• Service and trail facilities
• Accommodation
• Type of environment
• Difficulty rating of the trail

• that the trail and accommodation facilities will be managed in an environmentally responsible way.
  

• Booking efficiency and standard of Trail facilities (such as vehicle safety, trail map, etc.) (See Appendix A ).
• Accommodation facilities. (A trail is classified according to checklist in Appendix B in terms of it being excellent (luxury), standard or rustic). (“Checking to see if the minimum facilities, in accordance with the promotional brochure, are available and of acceptable quality”).
• A star rating for accommodation may be allocated if so desired: excellent being 5-star and rustic 1 star. (Not thereby implying that all hikers prefer “luxury” accommodation).

• Correctness of the difficulty rating. (Scientifically calculated on a scale 1- 10). (No star rating is allocated because a strenuous trail is not necessarily better or worse than an easy trail). Appendix C.
• Effectiveness of the utilization of the environmental resources. (“Has the trail been placed in the best position in the landscape?”). (Subjective assessment by a trained auditor. See Comment 1 below).
• Assessment of the type of environment through which the trail runs – being pristine, natural or rural. (See checklist in Appendix D to determine if the brochure is trustworthy).

• Bio-physical (ecological) impact of hikers on the environment. Detailed investigation of the quality of the trail surface as well as associated facilities such as steps, bridges, etc.
• Included in the above is the Experiential impact on the hikers. Noting environmental conditions adversely affecting the hiker’s experience such as noise, hazardous sections, etc. (Appendix E).
• Bio-physical impact of hikers on the hut site (Appendix F) and
• Subjective assessment of the hut environment (Appendix G).

- Back to top -

Comments

1. It is to be understood that the evaluation of the effectiveness of the utilization of the environmental resources can only be done superficially as the trail auditor will only be walking on the path and not venture into the surrounding areas to investigate additional resources (such as waterfalls, vistas) that have not effectively been incorporated in the trail. Comments as to this aspect will only be regarded as recommendations and not as requirements for accreditation. It is an additional service at no cost.

2. The first audit of a new trail (soon after its opening) should show no environmental degradation and the accreditation will be based only on the other (two) elements (i.e. safety and honest marketing).

3. Measuring of environmental impact or degradation (such as erosion, littering, etc.) during follow-up audits, cannot be quantified exactly in a cost-effective way. No quantitative yardstick is therefore set for acceptance of an audit report. By undergoing an audit, the owner (voluntarily) indicates that he is a responsible manager of the resources under his custody. Accreditation therefore only requires of him to indicate on at least a 2-yearly basis that he is improving on the environmental audit; not necessarily reaching perfection but aiming towards it – most assuredly not allowing a negative degradation spiral on his trail. The approach is thus in harmony with the ISO 14000 system whereby the emphasis is not on attaining one hundred percent compliance but on showing responsibility towards the environment and the clients (hikers).

If it is to be found that a trail has serious defects the trail manager will have to adhere to the recommendations of the audit report and rectify such problems. As soon as a letter has been received by HOSA that it has been done (or a time schedule of rectifying the problems) the trail will receive a GFT Certificate and the trail will be entered on the website as a Green Flag Trail. Trail managers are requested to allow an auditor to inspect such a trail as soon as it is convenient to the management. Such follow-up audits will, if possible, be done free of charge if and when an auditor becomes available.

In the case of changes to the trail (over and above the required rectifications), a fee will be charged for the updating of the internet website. In serious cases however a new audit might be required. This is to be decided according to the Green Flag management’s discretion.

All trails must be audited at least every two years in order to retain GFT status. As an interim monitoring measure, trail managers need to make evaluation forms available to hikers in which they are requested to indicate any problems encountered along the trail. Should problems be found, this will be relayed to the management of the trail for its consideration and feedback to HOSA’s  Green Flag management. An auditor may be requested to visit such a trail should there be serious complaints by hikers without satisfactory reaction by the trail manager.

- Back to top -

Summary

Accreditation (through the audit procedure) is therefore not an attempt to judge between “good” and “bad” trails but to identify, acknowledge and to reward, those trail owners that show a responsible management approach in contrast to trail owners who negate the enjoyable experience and safety of their clients and the condition of the environment. This attitude of responsibility is not only of vital importance to the sustainable success of any hiking trail in itself, but also to the whole hiking industry at large: for the local South African hikers as well as the international hikers; many of whom is to be expected to accompany soccer fans during the 2010 games and thereafter.

The GREEN FLAG TRAILS Accreditation System is supported by the major trail providers: KLF (SAFCOL), Cape Nature Conservation, KZN Wildlife, as well as the two major marketing agents: JACANA and ANVIE VENTURES

						Anvieventures
A special award by ARA (Adventures and Recreation Association) of SA was conferred upon the developers of the accreditation system.

Should you require more information, please contact: +27 (082) 578 3023 or