Blue Washing the Beach: the Role and Impact of Blue Flag Certification at the Bulgarian Black Sea Coast

Blue washing the beach: The role and impact of Blue Flag certification at the Bulgarian Black Sea coast

Thesis research

Author: Supervisor: Ivelina Dimitrova Machiel Lamers

January 2013 Summary

In the past decades there has been a growing concern about the unsustainable nature of mass tourism development and this has been reflected in the demand for greener tourism products. Currently, tourism ecolabels are being utilized as tools by the tourism industry for protecting the environment as well as promoting sustainable tourism practices. Even though that tourism ecolabels are well accepted by the industry they are also suffering from lack of methods to ensure that they are not just a green wash. Moreover, they may be perceived as uncoordinated because of their broad proliferation varying from small scales to worldwide and from single activities to entire destinations. These issues have been discussed in the tourism literature but however the last is still unable to explain the actual contribution of tourism ecolabels to tourism product improvement. Addressing these knowledge gaps, the objective of this research is to explore the role and the impact of tourism ecolabels and to investigate the presumption that they promote sustainable tourism development. In this research the example of Blue Flag as important, internationally proliferated and broadly recognised tourism ecolabel has been chosen. Next to this, to fulfill the aim of this research the case of Bulgarian Black Sea has been adopted in order to estimate the extent to which Blue Flag has contributed to the actual environmental and socio-economic development on national level.

Table of contents List of tables ...... 4 List of figures and pictures ...... 5 Acknowledgements ...... 6

1. Introduction ...... 7 1.1. Problem statement ...... 7 1.2. Research objective ...... 9 1.3. Research questions ...... 9 1.4. Methodology ...... 9 1.5. Outlining ...... 11

2. Conceptual framework ...... 13 2.1. Introduction ...... 13 2.2. Tourism ecolabels: theory and critics ...... 14 2.2.1. Main actors in tourism ecolabels ...... 14 2.2.2. Criticism of tourism ecolabels ...... 15 2.3. The non-state market driven (NSMD) governance ...... 16 2.4. Legitimacy dynamics in non-state market driven governance ...... 19 2.4.1. Types of external audience ...... 19 2.4.2. Types of legitimacy that external audience may give to NSMD systems ...... 19 2.4.3. Recognition and durability ...... 22 2.5. The effectiveness of non-state market driven governance ...... 22 2.5.1. First-order effects ...... 23 2.5.2. Second order effects ...... 24 2.6. Conclusions ...... 25

3. Blue Flag as a form of NSMD governance ...... 27 3.1. Introduction ...... 27 3.1.1. Background ...... 28 3.1.2. Beach criteria ...... 28 3.1.3. Compliance ...... 29 3.1.4. Application procedure ...... 29

3.1.5. Regulation and monitoring ...... 30 3.2. Blue Flag as a form of NSMD governance ...... 30 3.3. Conclusions ...... 31

4. The legitimacy of Blue Flag: The case of Bulgaria ...... 32 4.1. Introduction ...... 32 4.1.1. Background ...... 32 4.1.2. Current situation ...... 34 4.2. Legitimacy granting ...... 36 4.2.1. Types of actors ...... 36 4.2.2. Type of legitimacy ...... 39 4.2.3. Recognition and durability ...... 39 4.3. Conclusions ...... 40

5. The effectiveness of Blue Flag: the case of Sunny Beach ...... 41 5.1. Introduction ...... 41 5.1.1. Background ...... 41 5.1.2. The costal tourism in Sunny Beach and its consequences ...... 43 5.2. The effectiveness of Blue Flag certification in Sunny Beach ...... 44 5.2.1. First-order effects ...... 45 5.2.2 Second-order effects ...... 48 5.3. Conclusions ...... 49

6. Discussion and conclusions ...... 50 6.1. Introduction ...... 50 6.2. Discussion ...... 50 6.3. Conclusions and recommendations ...... 52 Reference ...... 54 Appendix 1 ...... 58 Appendix 2 ...... 61 Appendix 3 ...... 62 Appendix 4 ...... 64

List of tables

Table 1. Definitions of sustainable tourism ...... 7 Table 2. Operationalized concepts ...... 11 Table 3. Characteristics of NSMD ...... 17 Table 4. Comparison of NSMD with traditional governance ...... 17 Table 5. Types of external audiences ...... 19 Table 6. Types of legitimacy ...... 20 Table 7. Pragmatic legitimacy - examples of Achievement Strategies ...... 20 Table 8. Moral legitimacy - examples of Achievement Strategies ...... 21 Table 9. Cognitive legitimacy - examples of Achievement Strategies ...... 21 Table 10. First-order effects and their indicators ...... 23 Table 11. Second-order effects and their indicators ...... 24 Table 12. Blue Flag certification as non-state market driven governance system ...... 31 Table 13. Most immediate audience of Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement ...... 38

List of figures and pictures

Figure 1. The players in tourism ecolabels ...... 15 Figure 2. The combined approach ...... 25 Figure 3. The structure of Blue Flag ...... 27 Figure 4. Bulgarian Black Sea coast ...... 33 Figure 5. Blue Flag awarded beaches in Bulgaria for season 2013 ...... 35 Figure 6. Blue Flag in Bulgaria - main actors ...... 37 Figure 7. Sunny Beach location on the Black Sea coast ...... 42 Figure 8. Sunny Beach map ...... 43 Picture 1. Blue Flag symbol waving in Bulgaria ...... 36 Picture 2. Blue Flag information board in Sunny Beach south ...... 45 Picture 3. The cleanliness of the sand in Sunny Beach south ...... 47 Picture 4. “Amphibian” chair in Sunny Beach south ...... 48

Acknowledgments

Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisor Machiel Lamers from the Environmental Policy group at Wageningen University for his kindness, precious advice and help. I truly appreciate your professionalism, knowledge and openness to students. Secondly, I would like to thank my fellows at Wageningen University for their friendliness and goodness. I have learned a lot from you. Then I would like to thank my dear family for their overwhelming support, without which my master study in Wageningen would not have happened. Finally, my deepest appreciation goes to Georgi for standing by me whenever I needed it and also for his great help in conducting my thesis research.

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1. Problem statement

In the past decades there has been a growing concern about the unsustainable nature of mass tourism development (Sustainable Tourism 2012). This has been reflected in increasing numbers of consumers willing to choose greener tourism products (TripAdvisor 2012). It can be argued that the biggest market sector of the tourism industry is focused on coastal regions (Nelson & Botterill 2002). Bulgaria makes no exception to this trend with a 4.6% annual increase in the number of the foreign coastal visits in Black Sea for 2012, compared to the previous years. And moreover, the number is expected to continue to grow (MEET 2013 a). These considerations have led to the need and demand for more sustainable tourism practices in the Bulgaria Black Sea coast in order to manage the tourist flow (Yaneva 2009). Subsequently in the past years, the concept of sustainable tourism (Table 1) has emerged in Bulgaria as a way to promote sustainable developments at tourism destinations such as the Bulgarian Black Sea coast. A National Strategy of Sustainable Tourism Development (2009-2013) has been proposed aiming at making Bulgaria a top sustainable coastal tourism destination in Europe through promotion of good European tourism practices and implementation of international standards (MEET 2013 b, National Sustainable Tourism Strategy 2009). It is assumed that a more sustainable situation in Bulgaria can be further achieved through establishing certification schemes and ecolabelling to improve the environmental quality of tourism management (Ecrein Bulgaria 2011). However, environmental ecolabelling is still new and unexplored phenomenon in Bulgarian Black Sea coast.

Definitions of sustainable tourism

Sustainable tourism development guidelines and management practices are applicable to all forms of tourism in all types of destinations, including mass World Tourism tourism and the various niche tourism segments. Sustainability principles refer to Organisation (2013) the environmental, economic, and socio-cultural aspects of tourism development, and a suitable balance must be established between these three dimensions to guarantee its long-term sustainability

Sustainable tourism is tourism and associated infrastructures that: both now and in the future operate within natural capacities for the regeneration and future Eber (1992) productivity of natural sources; recognize the contribution that people and communities, customs and lifestyles, make to the tourism experience

Countryside Tourism which can sustain local economies without damaging the environment on Commission (1995) which it depends Table 1. Definitions of sustainable tourism Source: Butler (1999), WTO (2013)

Due to the enormous size of the coastal tourism industry, the main purpose of ecolabels and certification schemes is to be a tool to help consumers choose which products or services to buy. Accordingly, in the sustainable coastal tourism value chain there are various components and services that are certified by numerous ecolabels. For instance, there is a variety of certification schemes regarding beach maintenance operating on national or international levels (and sometimes even overlapping) (Font 2001). Such ecolabels and accreditation schemes which concern coastal management are the Foundation for Environmental Education’s Blue Flag award, the Green Sea Partnership’s Green Coasts Award and the Seaside Award originally founded in Europe, and the Blue Wave award in America. Among all these ecolabels the focus of this research is an Blue Flag certification because of its international proliferation and perhaps a significant role in promoting sustainable coastal management. Moreover, throughout the years, Blue Flag established itself as a reliable organisation and is perceived as a symbol of quality which is widely recognised by tourists and tour operators (McKenna, Williams & Cooper 2010).

Tourism ecolabels in general also suffer from criticism. They are claimed to be commonplace in tourism, but they are perceived also as uncoordinated because of their broad proliferation varying from small scales to worldwide and from single activities to entire destinations (Buckley 2009). The current literature tries to address these topics by identifying the main principles and practices, broad contexts, and the main actors involved in tourism ecolabelling (Buckley 2009, Font 2001, McKenna, Williams & Cooper 2010). But there are important aspects regarding tourism ecolabels that are still blurred. Even though they are internationally applied ecolabels need to be recognisable within particular countries or regions. The current tourism ecolabel literature is limited in explaining topics such as what is the role of ecolabels and also what are the produced local effects of their implementation for the sustainable tourism development.

This research is seeking to fill these knowledge gaps by adopting relevant environmental governance frameworks. This research identified two main theories which are considered as needed in order to better study the tourism ecolabels. The first theory is the non-state market driven (NSMD) governance framework which is designed to investigate how social and environmental norms are embedded into the global marketplace (Bernstein & Cashore 2007). Even though it is a broad framework it gives an important inside view of the type of governance systems that tourism ecolabels as Blue Flag present. Moreover, this framework discusses how legitimacy may be granted to these governance systems. This appears to be important for better understanding the tourism ecolabels’ internal organisational dynamics. The second framework, which is adopted in this research, concerns the effectiveness of tourism ecolabels such as Blue Flag. This framework suggests a twofold way of studying the produced effects of the implementation of certain ecolabel (Kalfagianni & Pattberg 2011).

These frameworks have enabled to study the social attitudes towards Blue Flag in Bulgaria and also have allowed investigating the presumption that Blue Flag contributes to the improvement of the local environmental situation and promotes sustainable tourism development in Bulgaria.

1.2. Research objective

The main research objective in this thesis is namely:

To study the legitimacy dynamics and effectiveness of Blue Flag certification in the sustainable tourism development at the Bulgarian Black Sea coast.

1.3. Research questions

In line with this research objective, main research questions steering this thesis are:

. How does Blue Flag gain legitimacy in Bulgaria? . How effective is Blue Flag for the local sustainable tourism development in Bulgaria?

1.4. Methodology

In order to fulfill the objective of this research, three phases have been made: preparation phase, fieldwork phase and results analysis phase. In the first preparation phase, a literature review took place. The literature review was needed to obtain knowledge regarding tourism ecolabels in general, and the Blue Flag and its development in particular. After collecting and reviewing primary and secondary sources, such as published information and data relevant to the research, some literature gaps regarding tourism ecolabels were noted, namely how international tourism ecolabels may gain local authority to govern and what are the actual local produced effects of their implementation. In order to fill these gaps the theoretical concepts of non-state market driven (NSMD) governance systems and the effectiveness of transnational rule-setting organisation were identified as most relevant to the research objective which is to study the legitimacy dynamics and the local impacts of Blue Flag certification. These theory frameworks were applied in this research for the case of Bulgaria. This case was chosen for several considerations. First Bulgaria is a country in transition, second it is a relatively new member of the European Union which is entering the western tourism market and third it is also a former communist country, and last but not least there is no researches conducted in this field for the case of Bulgarian Black Sea coast. These grounds have made Bulgaria an interesting case to study and explore how a western sustainable tourism practices influence eastern sustainable tourism development.

Further in this phase, an overview of the coastal tourism industry in Bulgaria was conducted using reports available through the internet. In order to study the local impacts of the tourism ecolabels the case of Sunny Beach was identified and selected as an example of a Blue Flag certified beach in Bulgaria and also as the most important and popular coastal destination along the Bulgarian Black Sea. Simultaneously in this phase, a careful study about Blue Flag and its representative organisation on national level namely Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement was conducted also via internet research. However, little was known about Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement and its impact on the local sustainable tourism development in Sunny Beach at that point so there was a need for collecting further information in the next phase.

The second, fieldwork phase, took place in Sunny Beach, Bulgaria. The main method of data collection required for answering the research questions was interviews. This way of data gathering was needed in order to obtain realistic, systematic, comprehensive and detailed information, which was not currently available on the websites. Interviews were conducted with key stakeholders presenting four main groups namely economic demand-side (those who require the ecolabel as the tourism market in Bulgaria), economic-supply side (those who implement the ecolabel as beach operators), environmental groups, public sector bodies and state agencies. In conducting the interviews, a semi-structured interview format was adopted. This form of interviewing was beneficial because it enabled interviewees to express their views with more freedom and allowed for flexibility. The structure of the interviews was a series of open- ended questions based on the main research concepts (Table 2) with many opportunities to discuss in more details the most interesting themes and topics. The key interviewees as environmental groups, organised labor, local authorities and organisation representatives of Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement were contacted via e-mails and phone calls and the interviews were taken in face-to-face interactions. The information that was gathered from these interviews was used for identifying the main steps of Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement development and the main actors, the role of the state, as well as information about verification procedures in Bulgaria. Further, interviews with civil and community representatives as well as local entrepreneurs and tourists was done randomly during the fieldwork with or without an appointment. These interviews were used in order to obtain information regarding the extent to which local stakeholders were consulted or involved in the process of Blue Flag certification implementation, and moreover to investigate their view on the Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement. The interviews were captured mostly via minutes when the interviewees gave their permission.

