The 1992 Earth Summit focused global attention on initiatives to restructure development in a much more sustainable appearance and emerging trade regimes imposed limitations on the ability of governments to set environmental and social standards for businesses (Medina, 2005).
Godfrey (1996) enunciates that sustainable tourism development focuses not only on developing new environmentally-friendly products but also those aspects of the industry that ensures that all stakeholders become more resource conscious. Conroy (2002) suggests that certification initiatives emerged as non-government, market-based interventions to promote sustainability by encouraging the favoured consumption of goods and services from companies that adhere to high social and environmental standards in their production.
For example, Honey and Stewart (2002) state that within the tourism industry alone, 104 certification or ecolabelling programmes have been developed. Weaver and Lawton (2006) refer to a critical issue in the quest of sustainable tourism which is the conveyance of assurance through quality control mechanisms showing that the hotels, ski resort, tour operator or carrier is as environmentally or socially sustainable as it claims to be. Codes of practice and ecolabels are two of the main quality control mechanisms that endeavour to provide this assurance in the tourism industry (Weaver and Lawton, 2006). There has been much debate on certification schemes since some certification initiatives aim to push the industry towards more sustainable operating practices. Some critics caution that developed countries and transnational corporations based in those countries will be likely to dominate the process of creating and implementing certification programmes. This will lead to programmes that privilege the interests of the global North over the needs of the developing global South as well as advantaging the profit-oriented private sector over those of environmentalists (Sasidharan and Font, 2001; Sasidharan et al., 2002). Scholars and practitioners on both sides of this debate seem to agree that the proliferation of ecolabelling schemes in tourism has generated considerable confusion among consumers, creating difficulty for any programme to function effectively (Honey and Stewart, 2002;
Sanabria, 2002; Sharpley, 2001).
Ecotourism supporters have embraced the design of certification as a means of moving beyond conceptualisation to codification and for distinguishing authentic ecotourism from ecotourism lite and green washing (Honey, 2002; Honey and Stewart, 2002). Propelled by ecotourism, the concept of certification to guarantee sustainable environmental and social practices is now a popular topic within the tourism industry (Honey, 2007). Criteria for sustainable tourism include indicators of social and economic sustainability as well as indicators of environmental sustainability (Medina, 2005). The Mohonk Agreement goes beyond the beneficiary approach to development normally taken by ecotourism ventures in the past which intended to generate employment and income for residents of communities living adjacent to protected areas without involving them in decision-making (Medina, 2005). Ecotourism looks for tangible benefits for both conservation and local communities, certification that comprises socio-economic and environmental criteria seeks to set standards and measure what are the benefits to host countries, local communities and the environment (Honey, 2007). Green certification programmes are assisting to appraise the impacts of tourism and trying to set concrete standards for
environmentally and socially responsible practices for tourism businesses, professionals and travellers (Honey, 2007).
Medina (2005) asserts that global standards for certification in ecotourism would increase the legitimacy and impact of both certification programmes and ecotourism itself and efforts to establish working agreements on a global scale may conflict with the integration of local perspectives regarding equity and participation. Epler-Wood and Halpenny (2001) adopt a cautionary approach when setting criteria for ecotourism in global arenas which inevitably lead to indistinguishable, broad prescriptions. However, national certification schemes will produce more concrete, measurable criteria that are sensitive to the issues of local people (Epler-Wood and Halpenny, 2001). Honey (1999) refers to the Quebec Declaration which endorses the use of certification as a tool for measuring sound ecotourism and sustainable tourism recognises that certification systems must reflect regional and local criteria.
Buckley (2001: 171) discusses the Nature and Ecotourism Accreditation Programme (NEAP) used in Australia:
A national programme developed through stakeholder participation from both private and public sectors, requires that enterprises seeking ecotourism certification provide local employment and purchase goods and services locally; provide interpretation for their clients relating to indigenous cultures and brief them about how to minimise the cultural impacts of tourism on local communities; consult with representatives of local and indigenous communities; and provide support or discounts for local organisations or schools.
According to Epler-Wood and Halpenny (2001), ecotourism certification programmes should be developed locally via stakeholder processes that involve local communities. However, this process must be shaped by internationally recognised guidelines on the necessary steps for successful certification thus preventing unfair practices, corruption or the profit motive from overtaking local certification initiatives.
Ecotourism needs to not just be conceptualised, rather codified as it is here that green certification programmes have a central role to play (Honey, 2007). Additionally, Honey (2007) mentions that ecotourism seeks to provide tangible benefits for both conservation and local communities, certification that includes socio-economic and environmental criteria seeks to set standards and measure what are the benefits to host countries, local communities and the
environment. Wearing (1995) insists that professionalisation and accreditation in ecotourism will continue to be at the forefront of discussions associated with regulation and control as a means by which to provide focus to an industry that is expanding. Honey (2007) states that ecotourism certification programmes monitors the impact that businesses have on the host community and the ecosystem. Furthermore, ecotourism certification programmes were more responsive to national and local stakeholder concerns (Honey, 2007).
Certification programmes and a tourism stewardship body should not be viewed as a panacea, they are rather a part of a combination of tools, both voluntary and regulatory that is required to promote both social equity and a sustainable environment within the tourism industry (Honey, 2007). However, Wearing (1995) advises that although accreditation would reduce risk, increase standards and increase status there is a danger of restricting innovation and accessibility within the ecotourism industry. Ecotourism constitutes a small sector of the market. Measuring and rating these businesses, services and products is crucial because of its effects on local communities and fragile ecosystems and sound ecotourism can assist to ratchet up performance standards for the broader tourism industry (Honey, 2007). When developing a global certification model, it seems appropriate for ecotourism certification programmes to be integrated as distinct components to sustainable tourism certification programmes that cover a diverse spectrum of the market (Honey, 2007). Furthermore, in terms of accreditation and certification, the issue of compliance is directly related to how operators feel individually and collectively (Fennell, 2003).
It should not be imposed on operators but rather introduced gradually which in time will be accepted as a proper or appropriate business practice.