A recently published document by th

A recently published document by the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) states that Asia-Pacific countries urgently need to bolster their bargaining positions in the field of tourism services and negotiate better terms in exchange for opening their markets. However, governments have barely had time to examine the potential impacts of globalization, and many local tourism-related companies are already in financial trouble due to the economic crisis. So it is very unlikely that they can strengthen their negotiating power. Even major Asian airlines can hardly survive in this crisis-hit business environment; the recent temporary closure of Philippine Airlines is an illustrative example.
Economic globalization has also generated considerable criticism because it comes along with the erosion of power of governments. Opponents argue that local and national institutions will no longer be able to properly fulfil their responsibilities such as providing social services, preserving the environment, and implementing sustainable development programs.
Indeed, the multilateral agreements facilitating globalization have shown little, if any, concern for social and ecological issues. On the environment front, the WTO has discussed proposals to introduce 'environmental standards' and 'eco-labels' developed by international setting bodies. Critics say this move is likely to be dominated by TNC interests, which attempt to appropriate the environmental agenda and push for self-regulation. Meanwhile, existing national environmental policies and laws adopted by democratically elected governments will be undermined.
The WTTC, for example, vows to 'promote sustainability in travel and tourism' through its Green Globe programme, but - as its 'Millennium Vision' document states - 'strongly believes that the environmental policy agenda should focus on (the industry's) self-improvement, incentives, and light-handed regulation as the preferred approach'.
Concerns
The increasing influence of private sector interests on international forums negotiating the environmental agenda has reinforced concerns that genuine efforts to set up a more stringent framework for the tourism industry may be jeopardised. In this context it is important to note that the seventh session of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) this year will include important discussions on the issues of sustainable tourism.
So far, the UN General Assembly has adopted a resolution on 'Sustainable Tourism' as part of its 'Programme for the further implementation of Agenda 21', the action program adopted at the Rio Earth Summit. This resolution acknowledges the need to consider further the importance of tourism in the context of Agenda 21. Among other things, it states: 'For sustainable patterns of consumption and production in the tourism sector, it is essential to strengthen national policy development and enhance capacity in the areas of physical planning, impact assessment, and the use of economic and regulatory instruments, as well as in the areas of information, education and marketing.' Furthermore, the resolution calls for participation of all concerned parties in policy development and implementation of sustainable tourism programs.
What is important to keep in mind is that this UN resolution stresses the need for a democratic regulation of tourism development, which is in stark contradiction to the lobbying efforts by the agents of tourism globalization towards deregulation and an industry-led and self-regulated scenario.
This conflict featured prominently at the fourth Conference of Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (COP4) in Bratislava, Slovakia, last May, which included discussions on the integration of biodiversity into sectoral activities such as tourism. Many government delegates there resisted attempts by the German government to get approval from the Ministerial Roundtable at COP4 for a program to develop global guidelines on biodiversity and sustainable tourism. Observers noted that the increased promotion of interests of the powerful German tourism industry at the UN level by the German government has been conspicuous over recent years.
Official and NGO representatives were surprised by the insistence of the Germans to work on global guidelines and to seek endorsement for this programme from the CSD. The delegate from Samoa, for example, reiterated that sustainable tourism is a complicated issue that will be dealt with by the CSD next year and complained: 'We are not in favour of some of the top-down approaches we have seen here (at COP4).' Other delegates expressed concern over the relevance, objectives and funding of the proposed program.
Significantly, critical observers warned that an ill-advised proposal on global guidelines under the Convention could have devastating consequences for local and indigenous communities - socially, culturally and ecologically. 'The tourism industry's propensity towards unrestricted growth and its commoditization of indigenous cultures must be recognized as clearly unsustainable,' commented an NGO representative during the Bratislava Conference.
Meanwhile, there are justifiable fears that under the new economic globalization schemes, sustainable and eco-tourism activities will even further enable TNCs to gain commercial access to ecologically sensitive areas and biological resources and accelerate the privatization of biodiversity, all to the detriment of local communities' land and resource rights and the natural environment. As the Austrian environment minister told delegates at COP4, 'Sustainable tourism offers new market opportunities.'