In addition to the interviews, observations were carried out in a systematic way in Sunny Beach by the researcher and a volunteer. The observation frame (see Appendix 1) was in the form of checklist where the main criteria of Blue Flag (see Appendix 3) were explored for compliance. The researcher and the volunteer conducted the observations simultaneously but independent. The observations were taken during the beginning of the tourism season in Sunny Beach (in the end of June) and in the peak hours (between 11 am and 1 pm). The observations were performed in the southern part of the Sunny Beach for two reasons. The first is the ability of the researcher and the volunteer; since it was not physically possible to cover the entire Sunny Beach coastline. Second is that the southern part of Sunny Beach is the most environmentally sensitive area in the region because of the protected sand dunes. The observations in general were helpful in order to estimate to what extent the data and information gained during the interviews reflect reality. The observations were also important to explore the Blue Flag criteria in Sunny Beach South and to assess the actual compliance.

However in the last phase, after obtaining the needed information the data from the literature review, interviews and observations was analysed and discussed. The analysis of the fieldwork findings was in two steps namely interview analysis and observations analysis. The outcomes from the various interviews were put in order according to the concepts and themes (Table 2) they concern. For instance, a document for discourse analysis was created presenting the two main concepts of legitimacy and effectiveness, and the derived from them six themes: external audiences’ evaluations, uptake, and compliance, structural, cognitive and regulatory effects. The different opinions collected from the various interviewees were

10 separated accordingly. Next to this, a list of interview codes (Appendix 2) was established to keep the anonymity of the interviewees in the empirical analysis chapters. The next step was the observation frame analysis. The two observation frames were easily assimilated since they presented the same results. The outcome of the observation frames were compared to the results from the compliance theme in the interviewee discourse analysis document. The results from the analysis were discussed with the supervisor and presented in the report.

Concepts Themes Topics External audiences’ narrow self-interest Legitimacy granting through Legitimacy external audiences’ External audiences’ moral beliefs evaluations External audiences’ beliefs that the actions of an organisation are understandable First-order effects: Uptake Actors (currently adopting, types, etc.) Compliance Criteria (to what extend the criteria are met)

Second-order effects: NSMD Governance Effectiveness Structural Market shifts

Cognitive Recognisability of the Bulgarian Blue Flag ecolabel

Potential growing links with intergovernmental Regulatory processes

Table 2. Operationalized concepts Source: adapted from Cashore (2002); Kalfagianni & Pattberg’s (2011)

1.5. Outlining

Overall this paper contains six chapters starting with the introduction of problem statement, research aim and questions as well as the methodology of data collection.

In the following second chapter a theory framework of tourism ecolabels is presented. The chapter continues by discussing some critical points and the current literature gaps regarding tourism ecolabels. In order to fill these gaps, the research identifies two main theories of non-state market driven (NSMD) governance and effectiveness which provide an important concepts for better exploration of the tourism ecolabels' organisational dynamics. These theory frameworks and their features are broadly discussed in the chapter as well as how they link and supplement each other.

The third chapter briefly outlines the background information about the international Blue Flag ecolabel and its most important characteristics. The fourth chapter includes information about the local representatives of the international Blue Flag organisation in Bulgaria namely Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement. The chapter continues by presenting the past and current activities of Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement in the Black Sea coast. Further, the chapter explains the main stakeholders involved in the

11 process of certification implementation and discusses how these actors granted legitimacy to Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement.

The case of Sunny Beach as most important coastal tourism destination in Bulgaria is applied and explained in the fifth chapter. Moreover, this chapter discusses and explores the impacts of the Blue Flag ecolabel for the local sustainable tourism development in Sunny Beach.

The paper is finishing by summarizing the main findings and discussing the research outcomes. Next to this, the chapter also makes some general conclusions and suggests future possible researches in this field.

Chapter 2 Conceptual framework

2.1. Introduction

Tourism depends largely on the environment for its continual prosperity (Font & Buckley 2001). It may be also argued that in the past years there has been a growing interest in measuring sustainability in tourism industry as a result of Agenda 21, which requires from business to comply with environmental regulations and address global environmental problems. Thus the tourism industry has developed methods to measure objectively the sustainability of tourism destinations by offering the ecolabel system to the market (UNEP 1998). Ecolabels are considered to be helpful to identify critical environmental issues, to accelerate the implementation of eco-efficient solutions, estimate the environmental performance and thus mark the sustainable products and services. Tourism ecolabels has been utilized as environmental and management tool for protecting the environment while ensuring sustainable development of the tourism industry (UNEP 1998). One of the first milestones in tourism ecolabelling was in 1985 when the first Blue Flag beach was awarded as a symbol of compliance to the EC legislation of bathing water quality (Font 2001). However, the tourism ecolabels and their role for promoting sustainable tourism are still discussed. The current literature tries to explain the development of tourism ecolabels throughout the years, their broad principles on which they depend (UNEP 1998, Font 2001) and how these principles are expressed in developing countries (Sasidharan, Sirakaya & Kerstetter 2002). Further, the literature is also reviewing the current marketing of ecologically labelled tourism products and the management of current ecolabels (Font & Buckley 2001). Some literature discusses particular tourism ecolabel and its contribution to the environmental improvement (McKenna, Williams & Cooper 2010; Nelson & Botterill 2002). But the last in most cases is concerning western European destinations. Next to this elaboration, some literature has identified also critical points of tourism ecolabels which mainly address the need of further better exploration of these systems.

Therefore, this research is trying to contribute to the better understanding of tourism ecolabel system by adopting relevant environmental governance frameworks and applying them to the case of tourism. Moreover, this research seeks to explain how international proliferated ecolabel affects sustainable tourism developments on national level. This chapter’s aim is to first present the tourism ecolabel concept and second to identify the two theory concepts of non-state market driven (NSMD) governance and effectiveness of NSMD that shall give a better overview of the tourism ecolabels. Moreover, this chapter argues that these theory concepts may be used together and thus may also provide a more deep and elaborated knowledge regarding tourism ecolabels, their organisational activities and their produced effects.

In so doing, this chapter continues by discussing the main actors in the tourism ecolabels and their relationships. The chapter also talks about the criticism of tourism ecolabels and why there is a need of different view on the problem. The concepts of non-state market driven governance and effectiveness of NSMD are also presented in details below. The chapter is finalized by making links between the below explained theory concepts and presents them as a holistic framework.

2.2. Tourism ecolabels: theory and critics

The following paragraph presents an important theory of who are the main actors in tourism ecolabelling and how they establish their relationships. Next to this and as mentioned above, this subchapter touches on issues such as why the tourism ecolabels are been criticized and why there is a need of further exploration and different view on the problem.

2.2.1. Main actors in tourism ecolabels

According to Font (2001) the actors in tourism ecolabelling are the applicant, awarding body, funding body, verifying body and the tourism market itself (Figure 1 illustrated on the next page). The funding body aims at influencing the environmental performance of the industry as a whole but is at the same time criticized for being incapable of influencing specific sub-sectors of the industry. The awarding body is consistent of experts that have the needed expertise in project management, marketing, lobbying and criteria compliance. The awarding body promotes the award and the awardees to the tourism market. The tourism market itself reflects on the market needs of greener products or services. However, the external verification body serves as a third party in order to verify objectively if the applicant meets the standards. The applicant itself usually pays a fee, which in many cases is quite costly, for the limited advantages that ecolabels may give in return.

These actors establish their relationships in five steps: setting standards, undertaking assessment, certifying this assessment and accrediting certification, recognition of the value of the certificate, and acceptance by the industry (Font 2001). In the first step, the standards are recognized as set of criteria which put strict rules, conditions or requirements. These standards are also important for creating common and shared understandings between various applicants for obtaining a particular tourism ecolabel. In the second step, the applicants are evaluated based on the criteria. The process of assessment presents examinations and measurements in order to determine compliance with the requirements. The verification procedures may be carried out by three parties. The first-party performs self-regulation. The second-party regulations are done by the certification organisation itself (awarding body) and the third- party regulations are undertaken independently of the organisation and the applicant. In many cases third-party verification is quite expensive but however the most reliable way of ensuring compliance to the criteria and a key element of credible ecolabel. The next step presents a compilation of written assurance given by the awarding body that the certified product or services conform to the standards. The recognition of the ecolabel and its acceptance by the industry are actually the last two steps. Font (2001) a crucial mass of players and therefore become a quality symbol that influences purchasing behavior.

Figure 1. The players in the tourism ecolabels Source: Font (2001)

2.2.2. Criticism of tourism ecolabels

According to Bendell & Font (2004) certification may change in purpose from being a voluntary tool for awarding environmental performance to becoming requirements to trade. Ecolabels in the international trade sense are “effectively a certification of a particular level of environmental performance in the production of internationally tradable product” (Buckley 2002). However, ecolabels may be commonplace in tourism but also suffer from lack of methods “to ensure that these are not just a green wash” (Font 2001). As inferred in the previous chapter, tourism ecolabels may be perceived also as a controversial topic in tourism. For instance, tour operators use them in marketing, governmental agencies in persuading national interests, others use them for education or lobbying. Environmental groups in their turn may support some tourism ecolabels but disregard others (Buckley 2002).

Next to this, the existence of uncoordinated awards, labels and endorsements has caused confusion among consumers, and contributed to the ignorance of tourists (Font 2001) and it is perhaps unlikely that consumers shall remain their wide support to tourism ecolabels in the future. There is an overlap in sector and geographical scope between various ecolabels for tourism sub-sectors, hospitality services and ecotourism destinations (McRandle 2006). For instance, some recent reports (World Resource Institute 2010) put the number of over 340 international ecolabelling schemes with around 40 of them dealing with tourism related products and services.

Another criticism of tourism ecolabels is that they are more focused on environmental management rather than on environmental performance. Therefore the actual produced environmental and socio- economic effects of their implementation are still questionable. Tourism ecolabels are also claimed to be time consuming and in many cases too expensive to implement (Font 2001).

However, from these critics it is clear that there is a need of better understanding and better exploration of tourism ecolabels, putting more attention on their organisational dynamics and their role for the environmental and socio-economic improvements. The following theory frameworks of non-state market driven (NSMD) governance and effectiveness shall be adopted in order to present an important view on tourism ecolabels and perhaps fill some current knowledge gaps.

2.3. The non-state market driven governance

In the last decades national and intergovernmental regulations which address some of the most important environmental problems facing the planet have been supplemented with forms of non-state actor regulations. This has resulted in a proliferation of alternative non-governmental approaches (Auld, Balboa, Bernstein & Cashore 2009) going beyond well-established activities as lobbying and awareness-raising (Kalfagianni & Pattberg 2011), and eschewing the traditional state authority (Cashore 2002). These new instruments seek to create commitments that traditional public policy is unwilling or unable to regulate. According to Cashore (2002) the prerequisite for moving towards these new ways of governance were twofold, namely the increased use of delegated or shared power from the state to the business, environmental or other organisations, and secondly the increased use of market-orientated policy instruments that address global society’s matters of concern.

Arguably, one of the most unique non-governmental institutional innovations is the emergence of non- state market driven (NSMD) governance whose purpose is to “develop and implement environmentally and socially responsible management practices” (Cashore 2002), for example by establishing a certification system. These certifications set strict standards which are voluntary followed by the stakeholders along the supply chain. Aiming to fill the current policy void and embed social and environmental norms in the global marketplace, NSMD governance does not invoke the state for rule- making authority but instead derives authority from an evaluation of those stakeholders that NSMD systems seek to rule (Bernstein & Cashore 2007).

According to Cashore (2002) there are four main characteristics that describe non-state market driven (NSMD) systems that distinguish them from other forms of private authority: no use of state sovereignty to force compliance, authority is granted through external audiences’ evaluations, the location of authority is grounded in market transactions and the compliance is verified. Drawing on Cashore (2002), Bernstein & Cashore (2007) discern a fifth feature of an “ideal-type” non-state market driven governance arrangement considering also the role of social factor. All characteristics are summarized in Table 3 and explained in more details in the following paragraphs.

State does not use its sovereign authority to directly require adherence Role of the state to rules Products being regulated are demanded by purchasers further down the Role of the market supply chain Procedures for adaptation and learning over time across a wide range of Role of the stakeholders stakeholders Reconfiguration of markets by addressing environmental and social matters Role of the social factor of concern Role of enforcement Compliance must be verified

Table 3. Characteristics of NSMD Source: adapted from Cashore (2002) and Bernstein & Cashore (2007)

i. Role of the state

First and one of the most important, characteristics of non-state market driven governance recognized in Cashore’s (2002) framework is that the source of authority is not derived by state sovereignty only, as traditional government does (Table 4).

