Australia/Alice Crabtree
I am based in Australia, and was one of the founder members
of the Ecotourism Association of Australia (EAA) - probably
best known internationally as one of the joint venture partners
in a industry based and industry developed program called
NEAP (initially the National Ecotourism Accreditation Program,
but rejigged and rebranded in 2000 as part of our commitment
to continuous improvement as the Nature and Ecotourism Accreditation
Program).
We are proud of our program, and think that we have managed
to put together a system that is practical and reasonably
fair (considering the huge diversity of tourism enterprises).
We have gained enormous experience over the development of
the program and running it as a going self-supporting scheme
for the past 5 years - but also acknowledge that it is by
no means perfect! If you would like to look at the program
the criteria are available in PDF format on http://www.ecotourism.org.au.
NEAP is certainly aware of improvements we could, should and
will be making to the program - at the moment it is very Australian
focused and does not address as comprehensively as it should
certain ethical/ cultural/social issues - largely as these
were not a major concern here.
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ecotourism_certification/message/76
Details
The joint venture partners (EAA and Australian Tour
Operators network) both appoint two members to a Panel. They
mutually agree on an independent Chair. This panel then reviews
applications and grants, refuses or requests further information
from operators. These positions are unpaid/voluntary.
The panel appoints a number of part time assessors that
are paid. They review the initial document, calculate the
appropriate "score" and check submitted paperwork for compliance/
inconsistencies. They also contact the referees and ask a
number of questions that relate to the operation and the referees
understanding of practices and procedures undertaken by that
operation/product. The assessors present the scores, any items
of note (e.g. inconsistencies, innovative best practice, extenuating
circumstances etc)and referee checks along with brochure of
the product to the panel. The Assessors all have extensive
involvement with the ecotourism industry and have worked in
some capacity with in the ecotourism industry in the immediate
past (i.e. current).
If an operator appeals the decision there is a period during
which additional information can be reviewed by the panel
for consideration (with the option to co-opt expertise from
outside the panel, and if there is still problems an independent
"expert" with review the appeal.
Presently across the board paper audits (annual) on selected
criteria are reviewed by pre-selected experts in that criteria
field. Random physical on-site audits (that are planned to
take place at least once in every three years accreditation
period) are currently undergoing a formalised audit protocol
that is being undertaken by GHD. To date most physical audits
have been done in a random stratified manner - where inconsistencies
appear in the brochure/marketing material, where we receive
complaints from consumers, or where the application document
or referee cast doubt on the honesty of the self-assessment.
To date the auditors have been members of the NEAP panel,
co-opted experts from the ecotourism association of Australia
or the Chair. NEAP is moving towards an independent third
party audit protocol - but currently costs appear to be the
major hurdle with this program HAVING to be financially independent.
In regard to certification VS accreditation and definitions
thereof - I am afraid we use the terms differently in Australia:
One well-used spectrum appears in a Maendis Roiberst report
for the Commonwealth Govt Office of National Tourism Investigating
a National Ecotourism Accreditation scheme (October 1994)
Codes of Practice> Accreditation>Quality System>Certification
Where "Codes" are industry-general, a guide to behavior, and
non compulsory> Accreditation is a formal process, voluntary,
can be by industry or other body and involves audit. The individual
or organisation may be accredited. Quality systems are formal,
voluntary, externally driven, progressive, conformity with
external standards or best practice and involves audit and
benchmarking (e.g. ISO series)and certification tends to be
formal, compulsory, externally approved standard, may be regulatory,
has audit, withdrawal for non-compliance and penalties.....
The NEAP program uses accreditation as it is more commonly
used in Australia with accreditation being used usually for
a company, organisation or product.
