ecotourismstandards

Ecotourism Standards related: ecotourism, iucn2016

https://portals.iucn.org/congress/motion/065

Comments

[|Skip to main content] 
 * [|EN]
 * [|FR]
 * [|ES]

Main menu
= 065 - Improving standards in ecotourism = The final version of the motion is now published and is with the Motions Working Group. I have made one small change to the preambular text, removing the bracketed text that I had inserted to stimulate comment on this. This text now better reflects the view that not all ecotourism is bad everywhere. The key area for further debate is the suggested approach to be taken by the proposed Working Group in OP1(b) - the two alternative pathways suggested are in square brackets. This motion has already been identified for further discussion at WCC, so the debate will continue! I thank all those who contributed to the discussion - it has been very stimulating. There is clearly a strong desire for IUCN to be involved in this important issue. The work ahead is: to clearly define what that involvement should be, and to establish a cost-effective way of implementing it. See you in Hawai'i Latest version in this language: //2nd version as revised after second reading// | Published on: 26 Jul 2016 Other languages: [|Français] | [|Español] | Translate with Google [|View comments] OBSERVING that in 2014 tourism contributed USD 1.2 trillion (nearly 10% of global Gross Domestic Product) to the global economy, accounted for 1 in 11 jobs worldwide, and is one of the largest and fastest-growing economic sectors in the world; RECOGNISING that tourism has been highlighted in United Nations Sustainable Development Goals 8, 12, and 14 as a tool for sustainable economic growth, sustainable consumption and production practices, and for the conservation and sustainable use of nature and natural heritage; FURTHER OBSERVING that nature-based tourism is a major tourism sector, making up more than 25% of the global travel market; NOTING that the term 'ecotourism' is frequently applied to this type of tourism but that governments, NGOs, and the tourism industry have overlapping yet differing definitions, interpretations, and few precise standards for ecotourism, nature-based tourism or geotourism (based on geodiversity and geological heritage); AWARE that the UN General Assembly adopted a Resolution for the //Promotion of ecotourism for poverty eradication and environmental protection// and believes that "ecotourism creates significant opportunities for the conservation, protection and sustainable use of biodiversity and of natural areas"; ALSO RECOGNISING that IUCN agrees "ecotourism can be a driver of sustainable development...if it is carefully conceived, well-managed and strictly controlled" and has undertaken significant work (e.g. guidelines and workshops) to help improve development and operation of tourism; ALARMED that collective efforts have not yet resulted in improved practices globally and that ecotourism can be often associated with tourism operations and activities that have severe negative impacts on communities, biodiversity and geodiversity, geological heritage, places of geological interest, wildlife and the natural environment; and RECALLING Resolutions 11.8 //Balanced Tourism// (Banff, 1972), 1.32 //Ecotourism and Protected Areas Conservation// (Montreal, 1996) and 5.114 //Promotion of sustainable tourism, rural development and the value of natural heritage// (Jeju, 2012), which further illuminate the benefits of tourism but remind us of the negative consequences to people and nature because of a lack of monitoring, oversight, and management of industry practices; The World Conservation Congress, at its session in Hawai‘i, United States of America, 1-10 September 2016: 1. REQUESTS the Director General, Commissions and Members to form a working group, in the spirit of the One Programme, to: a. expand sustainable tourism guidelines to include explicit ecotourism best practices, including an updated IUCN definition of ecotourism, qualitative standards and indicators for culturally sensitive community engagement and welfare, environmental learning, appropriate infrastructure and tourist behaviour to prevent anthropogenic influence on species and ecosystems, geodiversity and more; b. [establish an IUCN-endorsed certification for [firms][sites] that abide by][consider existing national, regional and international certification schemes and how they may be strengthened to ensure the achievement of] ecotourism best practices and net positive impact (NPI) criteria for biodiversity and geodiversity as described in NPI Alliance reports; c. create and deliver training opportunities for ecotourism governance, auditing and certification, and the implementation of best practices for ecotourism management; and 2. CALLS ON governments, parastatal organisations, developers, and tourism industry professionals to: a. conduct transparent socio-ecological impact assessments and periodical monitoring of ecotourism operations and provide IUCN with data for research and evolution of ecotourism best practices; b. adopt into business standards that the terms 'ecotourism', 'nature-based tourism' and 'geotourism' only be used and promoted when consistent with the updated IUCN definition and guidelines; and c. proactively seek auditing and certification for ecotourism in protected areas, on private property and within landscapes of conservation value.
 * [|SESSIONS]
 * [|MEMBERS' ASSEMBLY]
 * [|LOG OUT]
 * Compare with other versions
 * Working language: English

Explanatory Memorandum
As indicated by the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), tourism has expanded to become one of the world's largest and fastest-growing economic sectors. Accompanying this rise in tourism is an increase in social responsibility and a growing interest by people to reduce their negative impacts while traveling. The incorporation of ethics into travel has become so popular that numerous tourism niches have been created specifically for these purposes. For example, ecotourism is a major type of nature-based tourism that relies on three ethical pillars: conservation of nature, contribution to rural or indigenous welfare, and education and interpretation of the surrounding social and natural environments.

However, because of the ambiguity in the term, which is simply a combination of 'ecological' and 'tourism', it is often the case that organisations and businesses do not abide by these principles and use this label for any form of nature-based tourism, intentionally for commercial purposes or not. Although there are organisations and guidelines established to educate and improve ecotourism operations in practice, because of cultural differences and limitations in human and financial capital, corporate influence, and international political capacity, these are not sufficient to prevent misuse of the ecotourism title.

This is not to suggest accomplishing positive outcomes for ecotourism is an impossible goal. Despite being overshadowed by bad examples, there are ecotourism operations that have significant benefits for people and nature.

Understanding its potential, UNWTO identifies ecotourism as a tool for poverty eradication and environmental protection; IUCN describes how ecotourism can be used as a driver for sustainable development; the UN Sustainable Development Goals identify responsible tourism as a mechanism to achieve many of their targets; and the Secretariat for the Convention on Biological Diversity states that responsible tourism plays a role in achieving at least 12 of the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets.

But these expectations have still not been realised. More often, ecotourism results in impacts that strain communities and nature. There remains a disconnect between the concept and its conservation imperative. This demonstrates the need for a different, more internationally collaborative effort.

IUCN is strategically positioned to lead such an effort. Using a foundation of principles such as those outlined by The International Ecotourism Society, IUCN can undertake research to develop a comprehensive but simple set of minimum standards and optimal best-practices for ecotourism. IUCN can create metrics and performance indicators for operators to easily measure their adherence to these standards and to set targets to progress towards ideal ecotourism practices.

Finally, using these standards and metrics IUCN can establish a voluntary certification programme, incentivised by market mechanisms and local governments. Through self-reporting and third-party auditing, operators would adopt the certification to signal that their businesses actually have a net positive impact on people and nature. As a result, these operators would receive increased media attention, more visitors, and have a strategic position in the global arena as one of the few tourism enterprises that integrate pro-environmental conservation values and behaviour into people and practices.

