Get unlimited access to the latest travel industry news and analysis, comment on articles and sign up to newsletters.
Register for free
Already registered? Login here or below.
Having difficulty logging in? Try these tips, or contact support@ttgmedia.com
After holding a consultation on travel advice last year, the Foreign Office quietly released revisions to the system in December. Gary Noakes investigates the changes.
As the 2017 peak booking period got underway, agents and consumers checking the government’s travel advice web pages may have noticed subtle changes to the way they looked and the wording used.
Following a consultation last spring, the Foreign Office (FCO) has rethought how it portrays the risk of terrorism in foreign countries.
The organisation spent a month consulting the industry and used an online public survey along with input from government departments.
Other countries with similar travel advice systems were also consulted.
A sample of 1,009 travellers were asked if the FCO’s previous four levels of terrorism threat (high, general, underlying and low) should be replaced with more information about frequency and nature of attacks.
The suggested style was supported by 73% of public respondents, who called for information that offered “an accurate gauge of the threat and described specific risks”.
The new approach means advice now describes a threat in terms of predictability and whether attacks are likely.
It also looks at the extent, targets and types of previous attacks, plus their context; outlining which groups were responsible, the history of attacks and what the host government advises about the terrorist threat, where such advice is offered.
Details of the host government’s counter-terrorism actions (e.g. where groups have been arrested) will also now be spelt out.
Two obvious examples are Egypt and Tunisia. In Egypt, the FCO advises against all travel to the Governorate of South Sinai because of “continued terrorist attacks on police”, and says the security situation at Sharm el Sheikh airport means it advises against flying to and from it.
Under the new format, it adds: “There is a high threat from terrorism in Egypt. Terrorists continue to plan and conduct attacks. Further attacks are likely. Most terrorist attacks target the security forces, but it’s likely that foreigners, including tourists, will also be targeted.”
Similarly, Tunisia’s advice now includes a list of terrorist incidents dating back to 2013, including failed attacks on tourists.
Some would say such clarification is overdue given that the information’s main audience is likely to be holidaymakers and travel organisers.
Matt Gatenby, a partner at solicitors Travlaw, said: “Generally the FCO does a very good job. While it would be easy to go too far [and risk alienating potential travellers completely], consumers want something simple to understand.
“I think they have found a balance between the two. I’m not critical of the previous way they did it because it is an evolving process, but it’s easier now with the additional information. It’s hard to be anything other than positive about it.”
He added that the advice is now “far superior” than it was at the time of the Sars outbreak for example.
“Everyone is looking for certainty, which is understandable, so any effort to increase that is to be lauded. It’s a very difficult standard to meet, as recent events have shown,” Gatenby added.
Abta contributed to the FCO’s consultation process and had called for “detailed and specific factual information for travellers”.
It said it welcomed the FCO’s decision to provide “a more detailed level of information”.
Perhaps surprisingly though, Antor (the Association of National Tourist Office Representatives), was not involved in the process.
Its chair, Tracey Poggio, stated however: “From Antor members’ perspective, any additional advice and even more accurate information which facilitates the consumer’s decision to travel abroad and does not affect their insurance policies can only be welcomed.”
Had it not opted for this approach, the FCO’s other option was to employ a four-tier system, as used by countries such as France, Canada and Australia. The UK had proposed adding a level between the green and amber tiers “to indicate a country where we do not advise against travel but where extra caution and vigilance is recommended”.
However, the FCO concluded that feedback on this suggestion “was not overwhelmingly positive”, with 54% of respondents stating that this would be helpful but 33% neutral on the suggestion and 13% believing it would be “less helpful”.
The survey found that the public was generally positive about the FCO’s travel advice. It found that more than 90% followed the advice given all, or most of, the time and that 89% of respondents accessed advice to decide whether it was safe to travel.
A total of 88% of respondents considered it the government’s responsibility to provide safety and security information.
