if they go in very large numbers to destinations in developing nations with weak municipal infrastructure then damage can be done.

The potential for influencing the other 54 % of package tourists from the UK to be more responsible is better but even with this group modifications to behaviour are likely to be limited. Even with some kind of prior education and regimentation imposed upon activities by incoming tour operators (eg. jeep safaris in Kenya) there will be some who will abuse the environment. An interesting fact to emerge from the same survey is that 85 % of UK package holiday takers think that it is important not to damage the environment.

The next question is :

What role should the intermediaries play towards tourists ?

Both travel agents and tour operators provide advice. Tour operators, in particular, provide a bridge between the destination and the customer. Traditionally brochures have been selling documents spiced with a few helpful do's and don'ts. On arrival in the destination representatives provide much more detailed advice about what you can do and what it is advisable not to do. Some of that advice may contain information on dress codes but, unless they are highly specialised tour operators offering trips to delicate habitats then environmental advice is usually limited.

There is clearly a role and responsibility of tour operators to give useful, helpful and well-informed advice to customers. That advice needs to be tailored to suit the local circumstances of that destination. For example, do not bother much with Benidorm customers - but take those taking African safaris and trekking in Nepal very seriously. The best time to influence behaviour is immediately on arrival - most brochures are examined and holidays booked months ahead so the brochure is not the best vehicle for influencing behaviour.

The next question is : 

'What role should the intermediaries play towards the developed and developing world ?'

In the advanced OECD countries the tour operators need to play the role of the constructive private sector player in a public/private partnership aimed at sustainable development of tourism. This means responding constructively to the legal framework, contributing to consultations on amendments to that legal framework and generally enabling the country to achieve it's objectives in tourism. So issues such as conservation of resources, energy conservation, management of congestion, and of waste need to be thought through by the tour operator.

The key difference in the developing world is that governments may have the will but lack the resources to guarantee proper management of the social and environmental consequences of tourism. So tour operators, along with their sub-contracted suppliers, as well as working with governments, need to operate within some informal code of conduct to encourage best practice. This is inevitably a weaker solution. In this situation the Governments are not able to impose a level playing field so if environmental best practice costs more there will be a tendency to cut corners to offer lower prices to win customers.

The next question is : 

'What role should the intermediaries play ?'

The tour operators need to have clear policies relating to :

• Energy saving, noise, emission and operational effectiveness (particularly if they own their own airlines)
• The use of non-toxic materials
• Paper buying/consumption
• Information to customers
  
• The influencing and monitoring of the performance of sub-contractors (eg, hotels, energy saving, consumer advice, management of waste)
• Interaction with governments and local authorities, NGO's
• A support for destination management policies and strategies aimed at sustainable development
• The inclusion of sustainable development in management development and representative training programmes.
• An aggregation of performance data to support corporate reporting.

We come back to the original question - given all these caveats and constraints. 

'Can government policy ensure the sustainable development of the tourism industry ?'

The answer I hope is clear. From a global perspective government policy alone cannot ensure the sustainable development of the tourism industry.

Much has to be done by the other actors in the tourism game to ensure sustainable development. The question that this raises is :

'If government policy alone cannot ensure the sustainable development of the tourism industry, what role should government play ?'

It is first necessary to examine where government intervention is already visible. 

• Emissions from aircraft (noise and exhaust)

  These are already managed by government and inter-governmental organisations. Governments have, through pressure and regulation, stimulated huge technological improvements, and undoubtedly there are many others that are due to follow.

• Emissions from land vehicles

  This is already managed by governments. Adherence to steadily more stringent remedies are reducing emissions very substantially. This pressure is also leading to the emergence of viable alternatives providing zero emissions.

• Energy Usage

  People from developed countries tend to consume very much the same energy wherever they are. (On heating and travelling in the north, on air conditioning and travelling in hot climates in the south).
   
  The issue of extra energy used by tourists should be confined to the journey to get to, and from, the destination.
   
  In some countries there are requirements for using energy saving measures. Methods are widely used for reducing energy consumption by hotels as well as generating energy (and reducing the production of green house gases) through the use of solar panels. As hotels are always looking for ways to reduce costs there are strong economic incentives already in place. 

  The fuel consumption of aircraft is the responsibility of the aircraft manufacturers. Again there are very strong incentives to reduce fuel consumption and other operating costs.
   