NSMD governance Traditional Governance Features Location of authority Market transactions Government

Evaluations by external Government’s monopoly on Source of authority audiences, including those it legitimate use of force, social seeks to regulate contract

Acts as one interest group, land- Role of government owner (indirect potential Has policy-making authority facilitator or deliberator)

Table 4. Comparison of NSMD with traditional governance Source: Cashore (2002)

However, the role of government should not be ignored. The state in its turn may be acting as an external stakeholder in ways consistent or inconsistent with NSMD governance. For instance, in the first case government could present a traditional interested group aimed at influencing the NSMD policy-making process. In many forest and beach certification cases, government can be a public land owner and thereby being persuaded to adopt certification. The state also may act inconsistently with NSMD dynamics. Such example, given by Cashore (2002), is when government uses its sovereignty in order to enforce NSMD system implementation. Thus NSMD governance no longer relies on private authority and market-driven support but on state’s requirements.

ii. Role of the market

A second key feature of non-state market driven systems is that the location of authority is “grounded in market transactions occurring through the production, processing, and consumption of economic goods and services” (Cashore 2002). This means that authority of NSMD governance relies generally on producers (or service providers in tourism) and consumers (along the supply chain) and their individual choice whether to support the certified products or services. These actors make choices of whether they are willing to perform under NSMD governance conditions based on cost and benefit evaluation of joining the system.

iii. Role of the stakeholders

A third characteristic of non-state market driven governance concerns the role of the stakeholders. According to Bernstein & Cashore (2007) the non-state market driven (NSMD) governance systems intentionally aims at creating an open governing arena where a wide range of stakeholders create their common goals and values. Moreover, the authors also claim that this feature makes NSMD approach more democratic and transparent than the public policy systems they seek to replace.

iv. Role of the social factor

A fourth feature in Bernstein & Cashore (2007) work is that non-state market driven systems seek to reconfigure markets by addressing global environmental and social matters of concern. The authors have pointed out that NSMD systems require profit-maximizing economic actors as firms to “undertake potentially costly reforms they otherwise would not pursue” (Auld, Bernstein & Cashore 2007).

v. Role of enforcement

A fifth key condition of the NSMD governance requires that compliance is verified. To ensure that the stated standards are met by the certified body the NSMD system has to involve verification procedures, for example by external auditing companies that conduct mandatory auditing process (Cashore 2002). This kind of third-party verification distinguishes non-state market driven governance from other types of corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices (Bernstein & Cashore 2007), where such kind of regulation is often limited or not required.

2.4. Legitimacy dynamics in non-state market driven governance

To understand better the NSMD system there is a need of looking into its organisational activities. As inferred above, non-state market driven governance does not derive authority directly from state sovereignty. Instead NSMD systems gain rule-making authority from those who are encouraged to accept it and are referred in Cashore’s (2002) work as external audiences.

2.4.1. Types of external audiences

Cashore (2002) determines four broad groups of external audiences and namely the state as actor, supply- side economic interests (those who implement the rules), demand-side economic interests (those who require compliance to the rules), and social interests (those who have environmental or social concerns). The emphasis here is on the division of the supply- and demand-side. Even though both of them are having economic interests in adopting NSMD systems they may have different reasons for this. For instance, demand-side audiences may benefit from purchasing certified product but they are not the ones who actually implement the requirements. Different categories of external audiences can be categorized in a two-tiered way (Cashore’s 2002). Tier I is called immediate audiences (Table 5) and presents “those organisations that have a direct interest in the policies and procedures of the organisations they legitimate”. Tier II represents audiences who have a “less direct but equally important role in granting legitimacy”. Tier II audiences are called civil society consisting of consumer behavior, values and attitudes. Tier I and Tier II audiences are linked and are difficult to distinguish. However, Cashore (2002) claims that when studying the long-term durability of organisational legitimacy Tier II audiences appear to be more important.

Tier I: Immediate Audiences Tier II: Civil Society

Economic Economic Environmental State as actor Consumer Values and groups Behaviour attitudes Demand-Side Supply-Side Table 5. Types of external audiences Source: Cashore (2002)

2.4.2. Types of legitimacy that external audiences may give to NSMD systems

According to Tilling (2004) legitimacy theory has become an important component in discussion within the social and environmental domain. Suchman (1995) defines legitimacy as “a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions”. Drawing on the work of Suchman (1995) who discusses how external audiences affect the approval of particular organisations, Cashore (2002) recognizes three types of legitimacy dynamics that external audiences may give to NSMD governance: pragmatic, moral and cognitive legitimacy (Table 6). Analysing the different types of legitimacy is

19 important for understanding the interplay between external audiences and non-state market driven governance systems and how organisations pursue and obtain legitimacy

Type Source Pragmatic Narrow self-interest Moral Guiding values about the “right thing” to do Cognitive From a cognitive evaluation that something is “understandable” or “to do otherwise is unthinkable” Table 6. Types of legitimacy Source: Cashore (2002)

i. Pragmatic legitimacy

First, pragmatic legitimacy rests on the “self-interest calculations of an organisation’s most immediate audience” which is referred to in the work of Cashore (2002) as Tier I audience (Table 5). Audiences in this type of legitimacy tend to “determine the practical consequences, for them, of any given line of activity” and therefore derive direct benefit. For instance, economic actors as firms opt whether to adhere to NSMD systems basically on material interests such as improving market access or reduce market decline. On the other hand according to Cashore (2002), many non-state market driven systems tend to focus on achievement strategies (Table 7) in order for “carefully thought-out plans” to force external audiences to grant policy-making authority using strategies for manipulating and informing.

Pragmatic legitimacy Achievement Strategies Conforming Manipulating Informing

Offering external audience’s Moulding constituents’ tastes Get work of program out to non- substantive needs through such thing as advertising core-audience members who (easiest type to manipulate) have a self-interest in supporting organisation

Table 7. Pragmatic legitimacy - examples of Achievement Strategies Source: Cashore (2002)

ii. Moral legitimacy

Second, moral legitimacy reflects a “positive, normative evaluation of the organisation and its activities and rests not on judgments about whether a given activity promotes the goals of the evaluator, but rather on judgments about whether the activity is the “right thing to do” (Suchman 1995). In this sense, moral legitimacy distinguishes itself from pragmatic legitimacy by addressing principled ideals. These values find their place in the core audience in Tier II (Table 5), but are also often articulated in Tier I through “different ideas about what is morally accepted or unaccepted” (Cashore 2002). Hence, achieving moral legitimacy through false statements is difficult and “more resistant to self-interest manipulation”, and therefore more durable than the pragmatic (Suchman 1995). However, moral legitimacy may be achieved

20 by addressing moral beliefs in core Tier I audience and more importantly by proliferation of these ideas in the broader civil society (Table 8).

Moral legitimacy Achievement Strategies Conforming Manipulating Informing

Addressing principled ideas Undertaking activity that then has Reach out the organisations who Adjusting organisational important spill-over effects to moral ought to be in Tier I core audience goals ideas (difficult to do) but do not know about it

Identifying constituents who value Explain to civil society that the sorts of exchanges that the program’s values match societal organisation is equipped to provide concerns

Table 8. Moral legitimacy - examples of Achievement Strategies Source: Cashore (2002)

iii. Cognitive legitimacy

Third, cognitive legitimacy may be described as either given because the actions of an organisation are understandable or is given because “for things to be otherwise is literally unthinkable” (Suchman 1995, Cashore 2002). These motivations are referred to by Suchman (1995) as comprehensibility and taken-for- grandness legitimacy. However, non-state market driven governance systems seek to obtain cognitive legitimacy through successful manipulations (Table 9) by “promulgate new explanations of social reality” and put emphasis on the need of collective actions (Suchman 1995). In this case of legitimacy as well as in moral legitimacy explained above, the expression is going beyond the Tier I audience (Table 5) and is more concentrated on broader civil society mobilization.

Cognitive legitimacy Achievement Strategies Conforming Manipulating Informing

Codifying informal Promotion of comprehensibility Relate governance system to procedures, linking (popularization) or taken-for-granted-ness external programs that activities to external (standardization) themselves possess cognitive definitions of authority legitimacy and competence Organisation could also choose to “remake others in their own image” (most difficult to do)

Table 9. Cognitive legitimacy - examples of Achievement Strategies Source: Cashore (2002)

2.4.3. Recognition and durability

According to Cashore (2002) in addition to the type of legitimacy, two other factors are considered to be interesting and important when studying non-state market driven governance systems. The first one is recognition that the organisation “seeking legitimacy is often not passive, but actively seeks legitimation”. As explained by Suchman (1995) legitimation could be achieved through strategies that conform to the external audiences, manipulate the external audiences or inform unaware audience of the organisation’s activities (Table 7, Table 8, Table 9).

The second important factor is the different levels of durability. Suchman (1995) implies that cognitive legitimacy is the most durable followed by moral and pragmatic legitimacy, whereby the last form of legitimacy puts emphasis on short-term material incentives. Cognitive legitimacy appears to be the most durable and hard to achieve in comparison with the other two types. While pragmatic legitimacy is the easiest to achieve but at the same time the easiest to lose. Drawing on these assumptions Cashore (2002) argues that the relation between durability and the type of legitimacy appears to be more complex than claimed by Suchman. But however, Cashore (2002) also explain that there is still a need of more researches in this field to clarify these theory assumptions.

2.5. The effectiveness of non-state market driven governance

Next to the legitimacy, another important component in discussion within the social and environmental domain is the effectiveness (Sasidharan, Sirakaya & Kerstetter 2002). Moreover, governance systems are increasingly evaluated for both their legitimacy and effectiveness (UTU 2013). But surprisingly little is known about the actual effectiveness of NSMD governance systems and the produced effects of their implementation.

Kalfagianni & Pattberg (2011) present a framework where the issue of effectiveness is explored. According to them on the organisational level there are three core mechanisms for producing certain types of effects, namely “the extent to which they reflect and create interests, power and legitimacy”. The authors also explain that power to govern depends on the organisational ability to “constrain actor’s choices and their behavior”, whereas the authority to govern reflects “their perceived legitimacy”. The emphasis here is that in the case of transnational rule-setting organisations, power and authority are complementary and therefore reinforce one another.

However, there is a need to investigate the actual impact of these transnational rule-setting organisations as NSMD governance systems. Drawing on Kalfagianni & Pattberg’s (2011) analytical framework, two variables are identified and considered to be important when assessing the effects. The first one is the independent variable which is referred to in the framework as determinants of the effectiveness. These determinants are “key elements through which transnational organisations realize their effects” and are namely organisational structure, policy design, information strategy and transparency, and external institutional context.

Further, the second type of variable in Kalfagianni & Pattberg’s (2011) framework is dependent and concerns the impacts of transnational rule-setting organisations. However, to estimate the actual effectiveness of these systems there is a need of setting indicators to measure the overall environmental and socio-economic impact. These indicators are referred to in the framework of Kalfagianni & Pattberg (2011) as a two-dimensional concept which differentiates first- and second-order effects. The outcome of these effects is environmental and socio-economic changes that may be positive or negative as well as no effect at all. Here should be outline also that all these effects may take place simultaneously or even renounce one another.

2.5.1. First-order effects

The first-order effects (Table 10) are indented by the transnational rule-setting organisation and confined to their immediate audience. These effects present standards, rules and guidelines set by the organisations as non-state market driven governance systems in order to contribute to the problem- solving and improvements of environmental and socio-economic conditions. To what extent these standards and criteria are met is important for the overall effectiveness and are expressed in practice through compliance. The last is not “dichotomous variable” but rather a scale that extents from non- compliance to exceeding compliance. This allow for flexibility of the measurement and “captures a greater range of actor’s behavior than a single distinction between compliant and non-compliant” (Kalfagianni & Pattberg 2011).

When measuring compliance there is a need of investigating the actors who are involved in the process of standard implementation. This is referred in Kalfagianni & Pattberg’s (2011) framework as uptake. Accordingly, the actors who are already acting in ways consistent with the rules and are having environmentally or socially responsible behavior, the participation is such organisation as NSMD systems serves as marketing tool. On the other hand and considering also the fact that these organisations require voluntary participation, those actors who are “the biggest polluters”, however, would probably resign to become a member.

First order effects Compliance Non-compliance Compliance with some requirements some of the time (low) Compliance with some requirements (medium) Compliance with all requirements (high) Exceeding compliance

Uptake Number of actors currently adopting the scheme Types of actors (business, civil society, public)

Table 10. First-order effects and their indicators Source: Kalfagianni & Pattberg (2011)

2.5.2. Second-order effects

The second-order effects (Table 11) extent beyond the organisation’s immediate audience and evaluate the broader political and socio-economic effects. These effects are classified by Kalfagianni & Pattberg (2011) as material and structural effects, cognitive effects, and regulatory effects.

The first types of effects, material and structural, are related to market shifts and power relations that spread above compliance and standard implementation. These effects “derive from the establishment of markets and property rights to methods of production, management process and types of behavior that create spatial boundaries between markets and supply chains” (Kalfagianni & Pattberg 2011). For instance, such boundaries are delimited when protecting marginal producer groups from competition by establishing niche markets. Next to this, boundaries are created among consumers as well, since only some groups of them choose to buy more expensive certified products.

Second cognitive effects, result from organisational achievements as invention, diffusion and promotion of particular discursive frame. Such examples are creation of forums of knowledge or commonly recognizable labelling scheme. Next to this, certification organisations which have cognitive effects may serve as benchmarks for the development of standards and procedures in other organisations (Kalfagianni & Pattberg 2011). Even the emergence of rival organisation to the existing once could be also considered as cognitive effect.

Third, regulatory effects, concern the interplay between transnational standards and national governmental regulations. For instance as Kalfagianni & Pattberg (2011) suggest, a lot of private rules are made based on intergovernmental agreements and decisions, but the opposite phenomenon may also exist – transnational governance institutions increasingly influence governmental regulations.

Second order effects Structural effects Access rights limitations to particular markets Division of markets Price shifts of particular commodities Changes in competitions patterns and intensity Redistribution effects Cognitive effects Recognisability of the organisation Serving as a forum for intra- or inter-organisational learning Serving as a forum discussion and deliberation among a wide range of stakeholders Becoming a benchmark for other standards Rise of competitive standards Harmonisation of standards and development of common codes

Regulatory effects Growing link to intergovernmental processes Rendering public regulation “unnecessary” Prompting governmental interventions in specific policy domains Table 11. Second-order effects and their indicators Source: Kalfagianni & Pattberg (2011)

2.6. Conclusions

In summary, tourism ecolabels has been utilized as a tool for protecting the environment while ensuring sustainable development of the tourism industry. As inferred above, the current literature discusses the broad principles and concepts as well as the marketing and management of tourism ecolabels. But however, it is unable to explain the inside organisational activities (legitimacy) of tourism ecolabels or estimate the contribution of tourism ecolabels to the tourism product improvement. Therefore this research suggests that there is a need of adopting relevant environmental governance frameworks and applying them to the case of tourism in order to study better the role of tourism ecolabels and their effectiveness.