Motion comments
The electronic discussion of motions is now closed.  [|Filter comments]
 * ~ Author ||~ Comment / Concern ||
 * Facilitator COCHRANE, Peter

04 Jul 2016 - 01:32 || //Comment > The motion in general// The final version of the motion is now published and is with the Motions Working Group. I have made one small change to the preambular text, removing the bracketed text that I had inserted to stimulate comment on this. This text now better reflects the view that not all ecotourism is bad everywhere. The key area for further debate is the suggested approach to be taken by the proposed Working Group in OP1(b) - the two alternative pathways suggested are in square brackets. This motion has already been identified for further discussion at WCC, so the debate will continue! I thank all those who contributed to the discussion - it has been very stimulating. There is clearly a strong desire for IUCN to be involved in this important issue. The work ahead is: to clearly define what that involvement should be, and to establish a cost-effective way of implementing it. See you in Hawai'i ||
 * Facilitator COCHRANE, Peter

03 Jul 2016 - 10:21 || //Comment > The motion in general// Shane and Robert. Thank you for your encouraging feedback. I like Robert's helpful suggestion for capturing the visitor proximity to wildlife issue in fewer words. I bracketed this phrase because some people had removed it and others kept it in, without much debate for either view. Given there are rules in some countries for visitor proximity to some species it seems sensible to leave a reference to this issue in the motion. I hope we will also hear from our colleagues in South America and in Europe who have been making valuable contributions to this motion. I am keen to remove as many square brackets as possible. I believe I can wait for a further 24 hours if there is a chance we can produce a motion that will enjoy wide support. || CEM Sustainable Use & Management of Ecosystems Thematic Group 2013-2016 03 Jul 2016 - 08:37 || //Proposed edits > A specific Operative Paragraph > 1° paragraph// Peter, this is well-reformulated and your proposals (i) and (ii) are wise, at low cost to IUCN if there is initial volunteer review by participants such as Shane before going further down a road of principles, guidelines and certification. However, even with selection of that first option in 1b the Operative text is still just over the permitted 1500 characters. A friendly edit to reduce length and remove the remaining [alternative], would be to replace "[acceptable visitor proximity to and behaviour around wildlife]" in 1a by using "appropriate infrastructure and tourist behaviour to prevent adverse impact on species and ecosystems" in the following phrase. || IUCN Member: Tropical Resources Institute (Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies) ( United States of America ) 02 Jul 2016 - 22:08 || //Comment > The motion in general// Peter- Thank you for the careful synthesis of all the different comments, feedback, and changes that have been shared here since the last revision. I was impressed with the range of input and appreciate the philosophical discussion that has emerged. It is a delicate motion and will be a delicate endeavor. Barbara Engels’ second comment summarizes this precisely: we must understand the complex goals of ecotourism and determine if these can be achieved in any amount; we must understand the limitations of current standards and deficiencies in current certifications if we want to improve on them; and it will be necessary for IUCN to dedicate some additional resources to this initiative. Developing qualitative standards and a certification system will require deep critical thinking and a smart framework. I also believe David Lusseau makes a strong case that maybe the impacts of ecotourism cannot be mediated; that the management of ecotourism operations cannot be appraised; and that best practices are subjective and unlikely to be implemented broadly and effectively. But I am an ecotourist, and I hope that’s not true. I hope I’ve had a positive impact on the places I’ve travelled as a result of the careful decisions made by the operators and myself. Because I agree with the TAPAS group when they remark that “It is somewhat disappointing, although not entirely unexpected, that Ecotourism continues to be dealt with solely as a “problem” to be “addressed”’ (posted by Anna Spenceley). I don’t believe ecotourism is a problem. However, as it becomes more and more a part of our global economy, attention and guidelines will need to be created and adhered to in order for it to avoid becoming one. And this is why I believe this motion should be moved forward to discussion during the Member Assembly session at the World Conservation Congress. In addition to the renewed definition that the TAPAS group is currently working on, I have begun a yearlong research project to contribute capacity and human resources to IUCN so that they can develop best practices and standards should this motion pass. I will be conducting random and target interviews and a broad social assessment during the forum, where I will collect information and perspectives of ecotourism, best practices, and the means to address deficiencies in ecotourism practices. This research will continue at the Tourism Naturally Conference in Alghero, Italy in October, where I will present the preliminary findings and conduct additional surveying of conference participants. Finally, to complete the first phase of research, I am publishing an article in a special issue of //Tourism Geographies//, in which I will present a synthesis of my findings from the WCC and TN conference. Central to this publication, I will also be creating a public-call for input on developing improved practices and standards. Afterwards, this information will be used to continue further research towards the development of a set of international standards and best practices. I do not presume to be able to address the research needs alone, and no one should expect standards and certification efforts by IUCN to entirely mediate the impacts of ecotourism (and other forms of tourism) on protected areas, biodiversity hotspots, and places of unique aesthetic and recreational value. However, what this initiative by IUCN would accomplish is creating more awareness and attention onto how and what operators are doing. It will create more self-awareness of how and what we tourists do when travelling, and it will add to the collection of references and guidelines that can help people to reduce our impacts when each of us are ready. In imagining what other successful certifications have done, this program would create additional incentives for a breadth of actors to monitor and manage their impacts from the bottom-up, and understand what engaging in ecotourism really means. It could build wide social capacity behind responsible tourism, and it could facilitate additional market competitiveness towards sustainability. Even if just a little, these efforts would help ecotourism towards its conservation imperative. There are many reasons why IUCN should undertake this initiative and few reasons not to try. I am prepared to dedicate my full attention to completing the research that is needed to move this proposal onto the next phase. And so the benefits outweigh the costs, to IUCN and to nature conservation. I hope we can continue this conversation at the Member Assembly, and I invite anyone interested in contributing to my initial research to contact me prior to (or at) the Member Assembly. My email is ShaneFeyers@gmail.com Respectfully and hopefully, Shane ||
 * KENWARD, Robert
 * FEYERS, Shane
 * Facilitator COCHRANE, Peter