(see Macquarie dictionary 1996 p4) Accredit =....furnish
with credentials....(an officially recognised agent) to certify
as meeting official requirements......
wheras "certify" = to declare formally or show on a certificate....
and based on an american definition that distinguishes certification,
licensing and accreditation as follows:
certification: a process by which an individual is tested
and evaluated in order to determine his or her mastery of
a specific skill of a specific body of knowledge / competence.
license: a mandatory legal requirement for professionals
to protect the public from incompetent practioners
accreditation: a process by which an association or agency
evaluates and recognises a program of study or institution/entity
as meeting pre-determined stds or qualifications...
BUT as the rest of the world told us poor linguistically-challenged
Australians our accreditation program is as you pointed out
by your definitions a certification programme!
I cant see us changing the name to the NECP, we will just
remain different and pigheaded and enjoy our differences and
the challenges of semantics! (we after all drive on the "right"
side of the road!)
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ecotourism_certification/message/104
Keep Things Simple
I agree with many of the participants about the complexities
of the issues surrounding ecotourism certification - what to
accredit - the operation, the product , the guide? Making certification
relevant across the huge range of sectors - accommodation, huge
resorts, family run lodges, attractions, touring, adventure
trekking etc.....
I can understand the need to look at ISO series etc and
examine the range of programs to see what is good, what works
and what doesn't. I more than share the concerns for the logarithmic
growth and proliferating programs/ schemes that is occurring
- with the potential to confuse the consumer and wipe out
any marketing advantage for doing the right thing.
BUT can I give a plea to keep things simple? We always kept
at the back of our minds when developing NEAP that it had
to be a scheme that was practical, affordable and self-financing
- the VW rather than the Rolls Royce of programs. So - despite
the criticism of the fraud that can be inherent, we kept the
costs down by allowing operations to self -assess in the first
instance. Sure there may be some "white lies" or even some
full scale fraud. But there are also many who complete the
application that change practices to improve their business.
The referees provide our first line of defense. The second
comes from thoroughly examining the brochures and marketing
material to see if they can talk the talk (you will be surprised
at how much you pick up!). The annual paper audit on selected
criteria weeds out ( or as more often is the case - forces
the operation to improve practices so they don't lose accredited
status) most fraud - and the random physical audits can also
be used to target operations we have concerns about or are
provided with complaints about. All at a relatively small
cost. We are moving towards more regular physical audits and
considering a totally independent third party conducting them
- but don't yet have the cash reserves to do so - and do not
believe we can justify substantially raising our fees as the
present scheme is working pretty well.....
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ecotourism_certification/message/137
Development of NEAP
Like many of the participants we struggled for many
years trying to resolve academic issues and perspectives in
the development of the Australian Nature and Ecotourism Accreditation
Program (NEAP), and had some great discussions regarding the
context of the program and what we wanted to achieve, as well
as arguing the definitions of sustainability, ecotourism etc....
NEAP was very much driven by the tourism industry - the
operators - wanting to keep the cowboys out. They wanted a
clear program that would distinguish genuine ecotourism from
people jumping on the hype/trend marketing advantage with
tours renamed but not acting to reduce negative impacts or
providing the positive impacts that ecotourism can have.
As it happens I don't believe that NEAP has done all that
well (yet) at providing significant marketing advantages to
operators. Consumer recognition varies from low to non-existent
(although it is improving - and is beginning to have a snow-ball
effect. See Laurelle/ Tourism Queensland material and research
results posted earlier in the conference). However, NEAP is
well recognised, and reasonably well respected by the tourism
industry. It has its critics - ( some of which includes the
mistaken beliefs that it is geared toward the big boys - large
corporations, that you need a consultant to fill the application
form in, that it is a Queensland scheme, that it is easier
to get advanced accreditation as an accommodation than tour
sector operation!)
However, for me the most heartening thing that keeps me
involved and donating volunteer time is the fact that the
NEAP, whilst promising consumer recognition in the near future,
IS ALREADY delivering education and guidance. The program
has helped many operators improve the sustainability of their
operations, guide others to use the NEAP as a blueprint when
developing, give operations the means and the information
on how they can evolve into better businesses. We should measure
NEAPs success not only by the number of operations that actually
go the whole hog and get accredited but by the operations
that make improvements after reading/ obtaining the NEAP document!
