Chapter 7:



Beyond Hotels: Nature-Based Certification in Europe

By Xavier Font and Tanja Mihalič

1. Introduction

Within the travel and tourism industry in Europe today there are some 5000 recipients of green certification logos, including a wide range of accommodations as well as tour operators, destinations, golf courses, parks, beaches, and marinas.[i] As discussed in chapter 7, since the 1980s, scores of eco-sensitive certification programs in Europe were developed in a piecemeal fashion by a variety of government agencies, NGOs, and industry association to cover parts of the mass, sustainable, and ecotourism markets. Both the loose use of terminology and Europe’s large number of small, sometimes overlapping, certification systems create customer and industry confusion.2 Most of the green certification schemes described in the previous chapter measure the environmental impacts or management of a tourism structure or business such as a lodge or tour operator. This chapter aims to demonstrate that certification programs that measure the quality of natural areas may be more likely to succeed than certification schemes of tourism facilities because they assess aspects of the environment that are more important to both long term sustainability and to the traveling public. This will be illustrated by examining two nature-based certification programs in Europe, the well-established Blue Flag for beaches and the World Wide Fund for Nature’s PAN Parks program that is in its inception stages.

In assessing the significance of these nature-based programs, three factors are important to bear in mind. First, in all certification programs for the tourism industry, “environment” can be understood narrowly as the natural physical setting or as the social and cultural environment within which a business operates.3 The majority of European schemes focus only on the first, the physical setting, whereas in developing countries, certification schemes (including as discussed elsewhere in this volume, ones in Africa, Fiji, and parts of Central America and Australia) tend to take into account impacts and benefits to the local community, including financial leakages, labor, stakeholder input, and local participation.

Second, accommodation has traditionally been the target of most tourism quality-assurance programs, and, more recently, of environmental certification programs.4 While accommodation is certainly a key sector, a hotel’s impact is often not among the major threats to the environment posed by the tourism industry.5 Poor environmental management of a hotel, for instance, might mean greater use of water, energy, and non-recyclable products, but this is unlikely to have irreversible consequences. In contrast, poor management in a national park can lead to permanent loss of unique vegetation and wildlife and destruction of the quality of natural resources.

Third, research shows that tourists select a hotel not primarily for its internal environmental management practices but for the environmental quality of the destination as a whole. Tourists are therefore more likely to make holiday choices on the basis of, say, environmental quality of beaches, national parks, and rural landscapes, than on the basis of energy or water savings in a hotel. Unspoilt destinations are what the tourist is willing to pay sometimes even more for; the inner workings of a lodge or hotel are not so apparent to guests and therefore typically rate lower among a tourists' want list. Research in both Germany and Italy demonstrate that tourists (excluding business travelers) primarily care about the quality at the destination, while the methods to achieve this quality are not of great concern. In Germany, 60 percent of those surveyed were interested in a destination’s water and air quality, while Italians rated the environmental quality of the destination as the top priority in choosing their holidays and ranked environmental management at the bottom of their concerns.6 Therefore the evidence indicates that tourists are more interested in eco-labels that measure environmental quality rather than those that measure eco-efficiency.7

Criteria for Nature-Based Tourism Certification: Green versus Gray

These differences in certification criteria can be described as “green” versus “gray” environmental indicators. Green indicators are linked to environmental quality of the location such as purity of the water at a beach or biodiversity within a national park. These indicators are the ones that are most visible and meaningful to the consumer. In contrast, the environmental management of lodges and other tourism facilities measures impacts linked, most often, to eco-efficiency such as waste disposal and waste treatment, water and energy use, and environmentally-friendly purchasing practices. While these “gray” environmental indicators are less visible and less important to tourists, they, however, both meaningful to the management of the business unit and vital in providing the means to control the impact of that unit on the surrounding environment. Figure 1 provides a simple graphic illustrating the range of green and gray criteria within tourism certification programs.

Figure 1: Green and gray spectrums of environmental labeling

Gray indicators are typically measured by process-based environmental management systems tailored to the individual business and designed to marry eco- friendly practices with cost saving measures (See chapter 2). In contrast, green indicators tend to be performance-based criteria or benchmarks that are used to measure all applicants within a particular certification program. Nature-based certification programs that have a greater reliance on environmental quality are typically based more on performance than on process criteria. Yet certification standards do need to take into account region and site-specific conditions and to encourage continual improvement. In most cases, therefore, it is best to combine a mixture of performance benchmarks modified to fit the geographic areas with management systems and incentives.

Nature-based Certification Schemes in Europe

Nature-based certification schemes in Europe target tourist destinations and natural or semi-natural tourist attractions. There are a variety of certification and eco- award programs for tourist facilities and attractions that rely heavily on land usage, such as campsites and golf courses. Examples include Environmentally Friendly Campsites and Model Campsites (both in Germany), Committed to Green (Europe), David Bellamy Conservation Award in Britain, the Emblem of Guarantee of Environmental Quality in Spain, and the Scottish Golf Course Wildlife Initiative. These examples border between the traditional ecolabels for facilities and those for environmental quality of a location, since they include both green and gray and performance- and process-based criteria. There are other ecolabels in Europe that are totally dependent on the quality of their physical environment. Examples are the Destination 21 (Europe), Tidy Britain Group’s Seaside Award, The European Charter for Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas, Blue Flag, and PAN Parks. (In addition, Green Globe 21 is attempting to certify destinations, however by mid-2001, only one had been certified) (See chapter 11). While these nature-based programs include some process-based, environmental management criteria, they primarily contain performance-base benchmarks since the ultimate goal and the message to the consumer is that they can enjoy a healthy and safe environment.

2. Blue Flag for Beaches

Blue Flag is the oldest and most successful environmental logo for European tourism. It grew out of a pollution-tracking campaign organized by Foundation for Environmental Education in Europe (FEEE) and was initially based on the idea of "bottle messages." In the early 1980s, environmental activists in France began setting adrift in the ocean bottles containing a message that identified the point of origin. The bottle's course was then used to track the spread of solid waste in the ocean. Thus the Blue Flag logo—a bottle floating on three waves—is intended to send a message of the importance of careful environmental management and monitoring of beaches and oceans.8 (See fig. 2.)