02 Jul 2016 - 11:28 || //Proposed edits > The motion in general// I have published a revised version of this motion. There is a short period within which comments can continue (another 24 hours) on the revised motion. I draw your attention to suggested alternative words and phrases (in square brackets) that reflect the significant differences of views on some aspects of this motion. There was a wide range of perspectives on ecotourism and certification, and consequently a diversity of proposed edits for this motion. I have focused on the operational elements of the motion rather than the interesting and more philosophical contributions and suggested amendments to the preambular text and the Sponsors' explanatory memorandum. There were two central axes of difference embedded in many of the responses to this motion. They were: (i) should IUCN establish its own certification scheme, or consider existing schemes and identify where and how they could/should be strengthened; and (ii) should certification apply to 'firms', or 'sites'. In both cases I have square bracketed these options as they are essentially mutually exclusive, although one suggestion was to delete the reference to 'firms' or 'sites' - which seemed to avoid the issue rather than resolve it. I am not confident that these fundamental differences of views, and the issue of IUCN's role and capacity can be easily resolved (but see below). Those proposing, in essence, a stepwise approach of examining existing arrangements expressed concern about the resource and capacity implications for IUCN if it was to establish its own certification scheme. This question should receive careful consideration. Given some concern about the motion implying that ecotourism is always a problem, I have introduced two possible edits (in square brackets) in the Preambular text that begins "Alarmed that collective efforts..." The first, by adding the word 'universally', seeks to reflect that there are improved practices in some instances; and the second suggested edit is to replace 'is' with 'can be' to reflect that ecotourism is not always associated with severe negative impacts. I would be interested in whether readers would be comfortable with this more nuanced language. There was much discussion about the definition of 'ecotourism', and I have adopted the sensible suggestion that an early task for the proposed Working Group is to update the IUCN definition of 'ecotourism', rather than try to resolve this within the motion itself. I have two suggestions as a way forward: (i) If a stepwise approach to considering what already exists, and how well it performs, could be agreed for OP1(b), the Working Group could be asked in the motion, after this work has been done, to recommend whether, and how, IUCN should become involved in ecotourism certification. (ii) Secondly on the issue of certification of 'sites' or 'firms', this question could be referred to the Working Group to address and resolve. The alternative is to continue the debate on this motion at the WCC, noting that the subject matter is scheduled for discussion at a workshop on 4 September. I would welcome your thoughts and comments on the above, and on the revised motion itself. Peter || IUCN Member: Instituto de Ecología Aplicada de la Universidad San Francisco de Quito ( Ecuador ) 27 Jun 2016 - 09:35 || //Proposed edits > A specific Operative Paragraph > 2° paragraph// We do support this motion and would like to be involve in its discussion further. We have a specific suggestion and a general comment on this motion: SUGGESTION ON THE CALL ACTIONS (in bold below): 2. CALLS ON governments, parastatal organisations, developers, and tourism industry professionals to: a. conduct transparent socio-ecological impact assessments and periodical monitoring of ecotourism operations and provide IUCN with data for research and evolution of ecotourism best practices; GENERAL COMMENT As most of the motion refers to goals to standardize and certify tourism operations, it should be recognized that other global tourism networks have been working on guidelines towards this same objectives. Perhaps with a focus more on enterprise goal and not too conservation oriented, however, these initiatives should be recognized and evaluated for the application of this motion. Moreover, trying to work in partnerships with global tourism organizations to have a stronger impact could be an effective alternative to follow when implementing this motion. || IUCN Member: African Wildlife Foundation - Kenya HQ ( Kenya ) 26 Jun 2016 - 22:21 || //Comment > The motion in general// The facilitator is asking for input on whether establishing IUCN endorsed-certification for firms is appropriate given the roles of other international organisations and that IUCN should instead be working or partnering with other organisations with relevant mandates such as the UN World Tourism Organisation and the Global Sustainable Tourism Council to seek and better address conservation outcomes from ecotourism. AWF recommends that the answer to this be guided by a desire to have impact, and therefore that IUCN undertake an analysis of the options to determine the most impact-ful way forward. || IUCN Member: Eco Redd ( Peru ) 26 Jun 2016 - 00:23 || //Comment > The motion in general// El ecoturismo constituye una actividad de importancia y de merecido apoyo para su realización. Sin embargo, demanda su completa normalización. Apoyamos a la presnete moción. || IUCN Member: Laboratório de Aquicultura Marinha ( Brazil ) 25 Jun 2016 - 23:02 || //Comment > The motion in general// We see this motion as essential to the conservation today. In our country (Brazil) we need for planning of trips involving animals display as the seahorse (held here for many years) where our work is to monitor the populations subjected to stress this tourism management that is made without any certification. Seahorses in this system already exhibited large reductions in population. There is also here, the contemplation tour Manatee and others. We support this motion. || IUCN Member: Australian Government Department of the Environment ( Australia ) 24 Jun 2016 - 08:34 || //Comment > The motion in general// The Australian Department of the Environment is committed to enabling and encouraging high quality tour operators in their reserves. In maintaining these high standards, a number of mechanisms are used, including our authorisations system, compliance, marketing and use of accreditation. A definition for “sustainable tourism” and “ecotourism” has been debated for many years. A lot of time could be spent on continuing this debate. The various definitions and interpretations continue to grow with the recent NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service Tourism Master Plan already defining: accessible tourism, adventure tourism, celestial tourism, cultural tourism, ecotourism, geotourism, heritage tourism, nature-based tourism, and sustainable tourism. Suggestions by contributors to the online discussion thus far to adopt an existing definition are therefore well advised. There are existing certification programs which could be strengthened, rather than inventing another program. The auditing of these programs to monitor standards is something that could also be strengthened with a potential role for the IUCN in terms of auditing/monitoring best practice. This needs to be carefully considered, as accreditation and auditing is best conducted by a independent body, and is very resource intensive in terms of organisational time and capacity. We also need to be mindful that many tourism operators are small and do not operate with huge profits, so efficient monitoring and encouragement of good practice needs to be paramount. The other thing to be mindful of is that in many destinations, the natural environment and indigenous communities would be under a lot more stress without appropriate tourism. Visitors bring appreciation of these ecosystems and cultures and increasingly there are efforts led by tourism operators to contribute back to the place they visit. Consumers are also demanding this. || CEM Sustainable Use & Management of Ecosystems Thematic Group 2013-2016 24 Jun 2016 - 07:40 || //Proposed edits > The motion in general// David Lusseau’s comments contain many good points, but create an operational text with well over 2,000 characters. The permitted total, which is being rigidly enforced, is 1,500 characters. The appended edit of the operational text traps most of the sense of David’s edit, but is still 1,590 characters, even with the elision in 1.a (which is advisable for practical reasons and because the following section makes it redundant). The simplest way to make this saving would be to delete 2.b, on which I share David’s reservations, and also question practicality of agreeing translation of 'ecotourism', 'nature-based tourism' and 'geotourism' into tens of languages (unless the implicit assumption is made that this form of tourism only operates in English). Please note that this revised draft also leaves the working group sought at 1 to decide whether to assess firms or sites. However, the whole motion still begs the questions of whether IUCN’s diminished budget can stretch to this ambitious increase in Programme. 1. REQUESTS the Director General, Commissions and Members to form a working group, in the spirit of the One Programme, to: a. expand tourism guidelines to include explicit ecotourism best practices, including qualitative standards and indicators for culturally sensitive community engagement and welfare, environmental learning, acceptable visitor proximity to and behaviour around wildlife, appropriate infrastructure to prevent anthropogenic influence on species, and ecosystems and geodiversity and more ; b. establish an IUCN-endorsed certification scheme for the delivery of environmental, economic, and social sustainability in nature-based tourism with firms that abide by ecotourism best practices and net positive impacts (NPI) criteria for biodiversity and geodiversity as described in NPI Alliance reports; and c. create and deliver training opportunities for ecotourism governance, auditing and certification, and the implementation of best practices for ecotourism management; and 2. CALLS ON governments, parastatal organisations, developers, and tourism industry professionals to: a. conduct transparent socio-ecological impact assessments of ecotourism operations, with provi de sion of data to IUCN (or ideally as open access) for research and evolution of ecotourism best practices, including information on visitation rates; [//b. adopt into business standards that the term 'ecotourism', 'nature-based tourism' and 'geotourism' only be used and promoted when firms minimise negative impacts and demonstrate net positive impacts on people, nature and natural heritage, wildlife, and ecosystems;//] and c. proactively seek auditing and sustainability certification for ecotourism enterprises that operate in protected areas, on private property and within landscapes of conservation value. || IUCN Member: Center for Environmental and Geographic Information Services ( Bangladesh ) 22 Jun 2016 - 05:55 || //Proposed edits > The motion in general// Improving Standard Ecotourism: The transparent socio-ecological impact assessments and structured institutional development needed for ecotourism operations and its expansion || WCPA Tourism Task Force 2013-2016 17 Jun 2016 - 13:23 || //Proposed edits > The motion in general// Dear Proponent, Please note that these comments and suggested edits are from individual members of the IUCN WCPA Tourism and Protected Areas Specialist Group: Specific comments made on the motion itself:
 * CÁRDENAS, Susana
 * ATHANAS, Andrea
 * BUENDIA, Manuel
 * SILVEIRA, Rosana Beatriz
 * BLACKBURN, Angeline
 * KENWARD, Robert
 * ULLAH, Engr. Md. Waji
 * SPENCELEY, Anna
 * There are already lots definitions on Ecotourism already (perhaps just pick one). e.g. “According to the UNWTO's definition, ecotourism refers to forms of tourism which have the following characteristics: All nature-based forms of tourism in which the main motivation of the tourists is the observation and appreciation of nature as well as the traditional cultures prevailing in natural areas.” Is it useful to develop a new one?
 * Agree on the need to update definition of ecotourism. i.e. What ecotourism isn’t. Use of criteria to establish what it is/not.
 * Not sure IUCN should be watchdog (and GSTC already has standards for sustainable tourism); and there are lots of bodies internationally working on standards/certification.
 * IUCN has worked on certification before – it supported development of Fair Trade Tourism & the IUCN Green List Protected Areas
 * Perhaps there is not capacity within IUCN to deal with tourism?
 * Note there is a workshop on 4th Sept on WCC talking about this motion - integrating biodiversity into certification : Biodiversity in Voluntary Certification Standards and Labels - from Food and Tourism Industry to Forestry, Fisheries, Mining and more - Impacts on biodiversity and dependent livelihoods []
 * It is somewhat disappointing, although not entirely unexpected, that Ecotourism continues to be dealt with solely as a "problem" to be "addressed" through several layers of regulations, restrictions, recommendations... which are useful indeed in many respects, but again overshadow the fact that the socio-economic values of Ecotourism are being eroded globally by extractive practices which are (a) much worse to the environment and communities and (b) utterly unsustainable.
 * It is hard to suggest actual text changes to a draft that already has a mindset built into it... but perhaps bringing this issue to the attention of the co-proponents could lead to some useful thinking.