This research has presented three important theory concepts namely the main actors in tourism ecolabelling, NSMD governance and effectiveness (Figure 2). Moreover, this research implies that these theories may be used as a holistic framework supplementing each other and even building upon in order to create a better understanding of the tourism ecolabels.

Figure 2. The combined approach Source: Cashore (2002), Font (2001), Kalfagianni & Pattberg (2011)

Several considerations are the basis of this assumption. Identifying the actors in tourism ecolabelling provides important knowledge of who are the actual involved sites. As presented above, Font (2001) determines five main players in tourism ecolabelling namely applicant, awarding body, funding body, verifying body and the tourism market itself which establish their relationships in five steps of setting standards, assessment, accreditation, recognition and acceptance. But yet this framework is still a broad theory and it is not convenient enough for studying the organisational activities within tourism ecolabelling systems. To better study the organisational dynamics the theory of NSMD governance is applied because of two reasons. First, tourism ecolabels fully comply with the NSMD governance characterisation and actually present an example of such system. Second, NSMD framework encompasses the actors in tourism ecolabelling (referred to by Cashore (2002) as external audiences) and moreover gives an explanation of how the actors’ evaluations may grant legitimacy. Therefore, applying these theories together shall give an explanation of how a particular tourism ecolabel as Blue Flag may gain legitimacy to govern and thus explore the first research question of this study (Figure 2).

As previously mentioned, next to the legitimacy another important component in the discussion within social and environmental domain is the effectiveness. Most importantly, governance systems as NSMD are increasingly evaluated both for their ability to obtain legitimacy and their effectiveness. To estimate the produced effects of the implementation of tourism ecolabels the framework of Kalfagianni & Pattberg (2011) is adopted. The framework determines a two-dimensional concept which distinguishes first- and second-order effects. The first-order effects concern the direct contribution of tourism ecolabels to the tourism product improvement, whereas the second-order effects assess the overall environmental and socio-economic impacts. . The theory of effectiveness applied in this research for the case of Blue Flag, together with the concept of NSMD governance, shall give an answer to the second research question of this study (Figure 2).

Chapter 3 Blue Flag as a form of NSMD

3.1. Introduction

Blue Flag is a voluntary ecolabel that promotes sustainable development of beaches and marinas by implementing international set of strict criteria. The last is used to reflect specific environmental conditions of certain region. Throughout the years, the Blue Flag organisation has become a highly respected and recognized ecolabel among tourists, entrepreneurs and authorities and has brought local, regional and national levels together (Figure 3). Currently certified by Blue Flag are 3850 beaches and marinas located in 48 different countries across Europe, South Africa, Morocco, Tunisia, New Zealand, Brazil, Canada and the Caribbean. As part of the Foundation for Environmental Education (FEE) organisation, Blue Flag Programme works towards setting a standard regarding water quality, environmental education and information, environmental management, safety and other services (Blue Flag Organisation 2013 a).

Foundation for Environmental Education (FEE)

Blue Flag Eco-Schools Green Key Learn About Forest Young Reporters for the

Environment

International Blue Flag International Blue Flag Director Jury

 FEE board of directors  Blue Flag international director  European Environmental Agency  The coastal and marine union – EUCC  Environmental Education expert  International Council of Marine Industry Associations  International Life Saving Federation

National Blue Flag National Blue Flag Director Jury

Applicants: Beach Operators Marina Owners

Figure 3. The structure of Blue Flag Source: Blue Flag Organisation 2013 a, FEE Organisation 2013

The aim of this chapter is to gain a thorough understanding on the organization of Blue Flag as well as presenting its history and certification scheme principles. Next to this, the last paragraph explains how Blue Flag Programme features link to NSMD systems characteristics and moreover it justifies the presumption that Blue Flag ecolabel is a form of non-state market driven governance.

3.1.1. Background

As inferred above, the Blue Flag Programme is managed by the Foundation for Environmental Education (FEE), a non-profit and non-governmental organisation, which promotes sustainable development by providing information and assuring a democratic and participatory decision-making process. Next to the Blue Flag certification other environmental education programs are run by the Foundation for Environmental Education (Figure 3), such as Eco-Schools, Young Reporters for the Environment, Learning about Forests and Green Key (FEE Organisation 2013). Originally this foundation was established in 1981 under the name of the Foundation for Environmental Education in Europe (FEEE) but after the increase in interest and participation from outside Europe, the name was changed into Foundation for Environmental Education (FEE).

The early Blue Flag award scheme was an idea of a number of French municipalities, launched in 1985, when the first few coastal areas in France have developed the award for meeting criteria of sewage treatment and bathing water quality (FEE Organisation 2013). After the Blue Flag concept was presented to the European Commission and FEEE organisation in 1987, which was the "European Year of the Environment", the Programme acquired the needed legitimacy and was launched as “one of the year’s community activities” (Blue Flag Organisation 2013 a). Consequently some additional criteria were put in place such as environmental management, safety and planning, which are described at length in the following paragraph. Likewise, the marinas were made eligible for the Blue Flag accreditation.

In 1987 the Blue Flag certification spread outside France and led to the rewarding of beaches in ten more European countries. In 2001 the Programme became global when South Africa joined. Since then the number of participating countries outside Europe has kept increasing. Since 2006, Blue Flag mainly strives for quality and achieving high environmental standards which have led to setting internationally used strict criteria (Blue Flag Organisation 2013 b). Currently FEE International council and International Blue Flag organisation headquarters are both located in Denmark.

3.1.2. Beach criteria

Currently four different sections present a list of 33 criteria used for assessing various beaches when applying for the Blue Flag certification namely environmental education and information, water quality, environmental management and safety and services (see Appendix 3). These sections are described as needed for developing a common and shared understanding to ensure a high standard and quality of the beach. A national Programme may opt to have striker criteria than the Blue Flag standards require.

However, according to the Blue Flag beach explanatory notes (Blue Flag Organisation 2013 b) where the measurement and management procedures are outlined, the categorization of the above mentioned criteria are either imperative or guidelines. The imperative criteria are obligatory and must be obtained when applying for a Blue Flag certification; the guidelines are required, but not mandatory. Overall, only three of the required 33 points are guideline criteria, for instance establishing a beach management committee, promotion of sustainable transport, and drinking water supply. Most of the imperative criteria are focused on beach management and safety such as providing facilities and equipment, disposal maintaining, cleanliness and lifeguard presence. As a symbol of compliance to the criteria the Programmes’ emblem, namely the flag, must be waved at the beach during the whole season.

3.1.3. Compliance

As inferred above, the flag must fly at the beach during the season as an indicator of compliance to the standards. In other words, if a Blue Flag awarded beach does not meet all the criteria the flag should be temporary or permanently withdrawn by the National Operator. The duration of withdrawal depends on the extent to which the compliance is compromised. For instance, minor non-compliance concerns a problem with only one criterion of minor consequences to the health of the beach users and safety of the environment. Further multiple non-compliances register failure to comply with two to three criteria with minor consequences. If minor issues occur and cannot be instantly adjusted, the flag should be withdrawn for ten days in which the local authority (or beach operator) is obligated to deal with the problems. The temporary withdrawal of the flag is also indicated on the Blue Flag homepage. If the local authority (or beach operator) does not ensure re-compliance to all the criteria within ten days, the National Operator should withdraw the flag for the rest of the season.

There is also a case of major non-compliance. This is indicated when the beach does not comply with one or several criteria and the result of this non-compliance can have major consequences to the beach user’s health or to the safety of the environment. The flag in this case is immediately withdrawn for the rest of the season. This beach has to be marked as withdrawn on the Blue Flag homepage and information about this withdrawal should be also provided at the information board on the beach (Blue Flag Organisation 2013 b).

3.1.4. Application procedure

When a particular country wants to start up the Blue Flag Programme there are some requirements and steps that have to be taken accordingly. First, there is a need to identify a suitable organisation to become the national Blue Flag operator. This means that the organisation should be non-profit, non-governmental, and independent, having environmental education and protection as its main objective. In case when such an organisation is not present, a new one is established. Second, this organisation should become a member of the Foundation for Environmental Education. This organisation should be able to pay FEE’s membership fees, be able to run the Blue Flag Programme and be open to other activities run by FEE. Only afterwards, this organisation could be considered as FEE member and therefore National Blue Flag

Operator. Further, in order to implement the Blue Flag Programme, the National Operator has to organize Blue Flag workshops, establish a national committee, produce national reports and finally test the compliance at pilot sites and raise pilot flags (Blue Flag Organisation 2013 d).

In countries with already a working Blue Flag Programme, the application procedure is strict and clearly refers to the compliance of the above mention criteria. The candidates for obtaining a Blue Flag re- accreditation, for instance local municipality, private hotel, private beach operator, national park or marina owners, must first fulfill the required application form. The applicants should provide to the National Jury the needed documentation, including the approved bathing water data from previous years. The National Jury performs selection on the national level. The documents of the selected applicants are sent to the International Jury (Figure 3). The final decision of which beaches and marinas would be awarded depends on the International Jury and the permission for obtaining the certification is given for the particular season. The procedure must be renewed with every upcoming season by the same way of applying (Blue Flag Organisation 2013 b).

3.1.5. Regulation and monitoring

Blue Flag requires strict verification procedures. Ensuring compliance to the Blue Flag criteria relies generally on the local authority. The monitoring procedure during the season is done by the national Environmental Protection Agency observing the bathing water quality data. The results from the water quality measurements are displayed on an informational board located in a convenient place at the beach. Further control is carried out by the International Blue Flag Coordination and National Organisation both performing in situ inspections. As inferred in the paragraph above, if any non-compliance and acts in discord to the criteria is observed the Blue Flag shall be immediately withdrawn (Blue Flag Organisation 2013 b).

3.2. Blue Flag as a form of NSMD governance

Blue Flag certification is considered to be a form of non-state market driven governance because it meets the definition of NSMD system and complies with all of its characteristics (Table 12). For instance, Blue Flag is a non-governmental organization; government does not require adherence to the Blue Flag certification scheme rules. Instead, the rule-making authority is derived by the evaluation of those stakeholders that Blue Flag seeks to regulate, such as beach operators, private hotels, marina owners, national parks, or other actors with economic or environmental interests.

Next to this, Blue Flag organisation ensures open and transparent approach by creating Blue Flag network where publications regarding the organisation and its activities are provided in an easy and comprehensive way. Moreover, ideas sharing and discussions across a wide range of stakeholders are encouraged. For instance, information about how to organise environmental education activities, different ways of learning in, for, or about the environment as well as reports about the activities done are available through Blue Flag network.

Blue Flag features: Blue Flag is a voluntary ecolabel and a non-profit, non- governmental Role of the state organisation; no state involvement in authority granting Blue Flag authority relies on service providers and consumers and their Role of the market and individual choice whether to support the certification; promote stakeholders environmental educational activities and learning over time across wide range of stakeholders Blue Flag address global problems such as mass tourism; Blue Flag also Role of the social factor strives to contribute to sustainable tourism First-party verification done by the National Operator; Second-party Role of enforcement verification done by International Operator; Third-party verification done by independent audits Table 12. Blue Flag certification as a non-state market driven governance system

Blue Flag in itself is an environmental organisation aimed at raising environmental awareness and increase good environmental practices among tourist and entrepreneurs, and thus contributes to sustainable tourism. In order to achieve this goal, Blue Flag requires from the applicants such as local authorities, beach operators and marina owners, to undertake costly reforms ensuring that all the criteria conditions are met. This requirement of the Blue Flag Programme is referred to in NSMD governance characterisation as the role of the social factor (Chapter 2).

Another key feature of NSMD systems expressed in Blue Flag Programme is verification. As inferred above, Blue Flag requires strict verification procedures regarding criteria compliance and involves self-regulation done by National Operators, international regulation done by International Blue Flag representatives, and also independent third-party audits.

3.3. Conclusions

As inferred above, Blue Flag is considered as important ecolabel which is widely recognized among tourist and tour operators. Blue Flag is internationally proliferated certification organisation with significant role in awarding well-managed beaches and marinas. As part of Foundation for Environmental Education (FEE) organisation, Blue Flag addresses global concerns such as mass tourism. Moreover, Blue Flag works towards sustainable development of beaches and marinas through implementing strict criteria, ensuring transparent and democratic way of implementation. In conclusion, all this characteristics of Blue Flag makes it an excellent example of non-state market driven governance system.

Chapter 4 The Legitimacy of Blue Flag: The case of Bulgaria

4.1. Introduction

As inferred in the previous chapter, Blue Flag is an international proliferated ecolabel that promotes sustainable development of beaches and marinas. Blue Flag is an umbrella organisation with one national operator per country responsible for implementing Blue Flag Programme nationally. Blue Flag is represented on national level in Bulgaria by the Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement which is a non- governmental, non-profit organisation operating on Bulgarian Black Sea coast.

More background information regarding Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement and its current and past activities are described in the following paragraphs. Moreover, the aim of this chapter is to present the main stakeholders involved in the process of certification implementation in Bulgaria and to evaluate how these actors granted legitimacy to Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement. Thus the second part of this chapter touches on these issues. The chapter finalizes with some conclusions based on how the results from this research link to the theory framework outlined in Chapter 2.