Figure 2: Blue Flag symbol

Insert

FEEE was founded in 1981 by environmental educators in France, Denmark, England, and The Netherlands who partnered with the Council of Europe, a non-EU, intergovernmental body of European countries, to establish a separate organization. The Foundation soon became a network of organizations working to promote environmental education through, in addition to Blue Flag, programs such as Eco Schools, Young Reporters for the Environment, and Learning about Forests. Over the years, the FEEE head office moved from The Netherlands to Denmark and then to England, to the offices of Keep Britain Tidy, but the Blue Flag co- ordination office stayed in Copenhagen, hosted by Danish Outdoor Council.

The Blue Flag campaign for beaches was officially born in 1985 when the first 11 Blue Flags were awarded to municipalities in France that had achieved high standards in bathing water quality and waste water treatment.9 In 1986, another 43 beaches in France were certified. Then, in 1987,during the “European Year of the Environment,” FEEE presented the Blue Flag concept to the European Commission, the body that handles policy initiatives for the European Union (EU). The EU agreed to launch the European Blue Flag campaign as one of the several new environmental activities. FEEE, with financial support from the European Commission, undertook to organize the campaigns throughout Europe.

Beginning in 1987, the Blue Flag concept expanded beyond water quality to include other areas of environmental protection, such as waste management and coastal planning. Besides beaches, marinas also become eligible for the Blue Flag certification. In 1988, FEEE, in co-operation with the Commission of the European Communities,10 awarded 205 Blue Flags to the beaches in France (87), Ireland (19), Portugal (74), Spain (7) and United Kingdom (18)11 A year later, during the 1989 bathing season, the campaign spread to Denmark, Germany, Greece, and Italy and the number of the Blue Flag certifications increased to 391. By 2001, Blue Flags had awarded certification to 2041 beaches (Figure 3) in 21 European countries. Between the years 1990 and 2001, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Norway, Slovenia, Sweden and Turkey joined the campaign, and Iceland and Lithuania were expected to join in 2002.

Figure 3:

Insert

In 1996, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and World Tourism Organization (WTO) joined with FEEE in an effort to spread the campaign outside Europe. In 2001, after completing a successful Blue Flag pilot phase in South Africa, the Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa (WASSA) became the first non-European member of FEEE and, in October 2001, began certifying its first beaches.12 At the same time, pilot phases were planned for launch in the Caribbean.13 As FEEE became an international organization, it changed its name outside Europe to simply the Foundation for Environmental Education (FEE).

Today FEE is an umbrella organization with national branches, known as "operators," in every member country. Each FEE operator has two votes within the FEE general assembly. Before being accepted as members, all operators are vetted to make sure they are reputable NGOs committed to environmental education. When, for instance, the Slovenian National Tourism Board applied to join the Blue Flag campaign in 1993, it was rejected because, as a tourism association, it had not demonstrated a commitment to environmental education. One year later, however, FEE's general assembly accepted as Slovenia’s national operator a newly established environmental NGO that applied to join FEE's Blue Flag and Eco Schools programs. Every four years, the executive board and general assembly reviews the status, organizational structure, financial and activity reports, plans, and recommendations of every national organization. If an organization shows weaknesses, its status can be downgraded to associate membership, with a right to only one vote in the general assembly.

Each national operator is responsible for carrying out the Blue Flag campaign and any other FEE educational campaigns. This type of decentralization has contributed to the growth of Blue Flag. It has economic advantages as well because costs in each country are mainly covered by grants from local and national governments, sponsorships by the industry, and Blue Flag fees. Funding for the FEE parent body comes from annual membership fees, subsidies, donations, sponsorships, consultancy fees, and sale of products.14

As shown on Figure 4, Blue Flag campaigns involve a wide variety of stakeholders, including government ministries of health, the environment, and tourism, consumer protection associations, and environmental organizations.

Figure 4: Blue Flag awarding procedure, 2001,

Case of Slovenian Central beach Portoro

Blue Flag Criteria

To be eligible for the Blue Flag award, a beach has to fulfill benchmarks in four separate areas: water quality, safety, environmental education and information, and environmental management systems. These include both process and performance criteria. For instance, Blue Flag's standards for the 2001 European bathing season included the following:

• Water quality: This must comply with government requirements and standards such as those of the EU Bathing Water Directive. This directive sets the microbiological standards and physico-chemical parameters for bathing waste. No sewage discharges may affect the beach area and the community must be in compliance with requirements for sewage treatment according to EEC Urban Waste Water Directive. These new benchmarks, which FEE started to gradually implement in 2001, require that there be no untreated sewage discharged from the local community, specify treatment standards (biochemical, chemical oxygen, phosphorus, nitrogen, etc.), and set implementation deadlines depending on the size of the community.15

• Environmental education and information: This states that information about flora, fauna, and environmentally-sensitive areas in the coastal zone must be publicly displayed, along with prescriptions on how visitors should behave and data on bathing water quality. All must be in an easily understood form.

• Environmental management systems for beach facilities: This requires there be adequate numbers of trash cans, properly secured and regularly maintained and emptied; safe access to the beach; and bins for recycling materials. The local community must have a land use and development plan of its coastal zone and must promote sustainable means of transportation in the beach area, such as bicycling, walking, or public transport.

• Safety and services: This includes lifeguards, first aid equipment, and clean drinking water. At least one beach in each municipality must be equipped with access ramps and toilet facilities for people with disabilities.

Some of the 27 benchmarks contained in these four categories are imperative; others are simply guidelines. Any new criteria must be confirmed by majority vote at the FEE general assembly. They then become compulsory for all members. While beach management can fulfill certain requirements such as providing drinking water and recycling containers, a number of the other criteria (compliance with the EU Urban Waste Water Directive, for instance) needs assistance from the local government.