1. REQUESTS the Director General, Commissions and Members to form a working group, in the spirit of the One Programme, to: a. expand SUSTAINABLE tourism guidelines to include explicit ecotourism best practices, including qualitative standards and indicators for culturally sensitive community engagement and welfare effect, environmental learning, visitor proximity to and behaviour around wildlife, appropriate infrastructure to prevent anthropogenic influence on species and ecosystems, and more; A-bis. UPDATE THE EXISTING IUCN-ISSUED DEFINITION OF "ECOTOURISM", THROUGH A QUICK PROCESS INVOLVING THE COMPETENT BODIES (TAPAS AMONG THEM), IDENTIFYING CLEAR PRINCIPLES AND CONCRETE CRITERIA 

b. establish an IUCN-endorsed certification  for firms that abide by ecotourism best practices and net positive impact (NPI) criteria for biodiversity as described in NPI Alliance reports AND FOLLOW THE PRINCIPLES AND CRITERIA AS SET IN THE ECOTOURISM UPDATED DEFINITION; and c. create and deliver training opportunities for ecotourism auditing and certification, and the implementation of ecotourism best practices; and 2. CALLS ON governments, parastatal organisations, developers, and tourism industry professionals to: a. conduct transparent socio-ecological impact assessments of ecotourism operations and provide IUCN with data for research and evolution of ecotourism best practices; b. adopt into business standards that the term 'ecotourism' only be used and promoted when CONSISTENT WITH UPDDATED IUCN DEFINITION ; and c. proactively seek auditing and certification for ecotourism enterprises that operate in protected areas, on private property and within landscapes of conservation value. || IUCN Member: Bundesamt für Naturschutz ( Germany ) 17 Jun 2016 - 10:30 || //Comment > The motion in general// Please allow me some comments (both to explain my earlier intervention and to stimulate the discussion): We need to acknowledge that in the past years/decade there has been very limited success in the past from CERTIFICATION in this particular sector. Before proposing an approach for IUCN to take the lead on this, we need to ask if there has been a sound assessment of what is the theory of change that would justify another scheme being developed (bearing in mind that existing schemes haven’t delivered the expected success)? I would also like to point out that developing /supporting the development of a voluntary standard and implementing a certification system are two very different roles which require very different set ups. In particular, being a certification scheme operator will require a very complex set up in order to run professionally and successfully. It will also have to demonstrate independence (and I am not sure how this can be done by a membership organization). In addition this might result in IUCN being in completion with other organisations (many of them IUCN members) how run schemes (e.g. EUROPARC sustainable tourism Charter or others). It seems to be critical to first perform a thorough analysis of the existing standards to confirm that a NEW standard is really needed rather than a process of strengthening new ones. I wonder whether the proponents of this motion have undertaken this step?
 * ENGELS, Barbara

Hence, in my view, the way forward would be to work in the direction to recommend to IUCN to work with existing certification systems applicable to ecotourism operations to ensure that best practices for operating in areas of high biodiversity are integrated in the voluntary standards and certification schemes.