4.1.1. Background

The Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement has a dynamic and prolonged history (Interview 01). Some of the main points of its development and activities in the Bulgarian Black Sea coast are summarized in the following paragraphs.

i. History of the Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement

Bulgarian Blue Flag was created as an organisation in order to meet the demands of large tour operators. For instance, in the early 1990’s German tour operator have placed an inquiry whether Bulgaria has a Blue Flag beach certification. In response to this, a group of people led by Simeon Mitzov who worked then at coastal municipal administration, decided to start a research about how Bulgarian beaches can obtain a Blue Flag award (Interview 01). After several requests to become a member of Blue Flag organisation, Bulgaria received only refusals from International FEE representatives with the explanation that this beach certification concerns only European Union countries. After multiple negotiations, lasting a year, Bulgaria finally was allowed to join the FFE organisation and thus run the Blue Flag Programme in the Bulgarian Black Sea coast. Accordingly, Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement was founded in Sunny Beach, Bourgas province (Figure 4) and became a full member of FEE foundation on 25 July 1993 (Bourgas online library 2013). The first Bulgarian Blue Flag coordinator became Iliq Shterev,

32 biologist by profession. Bulgaria was the first country in post-social Eastern Europe to start up the Blue Flag Programme and thus opened its coastal tourism market to the western consumers (Interview 01).

Figure 4. Bulgarian Black Sea coast Source: Transport.net (2013)

ii. Certified beaches throughout the years in Bulgarian Black Sea coast

Two years after the Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement was founded the first beach in Bulgaria was certified. In 1995, Sunny Beach became the first Bulgarian to be awarded site by Blue Flag, when the pilot flag was raised. Sunny Beach was an example of a high quality coastal destination which complied to all of the Blue Flag criteria. The awarding was attended by over a thousand people including ministries, environmental experts, professors, NGO representatives and was reported by the media (Interview 01).

Sunny Beach has been certified by Blue Flag each year ever since. In 2002 a maximum of 16 awarded beaches was reached along the Bulgarian Black Sea coast (Flagman 2012). In 2012, 11 beaches and the marina were certified by Blue Flag. All of the accredited sites in the 2012 season are located in two provinces namely Varna with 3 beaches and Bourgas with 7 beaches and 1 marina (Momchilov 2012).

However, an important point that needs to be outlined here is that the above mentioned certified sites in Bulgarian Black Sea coast are privately owned properties. This has resulted from the fact that years ago the Bulgarian government has decided to give under concession its finest beaches to private firms. The concession period in most cases has been lasting for more than 20 years (Interview 2). Some of the beach operators have chosen to opt out of Blue Flag certification and this is reflected in variations in the number of certified sites throughout the years.

iii. Application procedures in Bulgaria

Application procedures in Bulgaria strictly referred to the international requirements (Interview 01) outlined in the Chapter 3. The beach operator or local authorities present all the needed documentations at the beginning of the year to the Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement representatives. The documentation includes application forms, declarations, pictures, and water samples from the Bulgarian Inspectorate for Protection and Control of Public Health. In February the National Jury meets and selects the eligible applicants. The National Jury is settled in Bourgas and is consisting of educational experts, ecologists, regional water supply companies, Ministry of Environment and Water representatives, Regional Inspection of Environment and Water representatives, yacht experts, Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement representatives, and Union of the Hoteliers in Sunny Beach representatives. Further, the documentations of approved beaches and marinas are sent to the International Jury in Denmark. In Denmark the International Jury consisting of FEE representatives, Blue Flag International Director, European Environmental Agency representatives, The Coastal and Marine Union representatives, environmental education expert, International Council of Marine Industry Associations representatives and International Life Saving Federation representatives (Figure 3) perform the final selection of the applicants. The results of which beaches and marinas are awarded are sent back to the Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement before the official beginning of the coastal tourism season (before June) (Interview 01, 05). The procedure of application is renewed with every upcoming season.

iv. Auditing in Bulgaria

Auditing is an important point to ensure compliance to the criteria during the season. Verification procedures in Bulgarian Black Sea coast are done by self-inspection and international inspection. Self- inspections are performed by Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement representative once per season for every site. Further control is carried out by International Blue Flag representatives randomly and again once per season. However, there have been no cases of non-compliance recorded by international inspections. Overall, only two times the flag has been withdrawn from Bulgarian beaches because the standards regarding water quality was not met (Interview 01).

4.1.2. Current situation

As already mentioned earlier in this chapter, the Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement is a non-governmental non-profit organisation currently settled in Sunny Beach, Bourgas province. Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement has already 20 years of experience in Bulgarian Black Sea coast management. The organisation currently is a full member of the FEE foundation and is carrying out the following campaigns for Bulgaria: Blue Flag, Eco-Schools and Learning about Forests (Bourgas online library 2013). The Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement is currently governed by a board of directors consisting of five members (Interview 01). An interesting point is that currently Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement is a volunteer organisation therefore all the members do not receive any payment for their work. The International FEE membership fee is subsidized generally by beach operators and marina owners in Bulgaria who apply for the accreditation (Interview 01). Further important information is that in the last few years the developing of the Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement website has started as a project but it is still under construction so currently there are no public available reports or any published news.

Most importantly, the Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement is described by the International FEE organisation as “working well with the Blue Flag Programme in Bulgaria” (Interview 16). In general, the International FEE organisation is “happy with the work of Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement in a relation to the administration of the Blue Flag Programme in Bulgaria”. Moreover, the evaluation process ahead of the season and the control visits during the season as well as “the very rare receipt of complains from beach users at Bulgarian Blue Flag beaches is an indicator [for us] of a general satisfaction with the work in Bulgaria” (Interview 16, 17). According to the official website of the Blue Flag organisation (Blue Flag Organisation 2013 c) the number of awarded beaches for season 2013 is 11 as well as one marina. The full list of them and their location are provided in Appendix 4 and are visualized on Figure 5 below. As a symbol of compliance to the criteria the Blue Flag emblem is placed at the beach (Picture 1 on the next page).

Figure 5. Blue Flag awarded beaches in Bulgaria for season 2013 Source: Blue Flag Organisation 2013 c

Picture 1. Blue Flag symbol waving in Bulgaria

4.2. Legitimacy granting

After reviewing the Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement history and current situation, there is a need to look at its organisational activity in order to fulfill the aim of this research namely to give a better understanding of non-state market driven (NSMD) governance. First important point when studying legitimacy dynamics in NSMD systems (as described in Chapter 2) is to define the main actors involved and, moreover, to identify those stakeholders who have direct interests in the process of certification implementation. Second is to explore the process through which external audiences grant approval to certification organizations, such as Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement. These issues as well as some more critical points are explained at length in the following paragraphs.

4.2.1. Types of actors

i. Main actors and their relationships

Adopting Font’s (2001) framework which discusses the main players in tourism ecolabelling (outlined in Chapter 2), four important actors are identified and are applied to the case of Blue Flag certification in Bulgaria, namely the coastal tourism market in the Bulgarian Black Sea, the Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement, Blue Flag international as well as applicants as beach operators or marina owners (Figure 6 illustrated on the next page).

An important actor is the coastal tourism market in Bulgarian Black Sea itself. In order to fulfill the requirements from big foreign tour operators, the coastal tourism market in Bulgaria needed to create new market niches addressing more sustainable tourism practices and services (Interview 01, 05). Therefore Blue Flag as a form of sustainable tourism ecolabel promotes its beach and marina award to the tourism market in Bulgaria aiming at filling the market gaps. Since Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement is a representative of an international certification organisation, it reports on its results to the International Blue Flag organisation. Moreover, Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement promotes the award to the applicants as beach operators or marina owners who actually implement the certification and provide the greener tourism product to the Bulgarian coastal tourism market.

All these actors are grouped using Cashore’s (2002) framework (Chapter 2) in three sections according to their interest (Figure 6). This is done in order to identify the external audiences of Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement and therefore explore the legitimacy dynamics of its organisational activity.

Tourism market:

Coastal tourism in Economic Demand-Side Bulgaria

Applicant: beach c operators and marina Economic Supply-Side owners

First-party verification

Awarding Body: Bulgarian Blue Flag movement Environmental Demand-Side Second-party verification

Funding Body: International Blue Flag Organisation

Figure 6. Blue Flag in Bulgaria - main actors

ii. Identifying immediate audiences

Adopting Cashore’s (2002) framework two broad groups of Tier I immediate audiences are identified and present first the economic demand-side (as tourism market) and second the economic supply-side (as the applicants and affected by the applicants local entrepreneurs). These groups of Bulgarian Blue

Flag Movement’s most immediate audiences as well as the particular stakeholders are identified and are shown in table 13.

Tier I: Immediate audience Economic Environmental Demand-Side Demand-side Supply-side

Tourism market: Applicants: Certification organisation: Labour union Beach operators Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement Tour operators Marina owners Others: Hotels Restaurants/Bars Ski jet/water attractions Spa/Relax zone Table 13. Most immediate audience of Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement

Some important points have to be outlined here. As already mentioned earlier, according to a respondent the local municipalities have given away their beaches under concession to private firms and thus local municipalities do not have any authority to oblige the concessionaires to adopt Blue Flag certification or any interests in the Bulgarian Blue Flag Programme (Interview 02). The state’s representatives of the Regional Environmental and Health Institutes are only having a role as an independent National Jury. Therefore the state as an actor is not identified as part of the Tier I immediate audiences. Thus there is no state involvement in the case of Bulgarian Blue Flag Programme as a beach owner.

Next to this, the research has shown that even the few environmental organisations that work towards environmental problems as mass tourism in Bulgarian are unreachable or have no interests in becoming a part in the Bulgarian Blue Flag Programme (Interview 01, 18). Therefore the environmental groups section as part of the Tier I immediate audience is not included. However, because of the fact that Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement itself has the aim of influencing environmental performance in the Bulgarian Black Sea coast, it can be considered as environmental demand-side but not as a part of immediate audience. Thus it may be claimed that the involvement of the NGOs in the process of Blue Flag certification implementation in Bulgaria is limited. These findings have indicated that the Tier I actors in the case of Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement is narrowed to the presence of mainly economic groups such as economic demand-side and economic-supply side.

Last, the results from the research have shown no actions from the individuals as consumers towards the Bulgarian Blue Flag Programme (Interview 06, 08, 09, 10). Moreover, no correlation between changes in societal values concerning mass tourism in Bulgarian Black Sea coast and changes in environmental group membership are noted (Interview 06, 07). Therefore it may be concluded that there is limited Tier II audience as broader civil society reached by the Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement.

4.2.2. Type of legitimacy

As already explained in Chapter 2, legitimacy is given by the external audiences and their individual evaluations regarding the certification organisation. According to Suchman (1995) there are three types of legitimacy that external audience may grant to an organisation (Table 5). The example of Bulgarian Blue Flag shows that external audiences that are identified in the previous section granted mainly pragmatic legitimacy to the Movement. This conclusion is based on the following observations.

i. Timited Tier II involvement:

Pragmatic legitimacy that is granted to the Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement finds its roots in the evaluations developed within its Tier I immediate audience. This is important to be outlined first since pragmatic legitimacy as explained in Cashore’s (2002) framework (Chapter 2) rests on the organisational most immediate audiences evaluations (Tier I), unlike the other two types of legitimacy which refer to Tier II audience, such as civil society.

ii. Mostly economic self-interests

Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement reflects the mostly the narrow self-interest calculations of its most immediate audience. As explained above, Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement started its organisational activities in order to meet foreign tour operator’s requirements, to improve the coastal tourism market access by increasing foreign visitors to Bulgarian Black Sea coast (Interview 01, 05). Further, private firms, such as beach operators and marina owners, chose to comply based on “what is in it for them” and what are the actual economic benefits of implementing the Blue Flag certification (Interview 04, 11, 12, 13). Overall, as table 13 has shown, the immediate audience is consisting of economic actors who are claimed to have material self-interests in adopting the Blue Flag Programme in Bulgaria.

iii. The dependence of the Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement

Another important point is dependence of the Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement on private actors. The economic supply-side actors as applicants are likely to become constituencies, scrutinizing the Bulgarian Blue Flag Movements’ organisational behavior. As already mentioned in this chapter, Bulgarian Blue Flag Movements’ membership fees and any other costs are fully covered by the applicants (Interview 01). Therefore Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement relies on private firms’ decision whether to fund Bulgarian Blue Flag activities and run Blue Flag Programme in Bulgarian Black Sea coast.

4.2.3. Durability and recognition

In addition to the type of legitimacy, two other factors are considered to be interesting and important when studying non-state market driven governance systems such as Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement and its organisational activity. These two points as explained in Chapter 2 are namely the recognition of the ecolabel and also the different levels of durability.

As explained in Chapter 2, the organisations which actively seek pragmatic legitimation often do it through achievement strategies (Table 7) that conform, manipulate or inform external audiences (Cashore 2002). In the case of Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement the achievement strategy observed is conforming. This is done by offering to the organisation’s most immediate audience a substantive need, such as economic benefits. Manipulating as molding constituents’ taste through advertising is never performed since Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement is lacking of funds for such activities (Interview 01). Informing non-core audience members who have self-interests in supporting Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement is also never done because of the same reasons (Interview 01).

However, another important point also mentioned in the Chapter 2 is durability which in pragmatic legitimacy is the easiest to achieve and in the same time the easiest to lose compere to the other two types of legitimacy (Cashore 2002). Even though the fact that Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement already operate successfully around 20 years continuously on the Bulgarian Black Sea coast, it still possesses pragmatic legitimacy which is contradicting to the theory suggestions. Perhaps the pronounced self- interest of the immediate audience and mainly the involvement of economic actors are the reasons for this outcome as well as the lack of financial support. More assumptions regarding this finding shall be done in the Discussion chapter.

