The ASF Tourism Accommodation Safety Standard

63 criteria across 9 sections, plus a 6-item compulsory gateway (licensing, fire certificate, first aid, and the two leading causes of food poisoning). Deliberately lean — not a copy of ASF’s much larger healthcare standards, but a focused check on the things that actually keep guests safe.

Two tracks, not one size fits all

A single 63-criteria standard with full documentation requirements on nearly every item is reasonable for a 100-room hotel with a dedicated management team. It’s a genuinely unreasonable amount of paperwork for a 6-room family-run guesthouse. Rather than force one standard to fit both, the standard now has two tracks:

Items below marked ESSENTIALS are required on both tracks. Unmarked items apply to the Full Standard track only.

ASF accepts a real means of verification wherever one exists

Every criterion needs a means of verification — real evidence, not a bare tick. A government certificate is one kind (a fire safety certificate, a water test from a certified lab, a Green Globe or GSTC sustainability certificate), and where one already exists, ASF accepts it directly as sufficient evidence. Submit it, and it’s accepted — not re-inspected, re-questioned, or second-guessed. A photo of the real condition is another valid means of verification where no formal certificate applies. The detailed, criterion-by-criterion list of what counts as an acceptable means of verification for each item is still being built — this page states the principle now.

In practice, item by item: take fire safety. If a facility holds a valid government fire certificate, that’s its means of verification — uploaded, and that criterion is done. If it doesn’t, the facility goes through ASF’s own fire safety checklist directly, and the evidence gathered there becomes the means of verification instead. The same logic applies to every item in every section below, including any broader coverage ASF builds out in future — sustainability included.

This matters for a simple reason: ASF’s role is to fill the gap where no credible national verification exists — not to duplicate, or appear to doubt, the work of an authority that has already done its job properly. Re-auditing a means of verification someone else already produced properly would be presumptuous, not rigorous.

Where no such certification system exists in a country, or a facility simply doesn’t hold one yet, ASF verifies the underlying practice directly instead — that’s exactly what fills the real gap, rather than leaving it unchecked. This is the same logic Ecotourism Kenya‘s own scheme applies to existing regulatory documentation, and it’s applied consistently throughout the sections below.

Benchmarked against what already exists

On ISO 9001: the criteria structure here — especially Section 7 (Management & Continuity) — is deliberately compatible with ISO 9001’s management-system logic, the same way ASF’s healthcare standards connect to ISO 9001 Ready. A facility that completes ASF Tourism verification will already have most of the documentation ISO 9001 certification expects. That crosswalk can be built out properly once the core standard is settled.

Section 0 — Legal Gateway (not scored — required to proceed)

1. Valid tourism/hospitality business licence from the relevant national authority ESSENTIALS
2. Valid local health/sanitation permit where one is required by national or county law ESSENTIALS
3. Fire safety certificate or equivalent from the relevant local authority, where required ESSENTIALS
4. A stocked, accessible first-aid kit, and at least one staff member on every shift with current first-aid training. Compulsory, not scored — a facility cannot proceed without this, full stop. ESSENTIALS
5. Cold chain integrity: refrigeration verified cold enough to prevent bacterial growth. Compulsory, not scored. Food poisoning is the single highest-stakes, highest-reputational-cost risk this standard addresses, and a broken cold chain is one of its two most common root causes. ESSENTIALS
6. Raw and cooked food physically separated in storage and preparation. Compulsory, not scored. The second most common root cause of real-world food poisoning outbreaks — cross-contamination, not an edge case. ESSENTIALS

Section 1 — Water Safety (7 criteria)

1. Source of drinking water is identified and documented (municipal, borehole, treated, bottled)
2. Water intended for drinking is tested or treated, with records kept of the most recent result
3. Water storage tanks are covered, cleaned on a documented schedule, and protected from contamination
4. Guests have access to safe drinking water at all times, clearly indicated if tap water is not potable ESSENTIALS
5. Swimming pool water (if applicable) is tested and treated on a documented schedule
6. Any history of water-related guest illness in the past 12 months has been investigated and addressed
7. Staff responsible for water systems have basic training in safe handling

Section 2 — Food & Dining Hygiene (7 criteria)