Regarding the last set of amendments proposed, I feel that these amendmends comprise two diffrent issues: a) they overload the motion with additional text which is only partly helpful to shed light in this complex issue and 2) introduce a change towards certification of "sites" (tourism destinations?). I would like to comment on both: 1) a motions is only helpful if ist purpose is clearly visible from the preambular and the operative paragraphs and therefore needs to be as simple in language and unambigious as possible; the operative paragraphs should be as operative as possible, restrict to a minimun necessary actions (and not include a "wish list" of all what might be useful); having worked with motions for since the WCC in 2004, my experince shows that only motions with realistic aims and Actions have the Chance to be implemented. 2) In Europe, site certification for protected Areas in sustainable tourism already exists since more then 15 years (European Charter for sustianable tourism in PAs), and clearly, there is no further need for a global scheme. In Addition, the Global Sustainable torusim council already provides a certification scheme for destinations. || IUCN Species Survival Commission 2013-2016: IUCN CEESP/SSC Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group 2013-2016 13 Jun 2016 - 15:58 || //Proposed edits > The motion in general// Preamble: we wanted to add to this a number of points which relate to nature-based tourism studies over the past 20 years which call for the term ‘ecotourism’ to be completely re-thought. This is simply because the original motivation for its definition (the “leaving only footprint behind” paradigm) can in reality never be achieved (e.g., Meletis & Campbell 2007 Geography Compass 1(4): 850-870). This leads us to having to consider ‘ecotourism’ as exploiting, most often, public goods in a consumptive manner. Hence we need to develop appropriate management schemes and governance structure to achieve sustainability and recognize that voluntary schemes are most often unhelpful in such instances (eg, [] ). In addition, it also forces us to recognize that operators are actors in such systems and therefore while they can control their behaviour; they cannot fully control the system’s fate. Hence, sustainability can only be achieved at a destination level not at an operator level; this is the scale at which ‘certification’ should focus. Operators need to collaborate for this (either in a top-down regulatory framework, or a bottom-up operator-driven scheme; or, as Ostrom pointed it out, in an hybrid approach). Here we suggest amendments in bold and strikethrough text. We also add comments throughout in italics “OBSERVING that in 2014 tourism contributed USD 1.2 trillion (nearly 10% of global Gross Domestic Product) to the global economy, accounted for 1 in 11 jobs worldwide, and is one of the largest and fastest-growing economic sectors in the world; RECOGNISING that tourism has been highlighted in United Nations Sustainable Development Goals 8, 12, and 14 as a tool for sustainable economic growth, sustainable consumption and production practices, and for the conservation and sustainable use of nature and natural heritage; FURTHER OBSERVING that nature-based tourism is a major tourism sector, making up more than 25% of the global travel market; NOTING that the term 'ecotourism' is frequently applied to this type of tourism but that governments, NGOs, and the tourism industry have overlapping yet differing definitions and few precise standards for ecotourism, nature-based tourism or geotourism (based on geodiversity and geological heritage); NOTING that the term ecotourism can nowadays be used in instances that differ from its original motivation (the “only leave footprint behind” paradigm) and that the risk of perturbations caused by ‘ecotourism’ cannot be completely alleviated; AWARE that the UN General Assembly adopted a Resolution for the //Promotion of ecotourism for poverty eradication and environmental protection// and believes that "ecotourism has the potential to create significant opportunities for the conservation, protection and sustainable use of biodiversity and of natural areas"; //{It is important to qualify appropriately this quote}// ALSO RECOGNISING that IUCN agrees "ecotourism can be a driver of sustainable development...if it is carefully conceived, well-managed and strictly controlled" and has undertaken significant work (e.g. guidelines and workshops) to help improve development and operation of tourism; RECOGNISING that this approach may be limited because ecotourism is an activity taking place in complex socio-ecological systems that are difficult to engineer and manipulate in a top-down approach; RECOGNISING that there is no global definition or regulatory target for desirable management target; hence we cannot appraise how “well-managed” a tourism activity is; RECOGNISING that we cannot find a unified management approach for ecotourism because governance structures and management schemes that will be most appropriate to achieve sustainability will depend on the specific characteristics of each location; ALARMED that, unsurprisingly, collective efforts have not resulted in improved practices and that ecotourism is often associated with tourism operations and activities that have severe negative impacts on communities, biodiversity and geodiversity, geological heritage, places of geological interest, wildlife and the natural environment; and RECALLING Resolutions 11.8 //Balanced Tourism// (Banff, 1972), 1.32 //Ecotourism and Protected Areas Conservation// (Montreal, 1996) and 5.114 //Promotion of sustainable tourism, rural development and the value of natural heritage// (Jeju, 2012), which further illuminate the benefits of tourism but remind us of the negative consequences to people and nature because of a lack of monitoring, oversight, and management of industry practices; The World Conservation Congress, at its session in Hawai‘i, United States of America, 1-10 September 2016: 1. REQUESTS the Director General, Commissions and Members to form a working group, in the spirit of the One Programme, to: a. expand tourism guidelines to include explicit ecotourism best practices, including best practice to appraise, predict, monitor, and mitigate the effect of ‘ecotourism’ on the conservation status of exploited wildlife and the health of ecosystems; including qualitative standards and indicators for culturally sensitive community engagement and welfare, environmental learning, acceptable visitor proximity to and behaviour around wildlife, appropriate infrastructure to prevent anthropogenic influence on species and ecosystems, geodiversity and more; b. establish an IUCN-endorsed certification for sites that are able to deliver triple-bottom sustainability of their nature-based tourism activities firms that abide by ecotourism best practices and net positive impact (NPI) criteria for biodiversity and geodiversity as described in NPI Alliance reports ; and //{we have a large number of these certification schemes around the world; another would not be useful}// c. create and deliver training opportunities for ecotourism auditing and certification, and the implementation of ecotourismmanagement best practices; and recognising that because we are dealing with complex socioecological systems, we can rarely define ‘best’ practices, create a unified approach to define the management schemes and governance structures most likely to yield sustainability (environmental, economic, and social) depending on the specificities of the ecotourism sites; 2. CALLS ON governments, parastatal organisations, developers, and tourism industry professionals to: a. conduct transparent, open access, socio-ecological impact assessments of ecotourism operations and provide IUCN with data for research and evolution of ecotourism best practices, including collect and make publically available visitation rate/visitor number information; b. adopt into business standards that the term 'ecotourism', 'nature-based tourism' and 'geotourism' while useful in marketing may not have much meaning unless firms minimise negative impacts and demonstrate net positive impacts on people, nature and natural heritage, wildlife, and ecosystems //{this point fails to recognize two issues: firstly “minimizing” can still lead to overexploitation; secondly, because we are dealing with public goods, the impact is not fully in the hands of ‘firms’ who are actors in, when overexploitation is possible, a classical tragedy of the commons process}// The industry can demonstrate that it has no perverse effects on the conservation status of exploited wildlife, the health of the exploited ecosystem, the social welfare of the communities affected, and that profits are equitably distributed between investors and the local community c. proactively seek auditing and sustainability certification for ecotourism destinations enterprises that operate in protected areas, on private property and within landscapes of conservation value. //{there are many such certification schemes around the world; we can add value by focusing on destinations instead of operators. This: a. relive the burden on operators to have to go through, yet another, accreditation scheme; b. provide incentive for location to self-organise or for government to intervene in order to achieve sustainability if need be; c. recognizes that certification may not always lead to sustainability of a destination as a small fraction of ‘defectors’ from an accreditation scheme are required to yield sustainability issues}// Explanatory Memorandum As indicated by the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), tourism has expanded to become one of the world's largest and fastest-growing economic sectors. Accompanying this rise in tourism is an increase in social responsibility and a growing interest by people to reduce their negative impacts while traveling. The incorporation of ethics into travel has become so popular that numerous tourism niches have been created specifically for these purposes. For example, ecotourism is a major type of nature-based tourism that relies on the simple paradigm that tourists should ‘only leave foot prints’ behind and was further developed later to include three ethical pillars: conservation of nature, contribution to rural or indigenous welfare, and education and interpretation of the surrounding social and natural environments. However, because of the ambiguity in the term, which is simply a combination of 'ecological' and 'tourism', it is often the case that organisations and businesses do not abide by these principles and use this label for any form of nature-based tourism, intentionally for commercial purposes or not. Although there are organisations and guidelines established to educate and improve ecotourism operations in practice, because of cultural differences and limitations in human and financial capital, corporate influence, and international political capacity, these are not sufficient to prevent misuse of the ecotourism title; or indeed to promote the concept of ecotourism as a valuable tourism approach. This is not to suggest accomplishing positive outcomes for ecotourism is an impossible goal. Despite being overshadowed by bad examples, there are ecotourism operations that have significant benefits for people and nature. Understanding its potential, UNWTO identifies ecotourism as a tool for poverty eradication and environmental protection; IUCN describes how ecotourism can be used as a driver for sustainable development; the UN Sustainable Development Goals identify responsible tourism as a mechanism to achieve many of their targets; and the Secretariat for the Convention on Biological Diversity states that responsible tourism plays a role in achieving at least 12 of the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets. But these expectations have still not been realised. More often, ecotourism results in impacts that strain communities and nature and can challenge conservation and sustainability targets. There remains a disconnect between the concept and its conservation imperative. This demonstrates the need for a different, more internationally collaborative effort. IUCN is strategically positioned to lead such an effort. Using a foundation of principles such as those outlined by The International Ecotourism Society, IUCN can undertake research to develop a comprehensive understanding of most useful approaches to achieve sustainability of ecotourism depending on the social, economic, and environmental specificities of each destination but simple set of minimum standards and optimal best-practices for ecotourism. IUCN candevelop governance and management options, with their particular quantifiable or qualifiable targets and performance indicators for destinations and operators to easily navigate towards sustainable growth. measure their adherence to these standards and to set targets to progress towards ideal ecotourism practices. Finally, using these indicators and principles these standards and metrics IUCN can establish a voluntary //{“voluntary” and exploitation of public goods very rarely work in tandem}// certification programme, incentivised {market incentives tend to have perverse effects on public goods management } and provide management templates for markets mechanisms and local and governments. Through autonomous monitoring self-reporting and third-party auditing, destinations and theiroperators would adopt the certification to signal that their businesses actually have a net positive impact on people and nature. As a result, these destinations operators would receive wider benefits increased media attention, more visitors //{we need to carefully couch wording of increased visitation rate and the challenges it presents for sustainable growth}//, and have a strategic position in the global arena as one of the few //{again this is poorly thought out: what happens when everyone reaches the accreditation: do we shift the goal post? A long-term vision is required here}// tourism enterprises that integrate pro-environmental conservation values and behaviour into people and practices .” || IUCN Species Survival Commission 2013-2016: IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group 2013-2016 07 Jun 2016 - 14:34 || //Comment > The motion in general// I've been working in the “ecotourism” field for 18 years now, and what I feel is a lack of a precise definition of this activity.
 * LUSSEAU, David
 * and
 * DOGLIO, Stefano