4.3. Conclusions

In summary, Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement has an interesting and dynamic history. It started as an organisation to meet the standards of a large international tour operator and after 20 years of Blue Flag Programme implementation, Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement has not changed in purpose. Even though Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement activity started with wide stakeholders’ involvement, more recently it narrowed to mainly economic interests. This is indicated by the facts that the organisation’s most immediate audience is currently consisting of economic actors from the demand- and supply-side, who are claimed to have a self-interests in adopting the certification. Thus it may be concluded that the external audience in this case granted mostly pragmatic legitimacy to the Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement.

Chapter 5 The Effectiveness of Blue Flag: The case of Sunny Beach

5.1. Introduction

Coastal tourism has been important for the Bulgarian economy since the 1960s when under Communist rule luxury resorts such as Golden Sands, Albena and Sunny Beach were developed (Figure 4). Moreover, in the past decades the academic interest in tourism development in Central and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union has become more prevalent and is widely considered important for understanding the nature of post-socialist state development. Much of these existing analyses, however, have tended to focus on the larger scale emerging trends, for instance the supply and demand for tourism in these locations (Ghodsee 2005). Research on local destination development is warranted as many of these post-soviet settlements are rapidly growing. For instance, Sunny Beach became one of the biggest summer resorts on the Balkans and is proclaimed by the Bulgarian Council of Ministers as a settlement with national priority because of its intensive development (Georgieva 2011). Next to this, and as mentioned in Chapter 4, Sunny Beach was the first beach to receive the Blue Flag, and moreover, it has been obtaining this award every season since then.

However, the goal of this chapter is to present Sunny Beach as interesting and important coastal destination in Bulgaria that is certified by the Blue Flag, and most importantly, to assess the actual local socio-economic and environmental effects produced by the implementation of this ecolabel. The outcomes of this study shall contribute to the creation of a better overview of the post-socialist resort’s local development as well as better understanding of the local impacts of NSMD governance system as Blue Flag certification. Therefore, the chapter continues by presenting shortly some background information regarding Sunny Beach and its geographic characteristics. Next to this, some important points of Sunny Beach’s development throughout the years and its current situation are briefly presented. Secondly, the impacts of Blue Flag certification for the local socio-economic and environmental improvement in Sunny Beach are described and assessed, using Kalfagianni & Pattberg’s (2011) framework outlined in Chapter 2. The chapter finalises with some major conclusions based on the findings.

5.1.1. Background

The Bulgarian Black Sea coast extends from Cape Sivriburun at the border with Romania and ends at the mouth of the river Rezovska at the border with Turkey (Figure 4). The landscape is supplemented by the Stara Planina (Old Mountains) connecting to the Black Sea at Cape Emine, dividing the coastline conditionally in a southern and northern part. The southern coast is known for its wide and long

41 beaches, unlike the north which has a rocky scenery. The length of the coastline is 378 km, approximately 200 km of which is covered with sand. Along the coastline there are 209 beaches with a total area of 16 square kilometres located in the provinces of Varna in the north and Bourgas in the south (Bulgarian coast 2013 a; Visitwish 2013, Bulgaria Travel 2013). Bourgas has proven its significance and importance by establishing itself as key transport harbour and tourism destination. For instance, the municipality of Nessebar located in the Bourgas province is the largest tourist agglomeration on the Bulgarian cost with the greatest allocation of accommodations in Sunny Beach tourist resort (see A in Figure 7) (Bulgarian coast 2013 b).

Figure 7. Sunny Beach location on the Black Sea coast Source: Google maps (2013)

Sunny Beach is situated in a gulf, shaping a crescent form along the coastline (Figure 7). The northern part of the resort touches the hills of Stara Planina where it borders to the town of Sveti Vlas and the eastern slopes of Stara Planina. The southern part of Sunny Beach continues to the ancient town of Nessebar which is part of the international heritage list of UNESCO with its 3000 years old ancient history and outstanding universal value (UNESCO 2013). The entire length of Sunny Beach is around 5.500 m consisting of fine, homogenous sand. Sunny Beach coastline is conditionally divided into three parts: north, central and south. The last (Figure 8 indicated with red circle) is 873 m long and has the greatest width with the average of 453 m (minimum 198 m and maximum 501 m). Moreover, Sunny Beach South contains natural areas as sand dunes around Hadziiska River which are protected by the Bulgarian government (RZI 2013). However, this unique geographic location and features of the beach predisposes an excellent climate for tourism and traveling. The average monthly air temperature during

42 the period of June to September is 25-26 Co and the weather is characterised with a minimum of cloudiness and a maximum of sunshine (UHSB 2013).

Figure 8. Sunny Beach map Source: UHSB (2013)

5.1.2. Coastal tourism in Sunny Beach and its consequences

The construction of Sunny Beach as a resort began in 1957 and was designed to be a place for quiet family vacations. Nowadays, the glory of Sunny Beach as a haven for quiet family destination is over and the overdevelopment is obvious. For instance, in 1989 Sunny Beach had the capacity of around 18.000 beds in the various hotels and currently they are 320.000. In 2012 565.901 tourists visited Sunny Beach, 517.901 of who came from abroad. Most of the foreign tourists are Russian, German, Romanian and Greek (NSI 2013). Even though the number of tourists visiting Sunny Beach grows every year, there are no additional facilities build, such as a wastewater treatment plant (Btv news 2012). Apparently, this led to an outflow of family vacations due to the overpopulation, questionable quality of the beaches and the lack of infrastructure needed for so many visitors. Instead, it became a place for entertainment and partying for a lot of youngsters between 16 and 25 (Shikerova 2009). Today the resort has more than 200 hotels, 100 types of water attractions (UHSB 2013), numerous shops, restaurants, bars and nightclubs attracting their visitors by huge billboards, flashing neon lights and “happy hours” which promote hard and soft drinks at low prices (Tutenges 2012).

However, the impact on nature is visible as well. For instance, the fabulous landscape of millennial sand dunes in Sunny Beach South is now permanently destroyed because of the on-going construction works

43 and human impacts (TV7 news 2013). Over-construction and the enlargement of the population turned Sunny Beach into a regular seaside town. For instance, 60% of the capacity of Sunny Beach South is occupied during weekends and holidays, and around 50% throughout the season (RZI 2013). As solution to these issues the National Sustainable Tourism Strategy was proposed in 2009 aiming at continual improvement of the tourism products at the Black Sea coast. And as previously mentioned an important objective of this strategy is to introduce and implement international standards and EU best practices to achieve sustainable tourism, and therefore enhance the competitiveness of the sector in the global tourism market (MEET 2013 b).

5.2. The effectiveness of Blue Flag certification in Sunny Beach

As inferred above, Sunny Beach plays an important role in the coastal tourism industry in Bulgaria. Moreover, it is rapidly growing and this has resulted in environmental issues on the Black Sea coast. Does Blue Flag as ecolabel, which works towards sustainable development of beaches, find solutions for Sunny Beach’s problems? This shall be explored in the next paragraphs. Estimating the actual effectiveness of Blue Flag certification in Sunny Beach shall be done using Kalfagianni & Pattberg’s (2011) two-dimensional concept (outlined in Chapter 2). The first- and second-order effects of this framework shall be applied for assessing the impacts of Blue Flag in Sunny Beach South since as mentioned above, it is the most sensitive natural area in this location, the most densely populated during the season, and moreover, present a certified beach.

5.2.1. First-order effects

First-order effects are those intended by the Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement and affect its most immediate audience. First-order effects as explained in Kalfagianni & Pattberg’s (2011) framework concerns information about the actors implementing the certification, i.e. uptake, and the extent to which the standards set by the organisation are met in reality, i.e. compliance. These two components of the first-order effects in Sunny Beach South are assessed below.

i. Uptake

The main actor that is responsible for adopting the Blue Flag criteria in Sunny Beach South is the concessioner itself. The Sunny Beach South concessioner is a private firm called “IRIDA-71” Elt., which has various business interests mostly related to import and export of food products, drinks and tobaccos (SFB Capital Market 2013). However, an important point here is that this company started to operate Sunny Beach South on the 1st of January 2002 (National Concessionaires Register 2013). This means that Sunny Beach South had an already implemented Blue Flag certification before “IRIDA-71” Elt. became its concessioner. Therefore the beach operator did not have to put any additional investments or undergo any substantive behavioral shifts in order to continue the accreditation for the future seasons. Further actors in Sunny Beach South are identified: four restaurants, twenty-five fast food places, four disco clubs, three sports and entertainment areas and a jet-ski area. The above mentioned 27 actors who are

44 affected by the Blue Flag certification in Sunny Beach South are business entrepreneurs who are claimed to have mostly economic interests (Interview 01, 11, 12).

ii. Compliance

The compliance refers to the contribution of Blue Flag certification to the problem-solving in Sunny Beach South as a result of its implementation. The compliance concerns the Blue Flag criteria which have 33 criteria in four main sections, namely environmental education and information, water quality, environmental management, safety and services (Appendix 3).

The environmental education and information section concern six criteria. All of these criteria refer to the presence of at least one Blue Flag information board at the beach. The board should contain several types of information and in the case of Sunny Beach South all of them are covered. For instance, the information board is present (Picture 2) and also indicates the different environmental educational

Picture 2. Blue Flag information board in Sunny Beach South

activities performed by the Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement, such as international children’s exhibition “children draw the flowers, the sea, the world”, visit the nature landmarks and protected areas in the vicinity of the beach, volunteer cleaning of the beach, training and education seminars for beach managers, teachers, beach controllers, life-guards, and the last activity is getting acquainted with Black Sea inhabitants. The locations of the activities are also shown on the board. Further, information about water quality is presented in English and is renewed every month during the season (Interview 03). A map of Sunny Beach indicating different facilities is displayed as well as national emergency and users’ protection commission telephone numbers. Next to this, the beach rules are clearly presented in both Bulgarian and English and are supplemented with pictures. The board is located in a convenient place at the main entrance of the beach.

The second section in Blue Flag criteria is concerning the water quality and is dealing with five main points. The water quality in Sunny Beach South is assessed by national standards, which are based on the European Bathing Directive. Sunny Beach South has an excellent water quality history (Interview 01) and fully complies with the requirements of the Blue Flag Programme. For instance, according to the Regional Health Institute (RZI 2013), Sunny Beach South fully complies with microbiological parameters as well as physical and chemical parameters. Moreover, no uncontrolled industrial, water-waste or sewage-discharges are registered (RZI 2013) or observed. All of the wastewater is discharged to “Ravda- Sunny Beach” waste water treatment plant. The only problem considered from the Regional Health Institute as potential risk for the water quality is the pollution from the Hadziiska River. Therefore, the immediate area around the river’s mouth is forbidden for bathing (RZI 2013). However, no large fluctuations in the water quality are observed in Sunny Beach South throughout the years (Interview 01).

The third section in Blue Flag criteria is the environmental management. It is the largest section consisting of twelve mandatory and two guideline criteria. In the case of Sunny Beach South there are only the two guideline criteria that are not fulfilled by the beach operator, namely the establishment of a beach management committee and the promotion of sustainable means of transport. But since they are only non-required standards, this is not conflicting with the Blue Flag status in Sunny Beach South. However, all of the other forms of national regulations related to coastal zone planning, environmental management, waste-water legislation are met. For instance, it is forbidden to passage through protected areas as the sand dunes, paths of wooden pallets reaching the beach are provided. Another important point regarding environmental management requirements is the cleanliness of the beach. The observation shown that Sunny Beach South is level “A” of cleanliness according to the Blue Flag explanatory notes (Blue Flag Organisation 2013 b) categorization with the number of 1-3 litter units per area of 100 square meters (Picture 3). This level of cleanliness is considered as appropriate by the Blue Flag standards. An adequate number of litter-bins is provided and are placed every 5-10m along the length of the beach and regularly maintained. The waste is collected and disposed in licensed facilities according to the requirements from Nessebar municipality (Interview 03).

Picture 3. The cleanliness of the sand in Sunny Beach South

Next to this, an adequate number of toilets are provided on Sunny Beach South, 5 public and 11 private toilets with controlled sewage-disposal. The private toilets belong to the nearby located restaurants and bars, and are open to the general public after a small fee charge. All of the facilities are well-maintained and equipped with all of the appropriated essentials. Further, unauthorized camping is not observed as well as unauthorized domestic animal access.

The fourth section, namely the safety and services, consists of seven mandatory and one guideline criteria. In the case of Sunny Beach South all of the standards in this section are covered. For instance, there are eight lifeguards placed in the intervals of 100m along the beach. This number fully complies with the Blue Flag criteria and the International Lifeguard Federation requirements. The lifeguards are easily recognizable, wearing red uniforms and being well-equipped with life buoys, torpedo buoys and hooks. Moreover, the lifeguards have emergency radio phones which allow them to communicate fast and efficient with the first-aid station located in the central part of the beach (Interview 14). Information about the current weather and emergency flag system in Bulgaria is explained on the lifeguard station board. Next to this, a management system to prevent conflicts and accidents between the beach users and water attractions are put in place. For instance, there is a clear zoning and a separation of jet-ski and swimming area. The jet-ski stations are also supplied with first-air equipment and are well-informed about the Blue Flag Programme considering all of its requirements (Interview 12). Further, a drinking water supply is provided in all of the restroom facilities on the beach. One of the most important requirements in the safety and services section is the accessibility of a wheelchair. Sunny Beach South present an example of a beach adapted to users with disabilities. The parking area has reserved place for disabled parking and it is close to the paths leading to the beach. Moreover, on the beach an “amphibian” chair is provided (Picture 4 on the next page) enabling disabled people to enter the shallow water. Information about how to use the chair is provided on the panel.