Blue Flag has become more rigorous over time. In 1987, for instance, the European Blue Flag criteria required compliance only with the bathing water quality standards set by either a country or by the European Community, whichever were stricter. After 1990, environmental educational activities become part of Blue Flag’s imperative criteria; in 1992, the bathing water quality criteria was changed to conform with the European Community Directive; in 1993, the criteria was strengthened to include maximum counts for fecal streptococci; in 1999, the physico-chemical standards were added16; and beginning in 2001, implementation of the EU Urban Waste Water Directive standards was required.

Further, as the Blue Flag campaign has expanded beyond Europe, different geographical and social issues have been taken into account. In 2001, the criteria adopted by Blue Flag in South Africa were somewhat different from the criteria for the European Campaign. For example, South African beaches must first apply to run a pilot phase and only a year afterwards can a beach apply for a full Blue Flag status. To qualify for a Blue Flag, a South African beach must comply with all criteria in 14 different groups. Unlike in Europe, these include criteria for visitor security, including that an uniformed guard patrol the beach area 24 hours a day.17

Blue Flags are awarded for one year. Candidates must meet all the required criteria and be approved by the national jury in order to be sent to the European jury for confirmation or rejection. During the Blue Flag season, which runs from July to September in Europe, national organizations and the European coordinator conduct site visits.18 If the inspection team finds non-compliance with one imperative criterion, use of the Blue Flag logo is immediately suspended. The beach is then reassessed within 10 days and if the criteria are still not met, Blue Flag certification is withdrawn for the rest of the season. If a site visit reveals non-compliance with more than one imperative criterion, the Flag is automatically withdrawn for the rest of the season.19 During the 2000 bathing season, for example, national operators withdraw about 15 Blue Flags.20

Blue Flag is more than a simple environmental label. Over the years it has grown into a very complex campaign that aims to increase environmental awareness and responsible behavior within communities. In 1994, the Blue Flag strategy moved from a focus on a single beach to a focus on policies in the surrounding community. Thus local government became the direct partner in the Blue Flag campaign. In partnership with local organizations, the local authority makes the final decision to apply for the Blue Flag award.21 As shown in Figure 4, in Slovenia, the local government together with the beach operator, applies for the award. Both are the key players in the Blue Flag system. Local government participation is needed because many criteria refer to the environmental management of the local community. For example, the community must have a land-use and development plan for its coastal zone. This plan and the current activities of the community in the coastal zone must be in compliance with planning regulations and coastal zone protection regulations. Although such criteria are of no immediate value to beach visitors, they are vital in laying a framework so that the community undertakes tourism development in conformity with sound environmental practices. Therefore, these criteria contribute over the long run to the quality of the visitor experience. For those beaches that are managed by hotel owners or other tourist firms or associations independent from the local government, a partnership between the beach operator and local community has to be established.

Building Consumer Recognition and Improving Environmental Standards

Blue Flag has considerable press and public recognition in Europe as a symbol designating clean and healthy beaches. During 2000 and part of 2001, a search of databases22 revealed that more than 90 percent of the articles in the Sunday Times, Daily Telegraph, Evening Standard, Telegraph and The Guardian linked Blue Flag only to water quality, about 40 percent to cleanliness (including physical cleanliness of the beach), 23 percent to general safety (e.g., provision of life saving equipment, first aid facilities, etc.), and only 15 percent to other, less visible, "gray" issues, such as implementation of water purification systems. None of these articles referred to Blue Flag's visitor educational component, even thought this is a key requirement in applications and is strongly promoted by the FEE23. One survey24 among Blue Flag participants in Europe found that Blue Flag certification has helped to improve a beach's environmental image with visitors as well as its physical cleanliness and water quality. For example, in 1995, Dieppe in France spent more than 90 million francs (about $12 million) in order to improve bathing water quality. In Portovenere in Italy, an environmental education center has been built as a part of Blue Flag campaign, while in Calvi on Corsica, the campaign led to implementation of an alternative system for disposal of household wastes.25 In Slovenia, Blue Flag campaign generated public discussion on seawater quality and public accessibility on environmental quality data.

Despite Blue Flag’s strong efforts at environmental education, the logo is primarily viewed by the public, the industry, and government tourism departments as a symbol of clean and safe beaches and bathing water. Many countries have joined the campaign in order to gain use of this popular logo in hopes of boosting tourism numbers. It is no coincidence, for instance, that it was the Slovenian Tourism Association that first tried to join the Blue Flag campaign by asking for FEE membership. In South Africa, the environmental and tourism ministries have supported Blue Flag as a tool for helping to market South Africa and its beaches internationally.26 In Germany, the biggest tour operator Touristik International (TUI) lists Blue Flag certified beaches in its publications. Wolf Michael Iwand, a marketing expert with TUI, commends Blue Flag for helping TUI to provide “ecological marketing for holidaymakers.”27

Blue Flag’s Main Challenges

One of Blue Flag’s ongoing challenges is how to implement new criteria, including more stringent regulations passed by the European Union. For instance, in 2001, Blue Flag found it could not require all beaches seeking certification to immediately adopt the EU’s new Urban Waste Water Directive. The Directive, which is one of the pillars of EU’s legislation on water, seeks to protect against pollution of drinking and bathing waters by requiring that member states collect and treat urban wastewater discharge according to strict standards. The EU-wide costs of the implementation of the Urban Waste Water Directive is estimated to euro 150 billion (about $133 billion). 28 In 2001, many beach candidates were unable to quickly comply with this criteria both because they lacked sufficient technical skills and financial resources and because, in some cases, the source of pollution was outside the control of the beach operator or the local community applying for Blue Flag certification. The situation was further complicated because the European Commission had not yet put in place the Directive’s general guidelines for ensuring compliance. For all these reasons, the FEE European jury decided to award Blue Flags in 2001 without taking into account these criteria, although in the near future all certified beaches will be required to conform with the EU directive.29

This raises several complex and potentially troubling issues. Since Blue Flag, like all current ecolabels, is voluntary, there is a danger that, if the criteria becomes too stringent and too expensive, the industry may withdraw and opt for a more simple and “easily to get” eco-quality label. The local government may then not have enough power to carry on the Blue Flag campaign without the support of the tourism sector and possibly other stakeholders, including the local community which looks to Blue Flag to help boost visitor numbers. In addition, because wastewater treatment is a “gray” issue not easily seen by tourists, it may be difficult to build a consumer lobby as a counterweight to industry.