While the Explanatory Memorandum has a quite good definition (“ecotourism is a major type of nature-based tourism that relies on three ethical pillars: conservation of nature, contribution to rural or indigenous welfare, and education and interpretation of the surrounding social and natural environments”) the last bit on “education and interpretation” should be better specified as if strictly interpreted would cut out most of what everybody calls “ecotourism” (that quite often means only staying in a hotel in/next to a protected area, eating/buying local “eco/bio” products and possibly/finally a short walk in “natural” settings). I'm not personally against this kind of ecotourism (even if I'm involved in a more “hardcore” activity, that I usually call “wildlife tourism”) as it's still a way most people (who're not wildlife or geology enthusiasts and when on holiday want, obviously, mostly to relax and have “fun” and not be lectured) would get a first contact with “nature”, however I feel it would be good to specify a distinction between a “shallow” ecotourism, a tourism respecting the “3 pillars” but without much education/interpretation and a more “deep” ecotourism where the 3rd pillar is a sort of focus of the tourism activities.

Also, I agree with Shane Feyers that IUCN should have an active role in the certification and setting standards.

My best wishes to everybody :-) || IUCN Member: Ministerio de Vivienda Ordenamiento Territorial y Medio Ambiente ( Uruguay ) 06 Jun 2016 - 16:25 || //Comment > The motion in general// Hola, de accuerdo qa lo que he leido, me parece que UICN no quedaria en una forma pasiva ante este tema creo que UICN tendria que buscar aliansas con las instituciones a nivel mundial que tiene la capacidad para realizar Normas de este tipo, vuelvo a insistir con el caso de Uruguay, si bien lo impulso el MInisterio del Ambiente, la Norma fue realizada con 75 instituciones que representaban, no solo el gobierno, tb la academia, siciedad civil, ONGs, Industria, Mineria, Ministerio de ganaderia, banco de seguros,, y lo mas importante es que la Norma no se aleja del objetivo de conservacion del area protegida, es toda la NOrma toma como su propio objetivo el velar por el CUMPLIMIENTO DEL PLAN DE MANEJO, el cual gue realizado por tecnicos que de alguna forma son parte de las comisiones de UICN, en tal sentido UICN esta participando de forma activa sobre estos temas.. quizas es un error de los miembros de comision no avisar a la secretaria o a la soficinas regionales sobre esta sgestiones. Digo esto porque en la NORMA queda explicito que participo la Comsiion de WCPA de UICN...de "en este caso URUGUAY" || IUCN Member: Tropical Resources Institute (Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies) ( United States of America ) 06 Jun 2016 - 13:04 || //Comment > The motion in general// Everyone, I also thank you for all of these comments and suggestions so far. I heartily agree with others that multilateral collaboration is central to this initiative- established companies and organizations are key players in creating and implementing realistic standards for the tourism industry. And I agree that the language of this motion, and the operative outcomes more generally, should be broadened to include more than just "ecotourism". I am glad the Motions Working Group has incorporated these explicit changes while maintaining the motion's implicit intent. However, I disagree that IUCN should take a passive or behind the scenes role in nature-based tourism standards and certification. The nature tourism industry is too big to be guided and improved through the efforts of one organization or governing body. Moreover, IUCN plays an important role in human welfare and nature conservation that other organizations are not focused on and have yet to achieve. And exactly because IUCN is a collection of field-based member organizations, it is well suited for assisting and insisting this industry seek net-positive impacts. IUCN is an apolitical body that can bridge the gap more effectively between conservation, businesses, and governments. IUCN offers endless reach, name recognition, vast teams of natural and social science researchers in all parts of the globe and across most sectors. Their mission is one for people and nature, not industry. They have international respect, they are genuinely collaborative, and we, the members of IUCN, offer a joint but globally diverse collection of perspectives dedicated to the pursuit of substantive outcomes for nature conservation. This may be a large undertaking but this is an opportunity to get involved with a vast industry that has rapid and wide growing negative impacts on sensitive and resilient environments alike. There is a large gap IUCN can fill, and a great chance that these efforts will have positive outcomes for people and nature across the globe. And for all these reasons, I remain adamant that the Director General and members join the discussion in support of IUCN standards and certification for ecotourism, geotourism, and other nature-based tourism systems. ||
 * BERRINI CRISTOBO, Rossana
 * FEYERS, Shane
 * Facilitator COCHRANE, Peter