  Aircraft last a long time (20 years or more). They cost a great deal so scrapping aircraft is very expensive. Governments have intervened to outlaw, for example, noisy chapter 2 aircraft by a certain date. This has the effect of increasing the scrapping rates of old inefficient aircraft. The expense of the aircraft means that gradual tightening up of regulations is the only viable route for governments.

• Sewage/Hard Waste

  Sewage systems are managed by central and local government. Hard waste is managed by governments through packaging and hygiene regulations. In the absence of requisite regulations and infrastructure, hotels and other suppliers need to apply their own sustainable solutions.

• Water Cleanliness

  This is a central/local government responsibility backed up by local private sector suppliers in poorer countries.

• Sea Water Cleanliness

  This is a central/local government responsibility.

• Planning and Building Regulations/Protection of National Spaces

  This is a central/local government responsibility. Their decisions will reflect the balance between economic, social and environmental issues that they want to strike.

• Roads and Highways

  This is a central/local government responsibility.

• Airports and Ports

  These are matters determined through government regulations.

• Air Traffic Control

  These are matters regulated through government and inter-governmental organisations.

• Health and Hygiene

  There is a government responsibility for regulations, enforcement and delivery of health services and (waste disposal) but some aspects of delivery rest in the private sector (eg. hotels).

• Control over the number of tourists

  The maximum number of tourists is generally governed by accommodation supply. That is the responsibility of government planning regulations.
   
  Managing congestion at heritage sites , ski resorts and other natural and built attractions needs much more study and may well lead to specific central or local government regulations.
    
  If there are to be limits on numbers the issue of pricing emerges as an important method of managing numbers. This could be partly a private but also a public matter (eg. the price for entering Nefertari's tomb in Egypt).

So government policy and regulations impinge on many aspects of sustainable tourism already. It must be right for the destination countries to determine what legal and regulatory framework is appropriate and for the private sector intermediaries or principals to respond.

Tour operators are required to operate within strict legal frameworks designed to protect the consumers. Thus tour operators in the EU have to be responsible for the acts and omission of suppliers and for providing accurate information to consumers.

Is there a case for creating legal obligations of tour operators to provide consumers with advice and guidance on how to be a responsible tourist? There are unlikely to be many objections to such a proposal providing the advice could be given on arrival and not in brochures where the information will not be remembered and is very expensive to provide. Of course most people do not travel with tour operators so destinations will need to provide information for the majority that travel independently. For example, tour operators argue that information about the penalties for drug use or the sexual exploitation of children is probably best conveyed at airport arrivals (near passport controls or near baggage conveyors).

As previously observed, the social and environmental impacts of tourism can be potentially much more significant in countries which have limited resources for legal enforcement. The onus of responsibility then rests much more heavily on the tour operator and other sub-contracted suppliers for sustainable development.

What policy measures could be helpful in encouraging the responsible behaviour of the tourism industry ?

Maybe the triple bottom line approach could be useful. That is to say corporate reporting covering not only financial but also environmental and social performance.

Governments from generating countries can also play a role in ensuring codes of conduct and environmental policies are established as part of self-regulation.

The WTO Global Code of Ethics is a useful framework for considering what further legal and policy measures could be taken to encourage sustainable development of the tourism industry.

To conclude. There are some parts of the developed and developing world that have too many tourists and impose unacceptable burdens upon local people and the environment. But we must not forget that there are many other countries, in Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America, that are desperate for the income of tourists because they have seen the benefits. "They have discovered", as Francesco Frangialli, the Secretary General of the World Tourism Organisation observes, "that wherever tourism advances, poverty retreats".

Many of these countries lack financial resources but the natural world, the environment is their main tourism resource.

Their need to protect the environment is even more important to them than for others. The income from tourism can be used to help protect bio-diversity and their environment.

In these circumstances all the economic incentives are in place to encourage all the sectors in tourism to work towards sustainable development.

This suggests that government policy (and legislation) can play a role with a relatively light touch to encourage or require best practice and adherence to standards. Heavy handed restraints are unlikely to be successful.

So my answer to the original question is :

Government policy (and legislation) alone cannot ensure the sustainable development of the tourism industry but it can help greatly. What is needed is a close co-operation with all the sectors in tourism to provide an effective public private partnership. That partnership should lead to responsible behaviour among all parties. We have already travelled a long way in our journey towards sustainable development in tourism but there is still much to be done.