1. Kitchen staff have basic food safety training, documented
2. Cold chain integrity and raw/cooked separation are covered under Section 0 — compulsory, not scored here.
3. Food storage areas are clean, pest-free, and properly sealed ESSENTIALS
4. Staff follow basic hand hygiene practices during food handling ESSENTIALS
5. Water used in food preparation meets the same safety standard as drinking water (Section 1)
6. A documented process exists for handling guest food allergies or dietary restrictions
7. Waste food and kitchen waste are disposed of in a way that does not attract pests
8. Any food-related guest illness in the past 12 months has been investigated and addressed

Section 3 — Pest & Vermin Control (11 criteria)

1. A documented pest control protocol exists, not just an ad-hoc response to sightings
2. Evidence of recent treatment is available (service records, dates, products used)
3. Food storage and guest rooms show no active signs of infestation at time of assessment ESSENTIALS
4. Where mosquito-borne illness is a regional risk, facility has a documented mosquito control measure (netting, repellents, standing water management)
5. Pest control products used are appropriate for a guest-occupied environment and stored safely
6. Sewage and wastewater systems are properly managed and maintained — a poorly managed system is a direct entry route for pests, not a separate issue
7. Windows, doors, and other building entry points close and seal properly, limiting pest entry
8. Bed bugs — prevention: a routine inspection protocol for guest rooms exists (mattress seams, headboards, furniture joints), not only inspection after a guest complaint, with protective mattress/box-spring encasements in use
9. Bed bugs — response: a documented procedure exists for when a case is reported — the room is pulled from service for professional treatment, not simply cleaned and rebooked, and adjacent rooms are checked
10. Bed bugs — learning: each incident is logged with enough detail to spot a pattern (room, likely source if known, treatment outcome), feeding directly into Section 9’s incident log. A documented, properly handled incident is not scored against the facility — undocumented or ignored incidents are what this criterion actually checks for.
11. Dangerous wildlife intrusion is prevented (snakes and other locally relevant animals) — sealed entry points, documented response procedure if one is found, and staff know what to do. Especially relevant to rural, safari, and ground-floor properties ESSENTIALS

Section 4 — Fire & Emergency Safety (6 criteria)

1. Fire extinguishers are present, in-date, and accessible in key areas ESSENTIALS
2. Emergency exits are clearly marked and kept unobstructed
3. Staff have received basic fire response training, documented
4. A written emergency evacuation plan exists and is known to staff
5. Guests are informed of basic safety information on arrival (exits, emergency contacts)
6. Electrical installations show no obvious hazards (exposed wiring, overloaded circuits)
7. First aid is covered under Section 0 — it is compulsory, not scored here.

Section 5 — Medical Emergency Response (6 criteria)

1. On-site medical capability is honestly disclosed — health post, nurse, doctor on call, or none of these. Not required to have one; required to state the truth, clearly, to guests and to ASF ESSENTIALS
2. Where on-site staff are described as medically trained, their actual qualification is documented — not assumed from a job title
3. A written medical emergency protocol exists, separate from the fire evacuation plan: who staff call first, in what order, who takes responsibility for next steps
4. The nearest hospital genuinely capable of real emergency care is identified by name, with real travel time documented — not “nearby”
5. A real evacuation/transport method exists for a medical emergency — an arranged vehicle, an ambulance service with a working number, or equivalent — not assumed to exist because a road is nearby
6. First-aid training (required under Section 0) specifically includes CPR — the one skill that actually determines survival in the first minutes of a cardiac event ESSENTIALS

Section 6 — General Hygiene & Cleaning (9 criteria)

1. Guest rooms follow a documented cleaning protocol between stays
2. Common areas (reception, dining, pool) are visibly clean at time of assessment
3. Bed linen and towels are laundered to a documented standard between guests
4. Bathrooms and toilets are cleaned and maintained to a basic hygiene standard
5. Waste disposal (general waste, not just food waste) is managed hygienically
6. Staff with visible illness are not assigned to guest-facing or food-handling duties
7. Air conditioning and central ventilation systems are cleaned and maintained on a documented schedule — an unmaintained AC or central HVAC system is a genuine infection risk (including Legionella), not just a comfort issue ESSENTIALS
8. Bathroom and toilet ventilation specifically is functional, not merely assumed — distinct from general room ventilation, since poor bathroom ventilation drives mould and odour as well as pathogen risk
9. Lighting is adequate throughout the facility, especially stairs, walkways, and bathrooms — a genuine fall and injury prevention issue, not an aesthetic one ESSENTIALS