Blue Flag does, however, have the advantage that it is well known and well respected and does not have much competition from alternative logos. Unlike many of the ecolabels for accommodations, in most European countries there is at present no “substitute” environmental logo for beaches. The exception is the Seaside Award in the United Kingdom. The Tidy Britain Group, which is also the national operator for the Blue Flag, has developed its own beach environmental logo: a yellow flag with blue flash. Seaside Award water standards are less strict30 than Blue Flag31 and cover both urban and rural beaches. This means that beaches that don’t comply for Blue Flag certification may be able to get and display a yellow flag “ecolabel.”

Confusion has also arisen because Blue Flag certification for marinas uses the same sea waves logo as for beaches. The public and press associate this logo with good bathing water, yet Blue Flag-certified marinas do not have to comply with bathing water directive standards, since marinas are not bathing places. A lot of public relations efforts have gone into trying to explain that the criteria for marinas are different. Many experts feel, however, that Blue Flag should adopt a distinct logo for its certified marinas.

There have been other problems, as well. Local authorities often want to use the Blue Flag logo to promote tourism on their beaches, even if, in reality, all the criteria have not been met or the Blue Flag award is from a previous year.32 The campaign must do more to inform visitors that Blue Flags are awarded for only one bathing season and to set in place a system for ensuring that the logo is not used on beaches that did not qualify for certification or where certification has lapsed. More broadly, in order to continue the Blue Flag success story, the FEE will have to manage and balance the competing demands for environmental education, EU-driven implementation of complex environmental management standards, the interests of tourism industry, and the public’s concern with environmentally clean beaches and oceans.

3. PAN Parks

Although the PAN Parks project is a decade younger than Blue Flag, it has been recognized at a European level as one of the two most relevant initiatives for Natura 2000, the European strategy for nature conservation.33 As the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) explains, the concept of PAN Parks is “to create a network of parks with an international reputation for outstanding access to wildlife and excellent tourist facilities, combined with effective habitat protection and the minimal environmental impact possible.”34 The target of the label is protected areas, specifically large national parks with outstanding wildlife such as brown bear, wolf, lynx, moose, and raptors like the Golden Eagle. Like Blue Flag, PAN Parks is dealing with sustainability issues for one of Europe’s most important tourism sectors. Beach and protected areas (in the form of national parks and nature reserves) are the two main attractions within nature-based tourism. Environmental quality of these resources is part of their draw, yet the most popular of Europe’s protected areas are under increasing pressure from tourism.35

PAN Parks was initiated in 1997 through an unlikely alliance between the Dutch tourism and leisure group Molecaten and WWF-Netherlands. Molecaten, a company that develops holiday villages currently hosting some 35.000 people per day in The Netherlands, approached WWF and proposed they form a team. Molecaten’s aim is to open new holiday villages in natural areas of Europe, mainly Scandinavia, Central and Eastern Europe. Managing Director Cees Slager says he saw that local communities supported this idea but there was resistance from conservationists. He therefore decided to team up with a conservation NGO to ensure that the needs of both groups are met. WWF-Netherlands considered PAN Parks to be a good idea for several reasons: it could benefit the communities living near by parks through increased tourism business, it could give the park some bargaining power in efforts to cut back on illegal poaching and hunting, and it could help protect the parks through improved management. By increasing the benefits of non-consumptive use of the parks, WWF-Netherlands aims to convince the local population to enlarge the amount of protected land in order to create a natural north-south corridor in parts of Central and Eastern Europe.

Protected land in Europe is usually in very small units and linked to a single specific scientific interest. Molecaten and WWF decided to concentrate on certifying only those parks that are at least 25,000 hectares. There are only about one hundred such parks in Europe and of these, three are sites with large, free roaming mammals and therefore of prime importance to PAN Parks. Creating a corridor of protected land is a long-term aim, yet already are some large pockets of protected lands. In Poland, for instance, one of the current candidates, Bieszczady National Park, together with two adjoining protected areas covers more than 200.000 hectares—a large space by European standards.

PAN Parks is, in reality, a partnership between Molecaten, WWF, and local park managers, in consultation with neighboring communities and tour operators and others from the tourism industry. Molecaten’s contribution has been financial. The PAN Parks Foundation has few staff dedicated full time to the project, relying instead on experts from WWF. The team from WWF had had some involvement in the development of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) standards, but has had no previous involvement in tourism certification. PAN Parks is run as a sort of extension of WWF’s protected area management and conservation program. It provides guidelines and monitoring, but is relatively hands-off, thus allowing park management to take ownership of the process. Although it is national park managers who apply for certification, they must work with a variety of local actors (including tour operators) to ensure that the park’s plans are coordinated with the needs of the community.

The application process consists of three phases: prospective, candidate, and verified. Parks in the prospective phase receive support from the PAN Parks Foundation in conducting self-assessment exercises against the principles and criteria to see whether they want to move to the candidate status. At this stage the PAN Parks Foundation and the park work out a strategy to reach the five principles by an agreed date, and the PAN Parks Foundation provides expertise depending on the park’s needs. At each phase the park receives added benefits from marketing and exposure through the WWF dissemination channels.

Each park has to develop their own Executive PAN Parks Organization (EPPO) serves as a platform for discussion and decision-making on issues involving the park and its surrounding areas. This forum and its leader are the direct link between the verified PAN Park and the PAN Parks Foundation. Although the leader is likely to be working at the national park, the EPPO has to be broader, involving as well a wide range of local organizations and businesses. Many park officials had long thought that such an organization was necessary, but PAN Parks has given them the incentive to form it.