Picture 4. “Amphibian” chair in Sunny Beach South

5.2.2. Second-order effects

Second-order effects evaluate broader socio-economic effects and according to Kalfagianni & Pattberg’s (2011) framework they present three categories of structural, cognitive and regulatory effects (Chapter 2). How these effects are expressed in the case of Blue Flag in Sunny Beach South is elaborated below.

i. Structural effects

As already mentioned in Chapter 2 structural effects concern market shifts, such as creating niche markets and boundaries among consumers which prefer more expensive but greener products and services. Some respondents claimed that there are no significant price shifts occurring in the last years and no substantive changes on the services provided in Sunny Beach South (Interview 04, 03). In fact, Sunny Beach South established itself as a cheap destination for western tourists while at the same time having a nice atmosphere and beautiful coast (Interview 09). Moreover, the research indicates that tourists choosing Sunny Beach South for their vacation do not recognise the Blue Flag symbol and have limited knowledge of its exact meaning (Interview 08, 09, 10). A younger tourist even confused the Blue Flag with the emergency flag system presuming it as a signal of “good weather for swimming” (Interview 09). In general, the research has indicated that beach users have very low or even no awareness of the Blue Flag certification in Sunny Beach South. The main reason to prefer Sunny Beach South as their summer destination is the reasonable price for the provided services as well as the nice warm weather (Interview 08, 10).

ii. Cognitive effects

Cognitive effects refer to the recognisability of the label and its ability to serve as a benchmark for other standards (Chapter 2). As mentioned in the previous paragraph, the tourists in Sunny Beach South do not distinguish the Blue Flag symbol from other emergency system flags and therefore the recognisability of Blue Flag in Bulgaria can be considered limited. Further, local entrepreneurs have certain knowledge about the Blue Flag award but their interests in the certification are only related to their responsibilities to comply with the standards (Interview 12). Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement has tried to create a discussion forum among a wide range of stakeholders, but have failed to achieve it because of financial matters (Interview 01) and a lack of interest to participate (Interview 11, 13). Moreover, according to one respondent there are no other kinds of certification in Sunny Beach South and in the Bulgarian Black Sea coast regarding beach management (Interview 01). Therefore, no rival organisations to Blue Flag have emerged in response to the activity of Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement.

iii. Regulatory effects

Regulatory effects refer to the link between transnational standards and national governmental regulations (Chapter 2). These kinds of effects are hardly distinguished in the case of Blue Flag in Bulgaria and perhaps not even existing. For instance, there is a gap between the schedule of the Regional Health Institute water sampling and the Blue Flag requirements. Blue Flag National Jury requires from the applicants to have current water quality data, but the Regional Health Institute has no such relevant information since it performs its own schedule. Therefore, the applicants are forced to hire a private lab to perform water quality sampling in order to fulfill the Blue Flag National Jury requirements and fit into its schedule.

5.3. Conclusions

As argued above, Sunny Beach is an important coastal destination in Bulgarian Black Sea. It has prolonged history of development; being established as a soviet resort for quite family vacations and currently being a nightlife party center for youngsters. Throughout the years Sunny Beach increased its popularity as coastal tourism destination and this has reflected in overdevelopment, overpopulation and environmental issues. At the same time, Sunny Beach presents a certified by the Blue Flag coastal site. To some extent Blue Flag certification finds solutions to Sunny Beach’s problems. For instance, Blue Flag certification has a direct role and significant positive impact on the quality of the beach in Sunny Beach South. Moreover, Sunny Beach South complies with all of the Blue Flag required criteria, including being free of litter and having excellent bathing water quality parameters. However, the research has also shown that there are limited effects that go beyond the scope of the full compliance. This conclusion is based on the fact that there are limited second-order effects concerning structural, cognitive or regulatory effects observed in Sunny Beach South. The study of Blue Flag certification implementation in Sunny Beach South has concluded that there is a visible effect regarding quality of the tourism services, but little or no impact on actual sustainable tourism development.

Chapter 6 Discussion and conclusions

6.1. Introduction

After the presentation of theory and actual findings in the chapters above, there is a need of critically examine both of them. The aim of this last chapter is to look through the main assumptions of this research as well as to elaborate further some important points which had been previously mentioned in the paper. Therefore, the chapter continues by exploring the strengths and weaknesses of applying a combined framework. The chapter also discusses bellow the expected and unexpected findings referring them to the current literature. The chapter finishes by generalizing the outcomes and discussing the significance of the results as well as suggesting future possible researches in this field.

6.2. Discussion

As inferred above, the first important point to be discussed is the pros and cons of applying combined framework. Accordingly, using a combination of broad frameworks has its insufficiencies. For instance, the theories explained above such as main actors in tourism ecolabelling (Font 2001), NSMD governance systems (Cashore 2002) and effectiveness (Kalfagianni & Pattberg 2011) in general are discussing wide aspects of the transnational environmental governance literature. Therefore by presumption these theories shall be more applicable when investigating legitimacy dynamics and effectiveness of tourism ecolabels on international level rather than national. Next to this, applying three theories as a holistic framework is always a challenge. To overcome the difficulties, there is a need of carefully thought out process which shall explore how the different concepts of these theories may link, how they may supplement each other and what shall be the overall result of applying them together.

Indeed, the challenges in themselves present also an opportunity. As explained previously, there are some knowledge gaps which are identified in this research regarding the effectiveness of transnational environmental governance systems as tourism ecolabels and how they influence the local tourism development. To some extent the current literature (Font 2001; UNEP 1998; Sasidharan, Sirakaya & Kerstetter 2002; Font & Buckley 2001; McKenna, Williams & Cooper 2010; Nelson & Botterill 2002) is unable to explain these important problems and therefore it is an obvious opportunity for developing a new framework to study tourism ecolabels. The theories which are used in this research have been selected after a thorough literature review. Moreover, this paper argues strongly that the theories used here present a comprehensive framework by elaborating in detail the concepts of these theories, showing the main links between them and also how they build upon each other (Chapter 2). Thus it may be claimed that this combined approach which is applied in this research may give a better overall understanding of the tourism ecolabels than if the theories of tourism ecolabelling (Font 2001), NSMD governance (Cashore 2002) and effectiveness (Kalfagianni & Pattberg 2011) are used separately.

To proof the reliability of this combined framework the example of Blue Flag as international proliferated tourism ecolabel has been selected in this research. Next to this, to investigate the organisational activities and effectiveness of this tourism ecolabel on national level, the case of Bulgaria has been chosen since no researches in this area has been previously made. The findings of this research have shown some expected as well as unexpected outcomes that need to be further discussed. For instance, even though that the external audience granted mainly pragmatic legitimacy to the Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement, the organisation has already existed for 20 years and has run the Blue Flag Programme in Bulgarian Black Sea coast. This finding has contradicted with the literature suggestion given by Suchman (1995). But however, as some authors (Cashore 2002) has also explained (Chapter 2) the relation between the type of legitimacy and its durability appears to be more complicated. On the one hand, the involvement of mostly economic actors who are claimed to have economic interest in adopting the Blue Flag certification in Bulgaria has led to the conclusion that Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement has pragmatic legitimacy. On the other hand, the Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement relies generally on these economic actors and their financial support. Therefore, if the beach operators choose to opt out the Programme it is unlikely that the Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement shall continue its activities. Perhaps the beach operators themselves and their evaluations that implementing the Blue Flag is “the right thing to do” and their economic interests are the basis of the continuous Blue Flag implementation in Bulgarian Black Sea coast.

In this sense it is important to question does the Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement in itself have any authority to force compliance to those who actually fund its existence (namely the beach operators). Or the Movement itself is just being used by the beach operators as a compulsory element to obtain the Blue Flag award? However, if the authority on national level is not entirely presented by the Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement then perhaps it may be found somewhere upwards in the tourism supply-chain. As already explained previously, Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement has started as organisation in order to meet the foreign tour operator’s demands. In other words, if Bulgarian coastal tourism industry wanted to reach the western tourist, it had to ensure that the quality of the tourism services in Bulgarian Black Sea coast is (at least) acceptable by implementing tourism eco-standards. Perhaps the role of the Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement has not changed in purpose since its establishment as organisation. In this case, it may be assumed that the location of authority is more likely to be grounded somewhere in the tourism market transactions rather than possessed by the Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement itself.

Next to the legitimacy and authority, an important point is the transparency of the Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement’s activities. Even though that International FEE organisation has in general a good view on the Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement, the last still has some difficulties to ensure transparent process of certification implementation. This is indicated by the fact that Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement does not have an official website therefore is unable to publish any information regarding its current activities and future plans. The important question here is how then Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement communicates with beach users and how they can ensure reliability. The lack of transparency could be considered as major problem which is also contradicting with the main principles of Blue Flag. However, it should not be ignored that Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement is currently working on the website and

51 perhaps in the upcoming years the project shall be finished and thus the organisation shall reaches its audience better.

The next point to be discussed is the case of Sunny Beach and the actual need of Blue Flag for such coastal destinations. As presented in the previous chapter, Sunny Beach became a place for entertainment and partying for a lot of youngsters between 16 and 25. Next to this, the research has revealed that tourists hardly recognize the Blue Flag symbol and also the respondents claimed that the basis of their choice to visit Sunny Beach was the good weather and the reasonable prices. If tourists are not demanding the presence of this tourism ecolabel then why there is a need of implementing it in Sunny Beach. Perhaps the prolonged tradition and the willingness of the beach operators to ensure high quality of the tourism services in Bulgarian Black Sea coast are the reasons for implementing the Blue Flag certification in Sunny Beach. Also by assuring high quality of the tourism services in Sunny Beach the coastal tourism market in Bulgaria is more likely to reach the western tourist.

6.3. Conclusions and recommendations

In summary, this research has used three different frameworks of main actors in tourism ecolabelling, NSMD governance and effectiveness in order to present a combined approach to study tourism ecolabels on national level. This comprehensive framework has allowed for better understanding the organisational activities and effectiveness of tourism ecolabel as Blue Flag for the local sustainable tourism development in Bulgarian Black Sea coast. Blue Flag is an international tourism ecolabel that is presented on national level in Bulgaria by Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement. One of the main interests of this research was to study the role of Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement by identifying its external audiences and explore how these actors granted legitimacy to the organisation. The research has shown that the involved sites in Bulgaria are mostly having economic interests in adopted the certification. Therefore it is assumed that they have granted mainly pragmatic legitimacy to the Movement. Next to this, another important point in this research was to investigate to what extent Blue Flag has contributed to the sustainable tourism development in Bulgarian Black Sea coastal destinations such as Sunny Beach. The research has presented facts which have explained that Blue Flag has a significant contribution to the promotion of good tourism practices in Bulgarian Black Sea coast but however is unlikely that this ecolabel has broader impacts. The research has outlined that the effects of Blue Flag is to continually maintain the good tourism products and services rather than to promote sustainable tourism development. Therefore it could be assumed that Blue Flag serves more as a marketing tool to ensure quality of tourism services than environmental tool which shall promote sustainable environmental practices.

Overall, the results of this study extend the existing literature regarding tourism ecolabels by presenting a combined framework which could be used as approach to better explore tourism ecolabels. Moreover, this combined framework allow for studying the tourism ecolabels not only in international sense but also investigating their implications locally. A further contribution is that this research addresses the question of how an international tourism ecolabels gain legitimacy to govern as well as how effective is this tourism ecolabels for the sustainable tourism development. Therefore, the issues of legitimacy and

52 effectiveness are investigated simultaneously for the case of tourism ecolabels which gives perhaps a better and more complete understanding of these eco-standards. Moreover, this research is important since there are no previously made studies regarding the organisational activities and effectiveness of Blue Flag on local scales.

However, in order to further investigate legitimacy dynamics and effectiveness of Blue Flag in Bulgaria there is also a need to compere a certified with an uncertified beach in Bulgarian Black Sea coast, which was out of this research’s scope. This is needed to study even better the Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement, its organisational activities and effectiveness for the local tourism development and thus supplement the conclusions of this research. Next to this, one of the purposes of this research was also to present more information about the post socialist coastal destinations as Sunny Beach and their development over the years. So perhaps more researches in such areas in Bulgarian Black Sea coast are need to make a better overall evaluation of the post socialist state’s development.