Section 7 — Guest Safety & Security (7 criteria)

1. Emergency contact numbers (local medical, police) are posted and known to staff
2. Guest rooms have functioning locks
3. Swimming pools and water features (if applicable) have visible safety signage and, where appropriate, supervision
4. Wildlife or terrain-specific safety briefings are given where the location warrants it (e.g., proximity to wildlife areas)
5. A clear process exists for a guest to report a safety concern during their stay
6. Vehicles used for guest transport (if operated by the facility) are roadworthy and drivers licensed
7. Sharp hazards are identified and addressed — exposed edges, broken glass or tiles, blades and similar objects are not left accessible to guests, and any sharps requiring disposal (e.g., used razors) have a safe disposal method ESSENTIALS

Section 8 — Accessibility (4 criteria)

1. At least one guest room is accessible, or the facility can clearly explain why its physical layout genuinely prevents this ESSENTIALS
2. At least one bathroom usable by the accessible room is genuinely accessible, not just nominally labelled as such
3. At least one common area (dining, reception, or equivalent) is reachable without stairs or another uncrossable barrier
4. Staff know how to assist a guest with a disability if asked — this is a staff-awareness check, not a construction requirement, and costs nothing to meet

Section 9 — Management & Continuity (6 criteria)

1. A named person is responsible for health and safety at the facility
2. Incidents (illness, injury, safety near-misses) are logged, not just handled informally
3. Staff receive refresher training on the above at a documented interval
4. The facility has reviewed and updated its own practices at least once since its last ASF check-in
5. Corrective actions from any previous assessment have been addressed
6. Facility management can describe, in plain terms, what would trigger an internal review of safety practices

One practical path — three layers working together, not one bloated standard

A facility shouldn’t have to chase three disconnected certifications with three disconnected processes. But the right fix for that isn’t merging everything into one oversized standard — it’s showing clearly that three real frameworks already divide this ground sensibly, and a facility doing ASF Tourism is already most of the way toward the other two, not starting from zero on each.

The environmental layer is marked optional deliberately — pursuing GSTC or Ecotourism Kenya certification is a separate choice a facility can make on its own, not something ASF Tourism requires or depends on. The practical version of “one path” is this: ASF stays lean and does the one thing it’s built for exceptionally well, and the standard itself is written so a facility that completes it already has most of the operational documentation GSTC’s auditors would also want to see — without ASF trying to independently verify environmental criteria it has no particular expertise in judging. Where a facility also wants GSTC or Ecotourism Kenya certification, ASF verification is a head start on that process, not a separate, disconnected effort.

This is also why the standard didn’t grow larger to absorb UNWTO’s or GSTC’s ground: a 90-criteria standard covering everything would recreate precisely the bureaucracy problem the Essentials track above was built to solve. Narrow and genuinely independent beats broad and diluted.

References

This standard and its proposed process were built against real, checked precedent — not written in isolation. These are the sources it draws on, for comparison, caution, or direct methodological reference.