Pan Park’s Guiding Principles and Criteria

The criteria of PAN Parks were developed with five guiding principles:36

1. Natural values: PAN Parks are large protected areas, representative of Europe's natural heritage and of international importance for wildlife and ecosystems. Each site must be over 25.000 hectares.

2. Habitat Management: Design and management of the PAN Park aims to maintain and, if necessary, restore the area's natural ecological processes and its biodiversity.

3. Visitor Management: Visitor management safeguards the natural values of the PAN Park and aims to provide visitors with a high-quality experience based on the appreciation of nature.

4. Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy: The Protected Area Authority and its relevant partners in the PAN Parks region aim at achieving a synergy between nature conservation and sustainable tourism by developing a Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy (STDS), committing to it and jointly taking responsibility in its implementation.

5. Business partners: PAN Parks’ business partners as legal enterprises are committed to the goals of the protected area in their region and the PAN Parks organization, and actively cooperate with other stakeholders to effectively implement the region’s Sustainable Tourism Development Strategy as developed by the local executive committee of PAN Parks.

Certification criteria cascade down from each principle, and several indicators are linked to each criteria. The list of benchmarks and indicators is long, ranging from hard, measurable data such as species counts, to softer management issues such as community involvement. Although the criteria have gone through little modification since their conception, the indicators have been refined through consultation and running pilot projects. Principle one is mostly a list of conditions, and thus is unlikely to change, at least in the short term. For principles two to five, the criteria outline the five stages of certification: 1) policy, 2) review, 3) program, 4) operations, and 5) audit and review. For example, under principle 3 on visitor management, the criteria would include having a visitor management plan, where ecological capacity is assessed and measures are taken to address or avoid negative impacts identified as significant by the management body. Under this heading it is also required to have staff training, a visitor center and activities for visitors, including methods of visitor education and interpretation.

The indicators linked to criteria—carrying capacity, number of visitor activities, interpretation, and so on—do not have benchmarks at this stage, since each park starts at a different level and there are at present no possibilities for providing start-up investment. While this approach is more realistic in the context of national park management, it does not provide a common denominator for all parks, and it does not guarantee that a minimum benchmark is met. The need for indicators that allow for local conditions to permeate and dictate the priorities on a case by case basis is even more evident on principle 5, the involvement of local business partners, since the willingness of local communities to engage in these discussions is not something that the park can enforce or implement on their own. In addition, since the outcomes of such process are less measurable in hard terms, benchmarks here cannot be as straightforward as when conducting biodiversity surveys.

Some park officials want additional criteria. For example, Marija Markes of the Triglav National Park in Slovenia has proposed that PAN Parks should include criteria requiring accommodation providers purchase locally, thereby strengthening economic links and minimizing leakages. Triglav National Parks is using its logo as a trade name to support the production of organic cheese, and is encouraging the marketing of organic farming in general. However, adopting this as a requirement for all parks will have to wait until PAN Parks criteria are reviewed, since parks already have high hurdles to jump in this first stage.

PAN Parks Today and Challenges Ahead

Since 1999, seven parks, or around seven percent of the target market, have entered the pilot stage toward fulfillment of PAN Parks’ criteria, and all have received at least one visit. The seven sites— Oulanka (Finland), Bieszczady (Poland), Slovenski raj (Slovak Republic), Mercantour (France), Triglav (Slovenia), and Fulufjället (Sweden)—are all national parks except for the last. Fulufjället is a Nature Reserve, but the EU has decided to grant it national park status in 2002, in part because of its involvement in PAN Parks. (Some other parks that initially expressed an interest in entering PAN Parks, then backed away because of other commitments and staff changes.) These national parks applying for certification include a mixture of public and private lands, with their core conservation areas generally being publicly owned. Most parks have a visitor center with some limited facilities. Generally funds for maintaining the parks come from the public sector, ranging from Oulanka which is 100 percent publicly funded to Triglav where 40 percent of the income is generated from tourism and hunting. Timber extraction is still practiced in some parks, including Slovenski raj.

One contentious issue is the PAN Park certification requirement that a park must increase the amount of tourism within its boundaries. The current controversial proposal is for creation of PAN Park Villages through the lease of land at zero cost to create holiday accommodations and services inside the park, or the purchase of land adjacent to the park boundaries. This requirement has been under discussion within the PAN Parks Foundation for some time. Some argue this proposal presents a conflict of interest since the Molecaten group is well positioned to benefit from this requirement. Concerns have been raised that once a park has received PAN Parks certification and the village is built, the Foundation has a long-term commitment to the site, thereby making it difficult to withdraw certification. The process is currently going ahead, with Fulufjället as the first park in which a village will be created.37

National park authorities and local communities also have reasons to support proposals for increased tourism and accommodations within the parks. Park officials argue that increased tourism in their parks will improve their negotiating power with the local population and help them to either to control unsustainable uses of the park or to enlarge the size of the park. These are parks where illegal poaching and hunting is common, and the park’s management does not currently have the resources to police the site. The Swedish community near Fulufjallet, for instance, has accepted limiting the hunting and snow mobiling areas so the nature reserve can apply for national park status because they see as increasing tourism, which is a more economically beneficial activity.

In addition, park representatives demand concrete benefits from their involvement with this program, especially those in parks with more experience in managing tourism such as Mercantour in France and Abruzzo in Italy. Those parks with already high visitor numbers and low budgets view PAN Parks certification as a way to balance their books and provide better environmental protection. For instance, Oulanka in Finland has 120.000 visitors a year and no income generating activities within the park. However, tourists visiting the park generate 30 percent of the revenue in the two local towns. The first challenge for this park has been agreeing on a sustainable tourism development strategy that meets PAN Parks’ principles and criteria and is also endorsed by the Finnish Ministry of Environment. The local community hopes that PAN Parks will promote better marketing. The first challenge has been agreeing on a sustainable tourism development strategy that meets PAN Parks’ principles and criteria, is endorsed by the Finnish Ministry of Environment, and will help to increase income from tourism for both the park and the local community.

