Postcard from Bishkek

I came across an article the other day: Will the real sustainable tourism certificate please stand up?  It struck me as particularly apposite as we in KATO, (the Kyrgyz Association of Tour Operators), under the auspices of a project funded by the European Union, are currently working on a series of quality standards and codes of practice for the industry.

The theme of the article was about the confusing plethora of schemes that exist for the certification of enterprises and activities, which are supposed to give the concerned consumer reassurance and confidence that the service they receive will meet certain criteria.  Each of these competing schemes or programmes have their own criteria and systems and although there might be sense in cooperating and collaborating but, as the author points out, to many people involved in the different systems, this is an anathema.   Those who have invested considerable effort in creating schemes seem to have too much effort and emotion invested in them to consider collaboration.

The result is a confusing mishmash of competing schemes with no-one really sure which one to follow, if any, yet alone the significant differences between them all and what each of them actually certifies

The crucial word in the title, however, was “certification”.  The presence of such a document implies to the consumer that they can be reassured that there has been some form of inspection and some body has recognized and asserted that certain standards have been met, even if the consumer is not certain of the specific details.

This however, raises a whole host of questions … most of which, the average consumer won’t want to be bothered with, such as: who is the certifying body?, what are the criteria they use?, what are the procedures involved?

Even for those in the industry, (yet alone the consumer), choosing between the rival schemes can be difficult – yet alone whether or not to seek certification.  The process of being awarded certification involves effort and expense and, if it is not a compulsory requirement, there needs to be reason for expending the energy and incurring the expense.

Of course, some forms of certification have to be compulsory – especially for reasons of health and safety … we all, (not just the customer), want to be sure that hotels satisfy fire prevention, food preparation and hygiene requirements, for example, but of conformity to other “standards” are not normally subject to compulsory certification.  These help to differentiate companies and, ideally, should give them a commercial advantage … and for that they offer to offer the company a return on their investment whether it be time and effort or financial.

It may well be that the management of the company decides that it is a good thing to seek certification but then they face the task of choosing which system of certification to pursue.  One of the factors that they will take into account will be the public recognition of the competing systems.

Even if there is a growing awareness in the industry and amongst consumers of the issues of standards and the desirability of certification, there is no obvious “market leader” in this field.

Maybe that is fair enough.  After all, different companies in different countries face different circumstances.  Not all can be addressed in one single code.  What works well in England may not be appropriate in Kyrgyzstan.  The principles may well be the same, but the details, (and codes have a habit of very quickly descending into minute details), might well be at variance.

 

The article was concerned with certification systems for “sustainable tourism”, (whatever that means; it is a pretty nebulous and ill defined term which is not really understood by those in the industry, yet alone by the layman).  In place of the phrase you can put just about whatever you want in its place. The phrase could just as easily have been “hotel classification” or “customer service standards” or … well … you name it.

If you consider the question of hotel classification as an example, there is no universal definition of what makes a 5-star hotel.  Every country adopts its standard and its own method of awarding the classification.  In some countries it is the state that awards the necessary certification, but in Switzerland this task is undertaken by the Swiss Hotels Association.  In the UK there are several schemes, some operated by the tourism Development Boards which are quangos, (Quasi autonomous non-governmental organizations), and others are voluntary organizations such as the Royal Automobile Club and the Automobile Association, (although their schemes have now been merged).  In some countries there are also commercial organizations which undertake the task.  Each have their own criteria and procedures.

Despite that, there is a fairly general idea of what is meant when a hotel is described as a five star hotel.  It exudes a level of luxury, a range of facilities and a level of service.  (Some hotels, wanting to emphasize the level of luxury, facilities and service, have described themselves as six, or even seven, star hotels … but I am not aware of any widely recognized system which includes such categories.)

When we opened our hotels there was, technically, such a body here in Kyrgyzstan, but the system didn’t work well and hotels described themselves as 3-star, 4-star or whatever, as they felt fit.

