Tourism development and some thoughts on Samaranayake report

Vipula WANIGASEKERA

The new tourism act was to be a panacea to all ills. At least the private sector thought so, but not all of them. When the SMEs had their grievances that only the big cartel will call the shots, the SME Association was invited to the Boards.

The private sector concern had always been that their inputs were not taken for decision making, particularly in marketing.

The upcoming Hambantota Convention Centre on a Presidential directive - adds to the Tourism Product Development Program

Others argue that the money in the TDF was collected from consumers and departing travellers and the private sector institutions were only collecting points.

The Act was gazetted regardless, with all the good intentions although some errors raised questions.

The term ' body corporate' for instance does not warrant an Agency to be a Company by Guarantee - an ideal institutional framework that can function without undue procedures.

But that was only a perception. The autocratic style of making decisions can occur under any structure whether it is a company or a statutory body. The directives can be highly individualistic and driven by personal agenda, overshadowing anything with national interest.

For a layman, the Act is expected to Simplify procedures, Reduce excessive bureaucracy and Fast track programs envisaged to reach short and long term goals. All these can be reviewed now after two years of operation under the new Act.

The promulgation of the new Act was a bold move and in fairness to the Minister then, 'an oversight committee' was appointed to closely monitor the functions and rectify any defects, while gathering policy issues to be ratified in one go, by way of an amendment. This committee needs to be revived.

The Samaranayake report could not be implemented.

But it has much substance that needs serious consideration because it answers the current questions in a sensible manner.

Despite the time limitation of six weeks, it has done an in depth study. It explains how the Tourist Board evolved in contrast to the tourism authorities of other competing countries. The vital area that the report deals with is the link between Product Development and Marketing.

By the early 90s, the term Marketing was black magic and a subject which according to the private sector then, could not be comprehended by state institutions such as the Tourist Board.

This notion is a myth today when the essence of product development reveals that the marketing is more common sense. The arrival figure from June to August is a sufficient testimony.

The Samaranayake report says 'Product development cannot be divorced from Tourism Promotion and the two functions must necessarily and logically handled by one legal body'.

This was stated on the basis that the Tourist Board grew as a multifunctional and unitary body bearing the 'brunt of the destination development, marketing, regulatory and quality assurance efforts'.

Product development is an activity in a wider spectrum. It entails identification of locations, earmarking boundaries, making clearances, developing guidelines and facilitating investors.

When the positioning of Sri Lanka tourism some years ago was 'Beyond Beaches', the product development potential was Kalpitiya and the East before and after the conflict.

Quite rightly, the report emphasizes that the Convention Bureau (SLCB) needs no changes and that it could be allocated a sum of money from TDF. The report, however does not bring out the true essence of the MICE Business which in many countries, is a separate industry with a tourism element. The report is critical on the disbursement of the funds. It argues that the Tourism Authority cannot have a predetermined ratio. The funds have to be released based on the needs.

In principle, this goes without an argument but in reality a proper system of disbursing funds must be developed.

The SLCB is one institution that opposed the centralizing of the fund which creates unwarranted bureaucracy and undue delays.

This institution already had bitter experience having been sent from pillar to post to correct 'commas and hyphens' in financial statements. The close coordination that is expected of the Institutions has become questionable and this is well cited in the report.

Each institution has defined its own priority and wherever there is a joint activity envisaged in the national interest, a firm directive has to come from higher echelons which should not be the case.

The uncertainty makes the unions restless on the future of the Tourism Authority. They are questioning the wastage of funds, lack of responsibility and accountability for which rational answers need to be given to them. 'we do things professionally' implying that others no nothing' would not hold water in the long run.

The time has come for consensus among all stakeholders for directions followed by activities. The Samaranayake Report is the closest to the required answers but that too needs adjustments now, because it was published before the Act was promulgated.

The modification to its recommendation could be done on the basis that a) it has been nearly two years since the new Act has been established so there is enough time to ascertain strengths and weaknesses and b) the country has entered a new era after the conflict ended, calling for different tourism strategies altogether in which product development gets a pride of place.

(The writer is the former Director Marketing of SLTB, Senior Diplomat in the Foreign Service and presently the General Manager of SLCB).