1. TÜV NORD CERT — “Hygiene and Cleanliness Checked.” Independent on-site hygiene verification for hotels, 0.5–2 man-days depending on facility size. Referenced directly for the half-day assessment benchmark. tuev-nord.de
2. SGS — Vendor Assessment Program, Hygiene Audit for Hotels and Restaurants. Standard product scoped around a 0.5 man-day on-site audit. Second confirmation that half a day is credible, established practice among major inspection bodies, not an ASF shortcut.
3. UNWTO (UN Tourism) — International Code for the Protection of Tourists (2022). A real UN Tourism instrument, formally adhered to by 26+ member states. Government-level consumer protection and emergency assistance for tourists — referenced to show where ASF Tourism sits relative to existing UN-level frameworks, not duplicating them.
4. Bureau Veritas — SafeGuard label (Marina Bay Sands and others). On-site audits with medical advisory input (Cleveland Clinic). Referenced as the standard of genuine third-party verification this programme aims to match.
5. GSTC (Global Sustainable Tourism Council) — Hotel Standard v4.01. States explicitly that health, safety, and security “fall under the responsibility of specialized authorities and are outside the scope of this standard set.” Cited as direct confirmation of the gap this standard fills.
6. Ecotourism Kenya — Eco-rating Certification Scheme. Kenya’s own GSTC-recognised environmental certification, since 2002. Referenced for its documented uptake challenges among smaller operators.
7. Kenya Tourism Regulatory Authority — EAC Classification System. The mandatory national star-rating and bronze/silver/gold scheme. Referenced to define this standard’s boundary — ASF verification sits alongside TRA classification, never inside or in place of it.
8. WTTC — “Safe Travels” Stamp. The most globally recognised safety label in travel, explicitly self-assessed rather than independently verified. Referenced as the familiar concept this standard borrows the idea of a “safety stamp” from, while changing the verification behind it.
9. Qualifyze / Salinen Austria shared-audit case study. Pharmaceutical supply-chain audit sharing, scaling from 5 to 18 participating companies over three years, avoiding 17 separate audits. Referenced as real precedent for the batched-mission model proposed here.
10. Diapharm — joint API inspection “audit tours.” Multi-facility regional inspection trips run specifically to cut travel cost. Referenced as a second, independent precedent for batched assessment.
11. ISO/PAS 5643:2021 — Spain’s “Safe Tourism Certified.” A genuine ISO document (ISO/TC 228, approved May 2021), underpinning a real national scheme: endorsed by Spain’s Ministry of Health, audited by independent certification bodies, not self-assessed. The closest existing precedent to ASF Tourism’s own model — government-backed, ISO-referenced, and independently verified. Turkey runs a comparable national “Safe Tourism Certification Program” of its own.
12. Ecotourism Kenya — Eco-rating Certification Guide (2016, revised). The actual certification guide, reviewed directly: of 13 scored parameters, Health & Safety is one line — “compliance with health and safety regulations… evidenced by documentation” — worded almost identically across all three award levels (Bronze, Silver, Gold). Cited as direct, primary-source confirmation of the gap ASF Tourism exists to fill, not a secondhand description of it.
13. Travelife — an international sustainability certification body (self-reported compliance plus an independent on-site audit), operating in Kenya through a formal partnership with Ecotourism Kenya and KATO. Kenya’s own Ministry of Tourism and Kenya Tourism Board are listed as partner organisations of this scheme — a real, documented example of an international certification body government-endorsed inside one of ASF Tourism’s own target countries. Same pattern as GSTC and Ecotourism Kenya: environmental and social sustainability, not independently verified safety.

The global landscape, compiled

Research estimates put the number of sustainable tourism certification schemes worldwide at over 200 (DestiNet). Most of the major, internationally recognised ones are self-reported compliance backed by a paid on-site audit — the same basic shape as Travelife and Green Globe below. Every single one found, without exception, is scoped to environmental and social sustainability, not independently verified health and safety. That gap is consistent across all of them, not just the few examples already cited above.

Every scheme on this list — and, per the DestiNet estimate, the roughly 190 more not individually profiled here — competes on the same ground: environmental and social sustainability. None independently verifies water safety, food hygiene, pest control, or fire safety. That specific space stays genuinely open.

One core, with room to grow — offered, never imposed

Why any of this matters, stated plainly: the goal is a tourism industry that is genuinely safe and responsible, and travellers who can actually feel that — not guess at it — when they choose where to stay. Over 200 separate schemes worldwide means a facility that wants to do right by its guests on more than one front has to repeat the same basic effort again and again, with a different form and a different fee each time. That friction doesn’t serve the traveller. It just makes doing the right thing harder than it should be.

ASF is not becoming Green Globe, EarthCheck, or GSTC, and does not issue their certifications. What’s worth exploring instead, and only ever as something ASF proposes to a country or local partner — never required, never assumed — is ASF’s own genuinely comprehensive certification: the health and safety core that exists today, plus real, independently verified coverage of other responsible-tourism issues where a partner wants that breadth. One system, under ASF’s own standard and ASF’s own verification, instead of a facility juggling several.

Being explicit about this now: nothing described in this section exists today. It’s a direction worth keeping in mind as the core standard and its first local partner get settled — not a commitment, and not something to build before the fundamentals are proven.

63 criteria, 9 sections, a 6-item compulsory gateway, one day on-site. Only 12 of the 63 — one or two per category — are tagged Essentials; the rest apply to the Full Standard track only. This is the discussion draft — criteria, wording, and weighting are all open for input from whichever local partner ASF ultimately works with — in Kenya, Tanzania, Georgia, or elsewhere — before anything is finalised.

See How the Process Works →
← ASF Tourism Overview