The assessment and verification processes are being developed by SGS Hungary, part of the SGS group, the largest verification body worldwide, and will be released in the near future. For each park, a team of experts is assigned to undertake a site visit and desk review. These experts will be contracted by PAN Parks when verifications are needed, making this the closest to third party verification possible within such a small program and consistent with the practices of other sound certification schemes. This avoids outsourcing to an external organization, since the small number of applicants makes this financially unfeasible, but the verifiers are provided with training and a detailed verification manual. Costs of verification have not been set, but these will be shared between the PAN Parks Foundation and the individual park and surrounding business partners. The Foundation will cover 50 percent of costs for European Union member countries and 75 percent of costs for new EU “accession” countries. (These latter are mainly in Central and Eastern Europe, and, therefore, include most PAN Parks applicants.) Verified partners will be charged a fee to use the PAN Parks logo, but the cost of this fee has not yet been set. Currently the financial feasibility of the whole program relies on the funding from the Molecaten group, the program is planned to become self-financing through redirecting a share of the profits from the PAN Park Village to this purpose, yet this can be contentious since not all parks that are certified will want to have a PAN Parks Village and therefore will mean cross-subsidizing.

PAN Parks is also serving as an educational tool for parks, helping them to establish management practices and policies to ensure long-term sustainable development. During a workshop in Holland in June 2001, the seven candidate parks and PAN Parks officials devised strategies for each park leading to certification. The workshop adopted a participatory approach and searched for common agreements among participants38 with a target of starting the verification progress in January 2002. Each park has had to prioritize needs depending on their local conditions. Oulanka in Finland is currently introducing social and ecological surveys to determine carrying capacities. In order to reach certification in 2002, Oulanka will also have to work on principle 5 on business partners—the principle that most parks currently fail to meet.

PAN Parks is a young program and its impact in the management of national parks in Europe, as well as tourism flows, will not be clear for at least another ten years. Certain changes will take time to show up since some parks have already devised strategies that do not include all the PAN Parks requirements. In the case of Slovenski raj, for example, the forestry plan and the management plan need to be re- written, but this will not happen until 2006.39 PAN Parks certification processes do reflect, however, the current philosophy and debates surrounding the methods to assess good environmental management in sites where tourism and conservation need to be made compatible.

Like many other certification schemes, PAN Parks faces competition from another program. The European Charter for Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas, which targets national parks and nature reserves with similar aims, is a Europarc Federation project, supported by the World Conservation Union (IUCN). It promotes continuous improvement in the implementation of an agreed charter in ten European national parks. While this is not a certification program in its traditional sense, it does offer tourists a seal of environmental quality of destinations. PAN Parks and the Charter are currently discussing areas for collaboration, and the Charter is having input in some of PAN Parks criteria to ensure initiatives are compatible.

Issues Arising from Nature-Based Certification Programs

In evaluating these two nature-based certification programs, it is clear they both have a number of strengths that help them fulfill their two fundamental objectives of assisting tourists in making sound holiday choices and providing a framework for the sustainable management of important natural resources. At the same time, both programs face a number of challenges that may undermine their long-term success.

Certification Goals

There are, as yet, no universally agreed upon principles and criteria for certification programs within the tourism industry. While many certification programs state they are following the principles of sustainability established by Agenda 21, the reality is that these principles are very general and do not provide clear guidelines for certification. Rather tourism certification programs are typically shaped by the mandate and goals of their founding and funding organizations. Both Blue Flag and PAN Parks were founded by environmental NGOs with specific interests and expertise in protecting natural areas and therefore these certification programs have succeeded in setting rigorous standards for environmental protection. FEEE developed Blue Flag as a means of implementing its goals of ensuring water quality and health and safety standards on Europe’s beaches, promoting “green” education for tourists and local residents, and increasing the participation and responsibilities of local communities, governments, and tourism businesses into the campaign for ecologically-sound management of coastal areas. Similarly, the WWF’s mandate to protect national parks and other pristine and endangered natural habitats is reflected in PAN Parks’ principles and criteria, and WWF experts are helping to ensure this certification program adheres to high standards.

However, Blue Flag and PAN Parks, like other reputable certification programs, involve a variety of stakeholders who have competing and sometimes contradictory interests and objectives. Tourism businesses, for instance, consider the Blue Flag campaign primarily as a way to improve the image of beaches40 and thereby increase tourism. Similarly, WWF’s conservation goals in creating PAN Parks are at times at variance with the objectives of Molecaten group, the program’s major funding body that has lobbied for the creation of holiday villages inside certified parks. In addition, both Blue Flag and PAN Parks have been challenged by competing eco-labels that target the same sectors. In Britain, not many beaches were getting Blue Flags and therefore the Seaside Award was created with different, less vigorous water quality criteria and an emphasis on beach cleanliness and safety. Beach managers can apply for either Blue Flag certification or Seaside Award’s yellow and blue flag, and customers typically do not know the difference between the two logos. Although PAN Parks and the European Charter for Protected Areas are both in their early stages, parks have opted to pilot one or the other, not both, programs. Parks tend to select the program in which they need to do the fewest number of things to meet the criteria. Currently these two programs function in parallel to one another rather than in direct competition, but the result is same as with Blue Flag and Seaside Award: different standards and confusing messages.

Changes in Criteria

As nature-based certification evolves, the performance-based environmental quality criteria and the more visible “green” elements are being wedded with more or less formal environmental management systems, including more criteria that measures less visible “gray” areas such as waste water disposal. Environmental quality certification is fundamental to these programs first because the quality of a natural attraction is central to the tourism product (a beach or park) itself41 and second, because customers expect and they implicitly understand42 “green” criteria. Success of both these programs is contingent on their ability to guarantee environmental quality. Blue Flag promises, “this is a safe beach,” while PAN Parks pledges “this is a good place to see wildlife” or “this is one of the best national parks in Europe.” Yet management and improvement of the less apparent “gray” areas may be equally important. The Spanish island of Majorca, for instance, which receives over 10 million tourists per year, has made the best environmental improvements in Europe in waste treatment and water efficiency.