(although for a viable self-supporting scheme this view probably
sucks - we need them to get accredited to have the funds to
keep the scheme going!!!!!)
You have to make accreditation / certification so attractive
a proposition that operations cannot afford not to belong.
This can be a bit of a mix between carrots (preferential marketing
opportunities, or as in Australia trying to get tangible benefits
such as extended tenure or preferential access to protected
areas for NEAP accredited operators, reduced rates) and the
stick ( no access to State tourism marketing brochures, limited
access to specified areas etc). You also have to give operators
and the ecotourism industry a sense of pride, ownership and
ethos that allows them to want to use tourism to benefit the
local communities, the environment etc.
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ecotourism_certification/message/138
Interpretation
The semantics of definitions (on ecotourism, sustainable
tourism and anything else) often cloud discussions and prevent
us from moving on. I agree with Margot and many other authors
that exact wording is difficult, the same words have different
connections/ are used differently in different countries/ societies
and we all suffer from an overdeveloped sense of ownership for
our own "pet" definitions. I am sure we can all agree on some
basic ingredients of ecotourism - although how the recipe is
put together varies from country to country due to local conditions
and issues. These very basic ingredients (in no particular order
of importance) are:
1. Natural area focus
2. Interpretation or education
3. Involvement and returns to local community
4. Cultural sensitivity
5. Returns to the environment/ conservation
6. Environmental sustainability
(These 6 principles formed the basis of the NEAP (Australian
Nature and Ecotourism Accreditation Program), with the addition
of customer satisfaction (as you shouldn't be in tourism if
its not fun for the clients) and responsible marketing).
Interpretation deserves a special mention - it is highlighted
in the NEAP as it was considered one of the key components
that differentiated nature tourism (read in simplistic terms
sustainable tourism) from ecotourism. To be eligible for ecotourism
accreditation the product must include opportunities for clients
to experience interpretation, to be eligible for advanced
ecotourism the product must include interpretation as a fundamental
component of the product. The interpretation principle is
actually divided into various sub-principles: access to..,
accuracy of information..., interpretive planning...., staff
awareness and understanding.....
For tours and attractions to get advanced ecotourism rating
they also have to provide personal interpretation (i.e. face-to-face
as with guides), although this was waived for accommodation
product. The importance of the Guide was why we developed
the sister program to NEAP - the EcoGuide program that is
just coming on line..
I want to encourage you to think more closely about the
too-often neglected principle of interpretation. It's not
the glamour kid on the block, it's not the element that ecotourism
lodges or ecotourism operators tend to emphasize in their
promotion or marketing, it's not what is put under the microscope
when attempting to define, accredit or audit ecotourism.
We spend inordinate sums of money developing and implementing
more environmentally friendly technology, becoming more eco-efficient,
implementing waste reduction devices as well as (hopefully)
attempting to ensure local community sustainability through
economic returns, involvement and consultation. Most ecotourism
operations also generate funds for conservation - a few even
go to huge efforts to ensure that the places or the heritage
they visit are conserved though extraordinary physical efforts
towards active research, monitoring, rehabilitation, protection
and conservation of the resource. I am not belittling these
endeavors - but do they really achieve the important win-win
situation ecotourism promises to deliver? Do these elements,
on their own, motivate a global conservation ethic?
Interpretation provided by ecotourism has a critical role
in contributing to the world's environmental awareness. It
is only too obvious that no matter how worthy many ecotourism
initiatives in minimal impact, eco-efficiency or sustainable
design - they ultimately require that clients are sufficiently
environmentally aware to both support and be prepared to seek
out and pay for these. Without effective interpretation the
messages your products could deliver are lost - the chance
not only to enrich your clients' immediate experience but
also providing the impetus for the most basic tenets of sustainable
tourism - protection and conservation of the resource.
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ecotourism_certification/message/198
|
