Is there a case for revising the UNWTO's Global Code of Ethics to include a new article on the ethical treatment of animals by the tourism industry? A response to the opinion piece by David Fennell

Abstract

This opinion piece reviews and critiques the opinion piece by David Fennell which presents a proposal for a new article about the ethical treatment of animals to be added to the UNWTO Global Code of Ethics for the tourism industry. The case presented here rests on a detailed examination of the use of the concepts of speciesism and anthropocentrism in the original opinion piece. It finds that, while speciesism is currently a fashionable way to draw parallels between animals and humans, it is dependent on the evidence around the questions of sentience, cognition and consciousness. While there is increasing evidence for animal sentience and cognition, human consciousness is wholly different from that of even the most advanced animals. And, although anthropocentrism is a dominant idea in many forms of political decision making in general, it cannot be used as a stick with which to beat tourism scholarship: many writers on tourism adopt distinctly ecocentric lines of argument, including the concepts of ecotourism and sustainable tourism. The paper also notes that only ca. 30% of UNWTO's national members had given legal recognition to the existing code of ethics nearly 10 years after its ratification by the UN.