In addition to the growing recognition of the importance of combining performance and process and gray and green benchmarks, there is the increasing recognition that environmental quality criteria need to be tailored to the given geographical area. PAN Parks’ biodiversity criteria developed for European parks are not, for instance, rigorous enough to ensure protection and long-term sustainability in South America’s bio-rich Amazon regions or East and southern Africa’s wildlife rich safari parks. Therefore environmental quality standards need to be put in the frame of environmental management systems that require continuous protection and improvement.

To reiterate, environmental management is a means to ensuring an end—environmental improvement, while environmental quality is ultimately what matters to the tourist. There is a growing consensus that nature-based awards need to include a mixture of environmental quality (based on performance standards) and environmental management criteria (based on process systems), and that the former need to set a minimum threshold, while the latter need to be built in to ensure continuing improvements.

Assessment and Verification

The time frame for application and awarding a logo varies depending partly on the data collection process. Water testing is a crucial issue in Blue Flag, and this is relatively straightforward and cheap to undertake. This is therefore done regularly and facilitates the awarding of Blue Flag on an annual basis. In the case of PAN Parks, the application and awarding period is longer and more complex since the criteria are linked both to developing site-specific plans and to their implementation and evaluation. This process is projected to take between three and five years, making awarding of logos much more difficult. And in areas such as assessing the impact of tourism on wildlife, the period might have to be even longer, although this could conceivably make the labeling process meaningless.

Impact of Target Size on Operations

The difference in numbers of the target certification group has an impact on a program’s level of standardization and the economies of scale in the application, verification, and awarding procedures. Blue Flag has a large and well-defined target pool: beaches offer very homogenous services and have clearly-defined physical boundaries. In addition, the number of beaches and marinas in Europe is easily counted, so FEEE can calculate what percentage have been assessed and certified. However, Blue Flag parameters and criteria need to be precise and self-explanatory since there are many more applicants and verifying agencies. PAN Parks, in contrast, targets large national parks and protected areas, which are far fewer in numbers and require a long period of two-way contact throughout the application process. These differences in target size and numbers and the amount and type of communication between label organizers and applicants present distinct challenges for each program and increase the difficulty of easily comparing these labels.

Limitations to Environmental Quality Control

Nature-based environmental certification needs to take into account that impacts are not always controllable by the management organization of the destination or natural attraction. The Blue Flag, PAN Parks, and most other nature-based labels certify on the basis of the quality of nature within set physical boundaries, but the management of the site does not have control over external sources of impact from surrounding areas. This is clearly the case in the Blue Flag, since the water quality is not only the outcome of the management of the beach, hotels, or even the local community, but from more widespread sources which may depend on water currents and waste disposal practices even long distances away. The same can be said for PAN Parks: only the park’s management can control a certain amount of the impact on wildlife and vegetation.

These outside influences demonstrate the need for nature-based labels to include criteria that go beyond site-specific requirements. Both the Blue Flag and PAN Parks recognize the need to link the management of their resources with the broader environment, and therefore involve the local community in the planning and decision making, or link, in the case of Blue Flag, to broader management plans. The implementation of the new EU Urban Waste Water Directive is a good example: its link to the quality of the environment is obvious, yet implementation of the Directive standards is far beyond the power of either beach managers or local tourism businesses.

Customer Recognition and Acceptance

Blue Flag has reached a stage where it is well established in Europe and its presence or absence on a beach means something to the tourist and to tourism businesses. While beaches in Europe are expected to attain a Blue Flag, national parks are not yet expected to be seeking the PAN Parks logo. The majority of European ecolabels is, like PAN Parks, only a few years old and has reached only a small share of their target market. Committed to Green, for instance, targets Europe's 5000 golf courses, but only around one percent of them have sought certification. Ecolabels will only make a meaningful difference in the marketplace when they succeed in reaching the recognition levels of Blue Flag.

Conclusions

Certification based on environmental and in some cases socio-economic criteria of Europe’s nature-based tourism attractions is key to the long-term sustainability of these destinations. Since many travelers in Europe base their decisions on environmental quality, certification is, potentially, an important voluntary, market-based tool for ensuring the long-term sustainability of these destinations. The chapter has used two different schemes to demonstrate the strengths and weaknesses of nature-based certification programs. On the minus side, both Blue Flag and PAN Parks are facing competition from other ecolabels which is causing consumer confusion and could in time undermine their credibility and viability. On the plus side, both these programs have carved out as their role the protection of vital natural resources. In doing so, they have both been assisted by reputable environmental organizations, support from government agencies ranging from the local level up to European Union, buy-in from the tourism industry and local communities, and relatively generous sources of funding. Finally, both these programs have reached the conclusion that they need to combine performance-based and “green” criteria that guarantee environmental quality and tourist demands, with creation of environmental management systems that monitor “gray” criteria and establish a framework to guarantee continuous improvement.

Endnotes

-----------------------

1. Ecotrams, Eco-labels and Awards in Tourism in Europe (2001), http/Eco-labels (retrieved 24/05/2001); FEEE-S internal database, 2001. Portoro~[pic]: FEEE-S (Foundation of Environmental Educati. Portorož: FEEE-S (Foundation of Environmental Education in Europe – Slovenia).

2. R. Spittler and U. Haak, (2001) “Quality Analysis of Tourism Ecolabels” in X. Font, R.C. Buckley (eds), Tourism Ecolabelling: Certification and Promotion of Sustainable Management (Wallingford: CAB International), p. 214; X. Font, E. Haas, K. Thorpe, L. Forsyth (2001) “Directory of Tourism Ecolabels” in Font et al, Tourism Ecolabelling, pp. 271-348, T. Mihalic and C. Kaspar (1996), Umweltokonomie im Tourismus (Bern: Paul Haupt), p. 114. Terminology differences are exacerbated when these are translated and taken out of their specific context; i.e. the German language prefers to use the term “seals of approval”; Spanish does not use either and so a more generic expression has to be used.