Since then, Kyrgyzstan has developed a new system of standards for certificating and classifying hotels.  In drawing up the scheme, the previous system that had been used in the former Soviet Union was considered along with experiences of a number of European countries and the changing world – technology, facilities and so forth.  So, Kyrgyzstan has its own system which will differ in some respects from those operated in other countries, although the general level of luxury, facilities and service should be more or less comparable.

When we were discussing the classification standards for Kyrgyzstan, we made a point of making the system a voluntary one.  There were many people who thought that it should be compulsory but I, for one, am uneasy with this.  I think, for example, that it opens the door to corrupt practices and that there needs to be strong reasons for any system to be made compulsory.  Health and Safety provide good reasons for compulsion, whereas the classification of establishments seems, (to me at least), to be a poor reason.

It is important to remember that absence of the certificate or classification does not necessarily mean that the accommodation, firm or enterprise, does not meet the standards underlying the certificate.  Accommodation that doesn’t carry this or that accreditation may still meet, (or even exceed), the relevant criteria, but for one reason or another, the management have not received this particular document.

However, when it came to developing a set of standards for the Kyrgyz Community Based Tourism Association, (KCBTA), to classify their homestays and yurt accommodation, the traditional systems didn’t apply too well.  The type and scale of the operations in a homestay just aren’t the same as those of a hotel.  In the remote villages of Kyrgyzstan, for example, often there isn’t a centralized sewage system with each house having a “pit toilet” in the grounds of the house – so en-suite facilities are rarely possible and the provision of telephones and television in every guest room are impractical requirements.

The English Tourist Board used to operate a system of awarding crowns as opposed to stars and they overcame this problem by adopting a flexible scheme which took into account the size of an establishment which meant that a small family run guest house could still be awarded the same certificate as a much larger establishment if it met sufficient of the criteria.

KCBTA looked at a number of different schemes around the world, including one from Wales, and developed their own system of classification for awarding a badge of accreditation: the Edelweiss with categories of one, two and three edelweiss.  It takes into account the actual situation in the villages, and lays down specific minimum requirements for hosts offering homestay or yurt accommodation through the Association to meet.  If they don’t meet these criteria then they don’t get certified and cannot work through the Association, although, of course, there is nothing to stop them working independently as many homestays and yurt camps do, especially where there is no local CBT group.

This means that the KCBTA system is a compulsory scheme … in that if the host wishes to work with the Association then they need to meet the criteria laid down in the scheme.  he scheme is not simply a system of guideline or a list of best practices. KCBTA accreditation offers the consumer the reassurance that someone has looked at the establishment and is satisfied that it meets certain criteria to merit a classification and it also protects the interests of the other members by helping to preserve their collective name and reputation.

However, it is an internal membership document and is an internal requirement of the Association; it is not compulsory on others who are not members.  If a host wants the benefit of working within the Association then they have to comply, but there is nothing to stop them offering their services to clients independently of the Association if they so wish.

 

Although there is a growing awareness amongst tourists of the desirability of standards and certification, it is not universal.  Many people don’t consider the question at all whilst others simply want to be reassured that the service provider is acting in a reasonable and responsible manner.  (That somewhat begs the question: Is the presence of a certificate necessary to demonstrate this?)

One way out of this dilemma might be for every company to issue a statement or policy of its own.  After all, many, (nay, most, if not all), companies have policies and standards.  There are many examples of such declarative standards, for example, an organization’s statement of levels of customer service that it expects of its employees or a code of practice which they try to adhere to in their business dealings.

This solution, of course, has some drawbacks, (it means, for example, there will be even more potential confusion between competing standards; comparison between companies will be more difficult and there will be no independent verification or guarantee to support and back the statement up), but it should have the advantage that companies will be committed to what they themselves have declared as their policy.

A major advantage of this approach, it seems to me, is that the company would have “ownership” of the document which would reflect their particular circumstances and not what some administrator sitting in an office far away thinks is desirable.

Tags: Business, Hotels, Tourism