Reference

Auld, G, Balboa, C, Bernstein, S & Cashore, B 2009 The emergence of non-state market-driven (NSMD) global environmental governance: a cross-sectoral assessment. Cambridge University Press, p. 183-218

Auld, G, Berstein, S & Cashore, B 2008 The Corporate Social Responsibility. Annual Review of Environmental and Resources, p.413-435

Bendell, J & Font, X 2004 Which tourism rules? Green standards and GATS. Annals of Tourism Research, 31 (1), p.139-156

Bernstein, S & Cashore, B 2007 Can non-state global governance be legitimate? An analytical framework. Regulation & Governance, 1 (2007), p.347-371

Blue Flag Organisation 2013 a Home (The Blue Flag History) [online] Available at: www.blueflag.org [Accessed 10 March 2013]

Blue Flag Organisation 2013 b Criteria (Beaches) [online] Available at: www.blueflag.org [Accessed 10 March 2013]

Blue Flag Organisation 2013 c Awarded sites (Blue Flag beach/marinas) [online] Available at: www.blueflag.org [Accessed 10 March 2013]

Blue Flag Organisation 2013 d Blue Flag in a new country (Awarded sites) [online] Available at: www.blueflag.org [Accessed 23 August 2013]

Bourgas online library 2013 Regional library “Peio Yavorov” (Bulgarian movement FEE - Sin Flag) [online] Available at: http://www2.burglib.org/modules/news/ [Accessed 09 March 2013]

Btv news 2012 Bulgaria news (Policy) [online] Available at: http://btvnews.bg/bulgaria/politika/ [Accessed 23 April 2013]

Buckley, R 2002 Tourism Ecolabels. Annals of Tourism Research, 29 (1), p.183-208

Bulgaria Travel 2013 Official tourism portal of Bulgaria (Sea tourism) [online] Available at: http://bulgariatravel.org [Accessed 14 March 2013]

Bulgarian coast 2013 a Home (Welcome to Bulgarian coast) [online] Available at: www.bulgariancoast.com [Accessed 10 March 2013]

Bulgarian coast 2013 b Sunny Beach (Information) [online] Available at: www.bulgariancoast.com [Accessed 10 March 2013]

Butlet, R 1999 Sustainable Tourism: A-state-of-the-art review, Tourism Geographies: An International Journal of Tourism Space and Environment, 1:1, 7-25

Cashore, B 2002 Legitimacy and the Privatization of Environmental Governance: How Non-State Market- Driven (NSMD) Governance Systems Gain Rule-Making Authority. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions, 15 (4), p.503-529

Ecrein Bulgaria 2011 Ecotourism in Bulgaria: Analysis, Opportunities and Best practices, report 2011, Stara Zagora: European Clusters and Regions for Ecoinnovation Networks Plus

FEE Organisation 2013 More about FEE (Our History) [online] Available at: www.fee-international.org [Accessed 10 March 2013]

Flagman 2012 Municipality (Bulgarian beach with Blue Flag award) [online] Available at: www.flagman.bg [Accessed 10 March 2013]

Font, X 2001 Environmental certification in tourism and hospitality: process, progress and prospects. Tourism Management, 23 (2002), p.197-205

Font, X & Buckley, R 2001 Tourism Ecolabelling: Certification and Promotion of Sustainable Management, CSBI Publishing Series

Georgieva, Y 2011 Resorts with national priority. Brain Workshop Institute Online [internet] 8 September Avaliable at: www.brain-workshop.org [Accessed 15 March 2013]

Ghodsee, K 2005 The Red Riviera: Gender, Tourism and Postsocialism on the Black Sea Durham: Duke University Press

Google maps 2013 Google search (Maps) [online] Available at: https://www.google.com/ [Accessed 1 October 2013]

Jordan, A, Wurzel, RKW & Zito, AR 2003 ‘‘New’’ Instruments of Environmental Governance: Patterns and Pathways of Change’, Environmental Politics 12(1), 3–24

Kalfagianni, A & Pattberg, P 2011 The Effectiveness of Transnational Rule-Setting Organisations in Global Sustainability Politics: An Analytical Framework, Global Governance Working Paper No 43, Amsterdam et al. The Global Governance Project

McKenna, J, Williams, A & Cooper, AJG 2010 Blue Flag or Red Herring: Do beach award encourage the public to visit beaches? Tourism Management 32 (2011), p. 576-588

McRandle, P W 2006 Low-Impact Vacations. World Watch 19 (4), p.5

MEET 2013 a Ministry of economic, energetics and tourism of Republic of Bulgaria (Tourism) [online] Available at: www.mi.government.bg [Accessed 10 March 2013]

MEET 2013 b Ministry of economic, energetics and tourism of Republic of Bulgaria (Tourism – National Strategy for tourism development 2009-2013) [online] Available at: www.mi.government.bg [Accessed 10 March 2013]

Momchilov, M 2012 Six beaches in Nessebar and one in Pomorie gain the international Blue Flag award. Nessebar news Online [internet] 6 June Available at: http://nessebar-news.com/2012 [Accessed 10 March 2013]

National Concessionaire Register 2013 Concessions (Consignment No D-00189) Available at: http://www.nkr.government.bg/ [Accessed 1 October 2013]

National Sustainable Tourism Strategy 2009 National Tourism Strategy of Republic of Bulgaria, report 2009, Sofia: National Tourism Agency

Nelson, C & Botterill, D 2002 Evaluating the contribution of beach quality awards to the local tourism industry in Wales – the Green Coast Award. Ocean & Coastal Management 45 (2002), p. 157- 170

NSI 2013 National Statistics Institute (Tourism - Annual data) [online] Available at: www.nsi.bg [Accessed 10 March 2013]

RZI 2013 Regional Health Institute of Bulgaria (Water - Bathing water profiles) [online] Available at: http://www.rzi-burgas.com/ [Accessed 1 October 2013]

Sasidharan, V, Sirakaya, E & Kerstetter, D 2002 Developing countries and tourism ecolabels. Tourism Management 23 (2002), 161-174

SFB Capital Market 2013 Information about private firms (IRIDA-71 Profile) Available at: http://sfb.bia- bg.com/ [Accessed 1 October 2013]

Shikerova, G 2009 “The concrete Buildings” the bTV documents Online [internet] 29 November Available at: www.btv.bg/video [Accessed 15 March 2013]

Suchman, MC 1995 Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. Academy of Management Review 20:571-610

Sustainable Tourism 2012 Resources (Demanding for sustainable tourism) [online] Available at: http://www.sustainabletourism.net/resources.html [Accessed 03 September 2013]

Tilling, MV 2004 Refinements to Legitimacy Theory in Social and Environmental Accounting [online] Commerce research paper No. 04-6 Available at: http://www.flinders.edu.au/ [Accessed 03 April 2013]

Transport.net 2013 Bourgas Airport (Bourgas Airport Transfer) [online] Available at: http://transport- bg.net/ [Accessed 18 September 2013]

TripAdvisor 2012 TripAdvisor survey reveals travellers growing greener [online] Available at: http://www.multivu.com/mnr/49260-tripadvisor-eco-friendly-travel-survey-voluntourism- go-green [Accessed: 03 September 2013]

Tutenges, S 2012 Nightlife tourism: A mixed methods study of young tourists at an international nightlife resort, Tourist studies 12: 131

TV7 news 2013 Bulgaria news (Society) [online] Available at: http://tv7.bg/Новини/България/Общество/ [Accessed 1 October 2013]

UNEP 1998 Ecolabels in the tourism industry, publisher: United Nations Environmental Programme, Industry and Environment

UHSB (2013) Unit of the Hoteliers in Sunny Beach (Home) Available at: www.uhsb.net [Accessed 30 September 2013]

UNESCO 2013 World Heritage list (Ancient city of Nessebar) [online] Available at: http://unesco.org [Accessed 11 March 2013]

UTU 2013 Finland Research Center (Environment and Energy) [online] Available at: http://www.utu.fi/fi/Sivut/home.aspx [Accessed 11 October 2013]

Visitwish 2013 Bulgarian Destinations (Black sea) [online] Available at: www.visitwish.com [Accessed 14 March 2013]

World Resource Institute 2010 Global Ecolabel Monitor [online] Big Room INC Available at: http://www.ecolabelindex.com/downloads/Global_Ecolabel_Monitor2010.pdf [Accessed 24 March 2013]

WTO 2013 World Tourism Organization Network Sustainable Development of tourism (Definition) [online] Available at: http://sdt.unwto.org/en [Accessed: 12 September 2013]

Yaneva, M 2009 The trend of tourism development, Economic alternatives, Bulgaria, 2 (2009), p. 60-71

Appendix 1 Observation frame

Observer: Date/Place:

I) Environmental Education and Information

1. Information about the Blue Flag must be displayed. Y / N Comments:

2. Environmental education activities must be offered and promoted to beach users. Y / N Comments:

3. Information about bathing water quality must be displayed. Y / N Comments:

4. Information relating to local eco-systems and environmental phenomena must be displayed. Y / N Comments:

5. A map of the beach indicating different facilities must be displayed. Y / N Comments:

6. A code of conduct that reflects appropriate laws governing the use of the beach and surrounding areas must be displayed. Y / N Comments:

V) Environmental Management

7. The local authority/beach operator should establish a beach management committee. 8. The local authority/beach operator must comply with all regulations affecting the location and operation of the beach. Y / N Comments:

9. The beach must be clean. Y / N Comments:

10. Algae vegetation or natural debris should be left on the beach. Y / N Comments:

11. Waste disposal bins/containers must be available at the beach in adequate numbers and they must be regularly maintained. Y / N Comments:

12. Facilities for the separation of recyclable waste materials should be available at the beach. Y / N Comments:

13. An adequate number of toilet or restroom facilities must be provided. Y / N Comments:

14. The toilet or restroom facilities must be kept clean. Y / N Comments:

15. The toilet or restroom facilities must have controlled sewage disposal. Y / N Comments:

16. There should be no unauthorised camping, driving or dumping of waste on the beach. Y / N Comments:

17. Access to the beach by dogs and other domestic animals must be strictly controlled. Y / N Comments:

18. All buildings and beach equipment must be properly maintained. Y / N Comments:

19. Coral reefs in the vicinity of the beach must be monitored. 20. A sustainable means of transportation should be promoted in the beach area. Y / N Comments:

III) Safety and Services

21. An adequate number of lifeguards and/or lifesaving equipment must be available at the beach. Y / N

Comments:

22. First aid equipment must be available on the beach. Y / N Comments: 23. Emergency plans to cope with pollution risks must be in place. Y / N Comments:

24. There must be management of beach users and events to prevent conflicts and accidents. Y / N Comments:

25. There must be safety measures in place to protect beach users. Y / N Comments:

26. A supply of drinking water should be available at the beach. Y / N Comments:

27. At least one Blue Flag beach in each municipality must have wheelchair and accessibility features. Y / N Comments:

28. Wheelchair access and accessibility features must be in place for at least one Blue Flag beach in each municipality. Y / N Comments:

IV) Water Quality

Sewage disposal:

Observe water quality:

Notes:

Appendix 2 List of interviews

Interview code Interviewee Stanimir Georgiev Interview 01 Bulgarian Blue Flag Movement, Blue Flag National Operator D. Minkova Interview 02 Senior Expert, Ecology department, Nessebar municipality, Bulgaria M. I. Interview 03 Beach manager, Sunny Beach-South, Nessebar municipality, Bulgaria P.G Interview 04 Hotel manager, Nessebar, Bulgaria E. I. Interview 05 Manager, Union of Hoteliers Sunny Beach, Bulgaria V. Angelov, G.P.Damyanov Interview 06 Tourist, Bulgarians Narodno chitalishte “Qna Luskova” Interview 07 Local community Nessebar E. P., E. D., N. K. Interview 08 Tourists, Russians J.v P., I. B., A. W. Interview 09 Tourists, Belgiums H. R. Interview 10 Tourist, Romanian A.A. Interview 11 Local beach entrepreneur, Massage zone, Sunny Beach, Bulgaria G.I Interview 12 Local beach entrepreneur, Water attractions, Sunny Beach, Bulgaria F.P. Interview 13 Restaurant manager, Sunny Beach, Bulgaria G.I. Interview 14 Senior Lifeguard, Sunny Beach, Bulgaria Elise Allart Interview 15 Sustainable Tourism Coordinator TUI Travel Western Europe, Netherlands Finn Bolding Thomsen Interview 16 Manager Director, Foundation for Environmental Education, Denmark Sophie Bachet Interview 17 Blue Flag International Coordinator V. Todorov Interview 18 Director, Green Bourgas non-governmental organisation, Bulgaria

Appendix 3 Blue Flag beach criteria

Environmental Education and Information

1. Information about the Blue Flag must be displayed. 2. Environmental education activities must be offered and promoted to beach users. 3. Information about bathing water quality must be displayed. 4. Information relating to local eco-systems and environmental phenomena must be displayed. 5. A map of the beach indicating different facilities must be displayed. 6. A code of conduct that reflects appropriate laws governing the use of the beach and surrounding areas must be displayed.

Water Quality

7. The beach must fully comply with the water quality sampling and frequency requirements. 8. The beach must fully comply with the standards and requirements for water quality analysis. 9. No industrial, waste-water or sewage-related discharges should affect the beach area. 10. The beach must comply with the Blue Flag requirements for the microbiological parameter faecal coli bacteria (E.coli) and intestinal enterococci/streptococci. 11. The beach must comply with the Blue Flag requirements for physical and chemical parameters.

Environmental Management

12. The local authority/beach operator should establish a beach management committee. 13. The local authority/beach operator must comply with all regulations affecting the location and operation of the beach. 14. The beach must be clean. 15. Algae vegetation or natural debris should be left on the beach. 16. Waste disposal bins/containers must be available at the beach in adequate numbers and they must be regularly maintained. 17. Facilities for the separation of recyclable waste materials should be available at the beach. 18. An adequate number of toilet or restroom facilities must be provided. 19. The toilet or restroom facilities must be kept clean. 20. The toilet or restroom facilities must have controlled sewage disposal. 21. There should be no unauthorised camping, driving or dumping of waste on the beach. 22. Access to the beach by dogs and other domestic animals must be strictly controlled. 23. All buildings and beach equipment must be properly maintained. 24. Coral reefs in the vicinity of the beach must be monitored. 25. A sustainable means of transportation should be promoted in the beach area.

Safety and Services

26. An adequate number of lifeguards and/or lifesaving equipment must be available at the beach. 27. First aid equipment must be available on the beach. 28. Emergency plans to cope with pollution risks must be in place. 29. There must be management of beach users and events to prevent conflicts and accidents. 30. There must be safety measures in place to protect beach users. 31. A supply of drinking water should be available at the beach. 32. At least one Blue Flag beach in each municipality must have wheelchair and accessibility features. 33. Wheelchair access and accessibility features must be in place for at least one Blue Flag beach in each municipality.

Source: Blue Flag organisation 2013 b

Appendix 4 List of Blue Flag beaches and marinas in Bulgaria for the 2013 season

Region Municipality Beach/Marina name

Varna Varna Albena beach

Varna Varna Sunny Day beach

Bourgas Bourgas North Bourgas beach

Bourgas Sozopol Duni beach

Bourgas Sozopol Sozopol-Harmanite beach

Bourgas Pomorie Pomorie East beach

Bourgas Nessebar Sunny Beach North

Bourgas Nessebar Sunny Beach South

Bourgas Nessebar Sveti Vlas Center beach

Bourgas Nessebar Sveti Vlas East beach

Bourgas Nessebar Sveti Vlas New beach

Bourgas Nessebar Marina Dinevi

Source: Blue Flag Organisation 2013 c