3. Mihalic and Kaspar (1996): 44.

4. C. DeBruyn, “Quality Criteria in Tourism Services,” in World Tourism Organization, Tourism Certification Systems and Standards Workshop, 37th meeting of the WTO’s Commission for the Americas (CAM), Oaxaca, Mexico, May 14-15, 2001.

5. European Environment Agency (2001) Environmental Signals 2001, Copenhagen:

European Environment Agency.

6. Lübbert, C. (1998). Umweltkennzeichnungen für touristische Angebote: Einstellungen deutscher Urlauber - Ergebnisse eine Pilotstudie. Fachtagung "Umweltkennzeichningen im Tourismus" am 29. Oktober 1998 an der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (LMU). München: Deutsches Wirtschaftswissenschaftliches Institut für Fremdenverkehr e.V. an der Universität München, pg. 22-31¸. ANPA (2001) “Studio nazionale per l’applicazione del marchio europeo di qualita ambientale nel settore del turismo,” Domanda turistica e qualita ambientale: Indagine realizzata nell’ambito dello, Rome: Agenzia Nazionale per la Protezione dell’Ambiente.

7. Mihalič, T. (2000) Environmental management of a tourist destination. A factor of tourism competitiveness. Tourism Management 21, p. 67.

8.FEEE (1990) The Blue Flag Campaign, Cohenhagen: FEEE.

9. UNEP Industry and Environment (1996) Awards for Improving the Coastal Environment: The Example of the Blue Flag. Paris: UNEP.

10. FEEE (1990).

11. UNEP , 1996: 28-29.

12.F. Bolding Thomsen (2001) “FEE(D) goes Worldwide!” Blue Flag Newsletter. FEE, July 2001, .

13. FEEE (2001a) The Blue Flag Campaign (2001), Copenhagen: FEEE, news.

14. FEEE (2001b) “Control Visits,” Blue Flag Newsletter, July 2001, .

15. Hellenic Society for the Protection of Nature (2001) “The Blue Flag: Guidance Notes to the Blue Flag Criteria for Beaches,” Athens: Hellenic Society for the Protection of Nature.

16 UNEP, 1996:8.

17 For more about the South African criteria see FEE 2001a.

18. UNEP, 1996:12.

19 FEEE, 2000b.

20. Bolding, personal correspondence; H. Wals (1997) “The Blue Flag: A Symbol and More.” The European Blue Flag: A ten-year Contribution to the Improvement of the Management and Protection of Coastal Regions, 1987-1997. Norwich: FEEE, pp. 32-33.

21 UNEP, 1996: 12.

22 Proquest (2001), database: .

23 G. Ashworth (1997) “Welcome and Opening Presentations,” The European Blue Flag…1987-1997, pp. 12-20.

24 P. Kernel (1997). “Survey of Opinions among National Interests about the Blue Flag Campaign,” Copenhagen: FEEE.

25 UNEP, 1996:9.

26 FEEE (2001c) “The Blue Flag is Official in South Africa (2001),” press release. .

27 I. Melahn (2001) “TUI Environmental Award goes to ‘Blue Flag Campaign,” TUI Times, February 2001.

28 European Commission (1999), Press release from the European Commission, DG XI, Environment, Nuclear Safety and Civil Protection. Brussels: DG XI, European Commission.

29 FEEE (2001d), “The Blue Flag Campaign 2001,” .

30. S. D’Arcy (2001) “Beach Awards Harder to Earn,” Sunday Times, January 28, 2001. .

31 Tidy Britain Group (2001) “Comparison Between the European Blue Flag and Seaside Award Beaches 2991,” Tidy Britain Group. .

32 Wals, 1997: 32.

33 PAN Parks Courier, Summer 2001, Budapest: WWF Hungary.

34 WWF (undated) “PAN Parks: Investing in Europe’s Future,” Zeist: WWF.

35 FNNPE (1993) “Loving Them to Death? The Need for Sustainable Tourism in Europe’s Nature and National Parks,” Grafenau: The Federation of Nature and National Parks of Europe.

36 Z. Kun (2001) “PAN Parks Verification,” draft 3, July 13, 2001. Budapest: WWF.

37 PAN Parks Supervisory Board (2000), “Resolutions,” Meeting of PAN Parks Supervisory Board (PPSB), September 29, 2000.

38 Statistics from website .

39 X. Font and A. Brasser (forthcoming 2002) “PAN Parks: WWF’s Sustainable Tourism Certification Programme in Europe’s National Parks,” in P. Williams, T. Griffin, and R. Harris (eds) Sustainable Tourism: A Global Perspective (Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann).

40 Kernel, 1997:2.

41 A. Pizam, (1991) “The Management of Quality Destination,” Quality Tourism – Concept of Sustainable Tourism Development, harmonizing Economical, Social and Ecological Interests, Proceedings of the Association Internationale d’Experts Scientifiques du Tourisme (AIEST), Vol. 33, St Gallen: Niedermann Druck, pp. 79-88; E. Inskeep (1991) Tourism Planning: an Integrated and Sustainable Development Approach, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold; V.T.C. Middleton. (1997) “Sustainable Tourism: A Marketing Pespective,” in M. J. Stabler, Tourism Sustainability: Principles to Practice, Wallingford: CAB International, pp. 129-142; Z. Mieczkowski (1995) Environmental Issues of Tourism and Recreation, London: University Press of America.

42 Lübbert (1998); C. Lübbert (2001), “Tourism Ecolabels Market Research in Germany,” in Font and Buckley, Tourism Ecolabelling. pp. 71-85; ANPA, 2001; T. Mihalič, (2001) “Environmental Behaviour Implications for Tourist Destinations and Ecolabels,” in Font and Buckley, Tourism Ecolabelling, p. 65.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download