05 Jun 2016 - 09:43 || //Comment > The motion in general// This motion has been revised to reflect the edits and comments received during its first reading. I have tried to capture the essence of the comments and in particular the suggestions to use and incorporate the terms 'nature tourism' and 'geotourism', as well as to include references to geodiversity and geological heritage. Two comments have made the substantive point querying whether establishing IUCN endorsed-certification for firms is appropriate given the roles of other international organisations and that IUCN should instead be working or partnering with other organisations with relevant mandates such as the UN World Tourism Organisation and the Global Sustainable Tourism Council to seek and better address conservation outcomes from ecotourism. I particularly invite views and suggestions on addressing this issue in the second reading on this point - which is the substance of operative paragraph 1(b). I thank all those who have shown their interest and contributed to the discussion on this important motion. Peter || IUCN Member: Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía ( Costa Rica ) 30 May 2016 - 01:41 || //Comment > The motion in general// El ecoturismo es una actividad fundamental para países en vías de desarrollo como Costa Rica, sin embargo una planificación defectuosa puede traer consecuencias graves especialmente en areas protegidas frágiles con especies vulnerables. La creación de un código de ética para el turismo y su interrelación con la vida silvestre es fundamental. La evaluación constante con indicadores claros y precisos es necesaria para la adopción de medidas de prevención y mitigación a practicas turísticas que pueden ser dañinas para la conservación de la biodiversidad. Apoyamos la propuesta y nos ofrecemos a ayudar en la definición de estas normas y código ético para turismo. || IUCN Member: Ministerio de Vivienda Ordenamiento Territorial y Medio Ambiente ( Uruguay ) 29 May 2016 - 21:30 || //Comment > The motion in general// excelente propuesta, lo estoy invitando y tratare de traducir algunas para llevar al Congreso ya que se presentara esta NORMA que realizara Uruguay de Turismo en Areas Protegidas UNIT-ISO || IUCN Member: Sociedad Española para la Defensa del Patrimonio Geológico y Minero ( Spain ) 29 May 2016 - 13:56 || //Proposed edits > The motion in general// Se sugiere utilizar un término inclusivo de toda la naturaleza “turismo de naturaleza”. Actualmente el geoturismo (turismo geológico) es una parte de este turismo que está en auge (Geoparques) y se aconseja incluir explícitamente en el texto. SE SOLICITA LA INCLUSIÓN DEL TEXTO EN NEGRITA: Título: Mejora de las normas relativas al ecoturismo turismo de naturaleza RECONOCIENDO que se ha puesto de relieve en los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible 8, 12 y 14 que el turismo es una herramienta para lograr la sostenibilidad del crecimiento económico, el consumo y las prácticas de producción y también para la conservación y el uso sostenible de los sistemas y recursos marinos de la naturaleza y su patrimonio natural; OBSERVANDO que el términos como ecoturismo (basado en la diversidad biológica) y geoturismo (basado en la geodiversidad y su patrimonio geológico) "ecoturismo" se suele aplicar a menudo a este tipo de turismo de naturalezapero que los gobiernos, las ONG y el sector turístico tienen definiciones que se solapan pero difieren entre sí y cuentan con pocas normas precisas sobre el ecoturismo ; RECONOCIENDO TAMBIÉN que la UICN está de acuerdo en que " el ecoturismo turismo de naturaleza puede ser un factor impulsor del desarrollo sostenible… si se diseña con cuidado, se gestiona bien y se controla estrictamente" y ha realizado un trabajo considerable (p. ej., orientaciones y talleres) para ayudar a mejorar el desarrollo y el funcionamiento del turismo; ALARMADO porque los esfuerzos colectivos no han dado lugar a mejores prácticas y porque el ecoturismo turismo de naturaleza está asociado frecuentemente con operaciones y actividades turísticas que tienen impactos negativos graves sobre las comunidades, biodiversidad y geodiversidad, el patrimonio geológico, lugares de interés geológico, las especies silvestres y el medio ambiente; a. ampliar las orientaciones sobre turismo a fin de que incluyan buenas prácticas explícitas en ecoturismo turismo de naturaleza, tales como normas e indicadores cualitativos sobre la participación de las comunidades y los efectos sobre su bienestar teniendo en cuenta las diferencias culturales y también sobre el aprendizaje ambiental, la proximidad de los visitantes a las especies silvestres y su comportamiento hacia ellas e infraestructuras adecuadas para evitar la influencia antropogénica sobre, la geodiversidad, las especies y los ecosistemas, el deterioro y expolio del patrimonio geológicoentre otros aspectos; b. establecer una certificación apoyada por la UICN para las empresas que respeten las buenas prácticas en ecoturismo turismo de naturaleza y criterios sobre el impacto positivo neto (IPN) sobre la biodiversidad y geodiversidad según se describe en los informes de la NPI Alliance; y c. crear e impartir oportunidades de formación sobre la realización de auditorías y la certificación en materia de ecoturismo y geoturismo y la implementación de buenas prácticas en ecoturismo turismo de naturaleza; y  2. EXHORTA a los gobiernos, las organizaciones paraestatales, los promotores y los profesionales del sector turístico a que: a. realicen evaluaciones transparentes del impacto socio-ecológico de las actividades ecoturísticas y faciliten a la UICN datos para la investigación y la evolución de las buenas prácticas en ecoturismo turismo de naturaleza; b. establezcan en las normas empresariales que los términosturismo de naturaleza, ecoturismo y geoturismo, se puedanutilizar y promover únicamente en los casos en que las empresas minimicen los efectos negativos y demuestren impactos positivos netos sobre las personas, la geodiversidad, patrimonio geológico y sus lugares de interés geológico, las especies silvestres y los ecosistemas (diversidad natural y su patrimonio); y c. fomenten de manera proactiva la realización de auditorías y la certificación de las empresas de ecoturismo turismo de naturaleza que realicen su actividad en áreas protegidas, en terrenos privados y en paisajes de valor para la conservación. La propuesta está avalada por:
 * CHAVES, Guido
 * BERRINI CRISTOBO, Rossana
 * GUILLÉN MONDÉJAR, Francisco

Resoluciones de la UICN: WCC-2008-040 (Barcelona, 2008) conservación de la geodiversidad y el patrimonio geológico, WCC-2012-Res-048 (Jeju) Valorización y conservación del patrimonio geológico dentro del // Programa de la UICN 2013-2016. Esta última dice: // RECORDANDO que la geodiversidad es un factor natural importante que condiciona la diversidad biológica, cultural y paisajística, así como también un parámetro importante a ser tenido en cuenta en la conservación, evaluación y gestión de las áreas protegidas; RECORDANDO ADEMÁS que el patrimonio geológico es un elemento constituyente e inseparable del patrimonio natural y que posee valores culturales, estéticos, paisajísticos, económicos e intrínsecos que es necesario preservar y transmitir a las futuras generaciones; PIDE a los Miembros de la UICN que aseguren que cuando se hace referencia en el // Programa de la UICN 2013-2016 // a la naturaleza en general se dé preferencia al uso de términos inclusivos como naturaleza, diversidad natural o patrimonio natural, de manera tal que no se excluya la geodiversidad y el patrimonio geológico. Y sobre todo por WCC-2012-Res-114 (Jeju) Fomento del turismo sostenible, el desarrollo rural y el valor del patrimonio natural que dice:

// El Congreso Mundial de la Naturaleza, en su período de sesiones en Jeju, República de Corea, 6 al 15 de septiembre de 2012: // 1. SOLICITA al Gobierno de España, a los gobiernos autónomos y a las autoridades locales que definan y apliquen estrategias políticas y planes de acción que fomenten el desarrollo de un turismo sostenible de calidad que afiance un desarrollo rural sostenible y que garantice la conservación de la biodiversidad y la diversidad geológica (geodiversidad) y los espacios protegidos incluidos en la Red Natura 2000;

2. PIDE a la Directora General, en relación con las áreas pertinentes del // Programa de la UICN 2013-2016, // que fomente y apoye la mejora de la competitividad y nuevas iniciativas empresariales de turismo rural, natural, cultural, responsable, sostenible y respetuoso con la naturaleza como son el geoturismo (turismo geológico), el turismo litoral, etnoturismo, el turismo ornitológico, turismo de observación de cetáceos, mariposas, fauna en general, flora y otros;

3. PIDE a la Directora General que fomente y apoye la formación, la sensibilización y la educación ambiental en los espacios protegidos incluidos en la Red Natura 2000 europea para concienciar a las empresas, a los turistas y a la población local acerca de la importancia del respeto a la naturaleza y la conservación de la biodiversidad y la geodiversidad; y || IUCN Member: Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores ( Ecuador ) 29 May 2016 - 13:24 || //Comment > The motion in general// We could improve the preambular part by inserting the number of the UN General Assembly resolution in pp. 5 and in pp.6 also specify where has the IUCN agreed on "ecotourism can be a driver of sustainable development..." || IUCN Member: US Agency for International Development ( United States of America ) 28 May 2016 - 23:02 || //Comment > The motion in general// We've added a few specific edits but also agree with comments asking for greater consultation with organizations like GSCT. Rather than IUCN developing its own certification scheme – how best can IUCN partner with existing sustainable tourism processes to bring in additional conservation benchmarks and also access IUCN and partner expertise? || IUCN Member: US Agency for International Development ( United States of America ) 28 May 2016 - 22:49 || //Proposed edits > A specific Operative Paragraph > 2° paragraph// IUCN Member: US Agency for International Development ( United States of America ) 28 May 2016 - 22:47 || //Proposed edits > A specific Operative Paragraph > 1° paragraph// sub-para (a) IUCN Member: Bundesamt für Naturschutz ( Germany ) 27 May 2016 - 10:34 || //Comment > The motion in general// Although the sense of the motion to improve ecotourism standard is highly appreciated, the operative paragraphs do not go into the right direction. IUCN is not the right body to act as a certification authority for (eco)tourism operators/products etc. This motion doubles activities already undertaken by the Global Sustainable tourism Council (GSCT). The motion needs a complete review ideally including discussion with UNWTO, GSTC an TAPAS. || IUCN Member: Fondo Pro-Cuenca Valle de Bravo A.C. ( Mexico ) 26 May 2016 - 21:31 || //Comment > The motion in general// Apoyamos la moción. Sin duda un tema que desde tiempo requiere el desarrollo de definiciones y estándares más precisos. A pesar de algunos ejemplos con resultados nefastos para el medio ambiente, el ecoturismo muestra también casos de éxito claros que abonan a frenar el cambio de uso de suelo a otras actividades de mayor impacto (agricultura, ganadería, minería) y también proveen mayor certeza a la permanencia de los pobladores originales y su descendencia en el territorio. || IUCN Member: Tropical Resources Institute (Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies) ( United States of America ) 26 May 2016 - 16:38 || //Comment > The motion in general// Gracias Michael. Tu apoyo para la moción es muy importante. Trabajar juntos es el único camino hacia la creación de normas internacionalmente aceptadas para el turismo de la naturaleza. Si se acepte la moción, yo espero trabajar con la UICN y colaborar con tanta gente y organizaciones como posible para comprender las diferentes perspectivas sobre el ecoturismo y cómo puede volverse una mejor herramienta para el bienestar humano y la protección de la naturaleza. || IUCN Member: ProNaturaleza - Fundación Peruana para la Conservación de la Naturaleza ( Peru ) 25 May 2016 - 00:31 || //Comment > The motion in general// Apoyamos la moción. Como se explica, el turismo es una de las actividades económicas más importantes. El crecimiento del turismo con temática ambiental o natural debe tener en cuenta los peligros para los ecosistemas y las poblaciones, por ello, es importante el establecimiento de normas y certificaciones internacionales y se realicen evaluaciones y auditorias sobre los proyectos realizados. || IUCN Member: Tropical Resources Institute (Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies) ( United States of America ) 17 May 2016 - 00:29 || //Comment > The motion in general// Dear Mr. Cochrane- Thank you for introducing this motion and inviting members to comment and discuss the subject matter and recommendations detailed here. Echoing your interest and sentiments for this motion, I also believe this is an important proposal and topic to discuss. There is a critical gap in the ecotourism movement currently. Although many organizations claim its success as a tool to balance economic opportunity with nature protection, there are currently no mechanisms to guide and incentivize these outcomes. As such, going beyond the manuals that currently exist, I hope that this motion, should it pass, addresses these barriers to ecotourism's ethical efficacy. More than for the sake of this voting process, I would like to draw people's attention to this motion and ask for any time you can spare, to comment criticize or otherwise suggest edits. It is my hope that when it is brought to the floor of the Member Assembly, members will feel confident knowing that careful attention and thought has been invested into this motion since its inception. I am committed to this project and so I welcome all feedback good or bad. Sincerely, Shane Feyers ||
 * ROCHA, Pamela
 * ROWEN, Mary
 * ROWEN, Mary
 * 1) CALLS ON ENCOURAGES governments, parastatal organisations, developers, and tourism industry professionals to: ||
 * ROWEN, Mary
 * 1) expand tourism guidelines to include explicit ecotourism best practices, including qualitative standards and indicators for culturally sensitive community engagement and welfare effect, environmental learning, acceptable visitor proximity to and behaviour around wildlife, appropriate infrastructure to prevent anthropogenic influence on species and ecosystems, and more; ||
 * ENGELS, Barbara
 * CUSI, Alejandro
 * FEYERS, Shane
 * DE LA CADENA, Michael
 * FEYERS, Shane
 * Facilitator COCHRANE, Peter

02 May 2016 - 11:58 || //Comment > The motion in general// Hello and welcome to the on-line discussion of Motion 65. I'm the on-line facilitator and I am looking forward to seeing the comments, the discussion, and hopefully a consensus motion at the end... This is an important and ambitious motion. I'm Peter Cochrane, a long-standing member of WCPA, its Steering Committee, and an active participant in the last three Congresses. Nature-based tourism has been a long standing professional interest for me, so I'm keen to see where the discussion on this motion takes us. As the motion was submitted in English, this will be the working language of the discussion. This does not however prevent you from posting comments in French or Spanish. Peter || The electronic discussion of motions is now closed.  [|Filter comments]

For technical assistance contact supportportals@iucn.org

Forum data Policy ¦ Union Portal data Policy