Tourism strategy for poverty reduction

Vipula Wanigasekera

Caroline Ashley, Harold Goodwin and Dilys Roe through their work on Pro-Poor Tourism Strategies (PPT) shed some light on the need to ensure passing of tourism benefits to peripherals and to the masses which obviously is the political interest of any Government of the day.

Although vertical integration that takes place in a natural business environment enables growth and sustainability of tourism in general, it could be perceived as cartels that control the market and prices in general. Unfortunately the statistics do not show the real indirect benefits to the nation that need to be projected to assist policy making.

The research carried out in South Africa, Namibia, Uganda, Nepal, St. Lucia and Ecuador deals with the subject of pro-poor tourism (PPT) that generates net benefits for the poor. PPT is an overall approach, rather than aiming to expand the size of the sector. This approach is to unlock opportunities hitherto not seen and exploited.

As Sri Lanka has entered a new era and tourism has already started taking off, the subject is relevant at a time the authorities contemplate on product development particularly areas that have opened up for tourism. A vital part of product development is for economic gains to enhance the livelihood of the poor in the areas earmarked for development.

Tourism that is on a development path is expected to increase employment and reduce poverty. To achieve this in a true sense, the guidelines would identify the characteristics, one of which is labour intensive scale inclusive of women and the involvement of informal sector tourism thus harnessing tourism for pro-poor growth.

The previous case studies show in some countries that pro poor tourism strategies have not helped generating new opportunities and benefits for the poor. When this happens tourism will not seem so valuable to the people and so to the politicians. The public support for the industry will gradually diminish.

Easier said than done, so one may ask how such strategies are implemented to please all stakeholders including the informal sectors. The first step is said to be that those involved in planning tourism - policy makers, planners, businesses, consultants incorporate pro-poor concerns at all levels.

Theoretically it is explained as ‘bottom-up social mobilization to top-down investment packaging.’ Pro poor tourism thus goes beyond community tourism. It calls for diversity of actions, from planning, policy making, product and development, marketing.

The driving force of this understanding of the need to serve the poor, begins from the planning stage with the involvement of stakeholders, particularly when developing new locations and products and integrating them into the mainstream of tourism activities.

The private sector naturally demands business viability of any tourism venture in terms of the demand, product quality, service standards and skills. The customer orientation is a pre-requisite for business sustainability that forces them to meet certain business standards.

Private sector will therefore expect State support to harness social needs through various encouragements and incentives. For instance external funding may be required to cover the costs of partnerships and developing skills in rural areas.

Unless the youth in the areas of development are skilled , it will not be possible for them to be engaged when the products are ready for operations. This is similar to Safaris that are organized with equity share with neighbouring experts thus bringing in high percentage of local staff and supports culturally-based local attractions.
ILO Director-General Juan Somavia - through his work Reducing poverty through tourism also raises some valuable points. It touches on ‘ Barriers to tourism benefiting poor people’ with examples. Apart from low literacy and poor job skills, the gender norms affect the women from working in the tourism sector. This must be overcome through education.

The lack of finance, micro credit, or loan facilities to set up enterprises as well as seasonal variations may affect smaller business. In addition many poor communities may live remote from places where tourism flourishes and they lose the access to the products to do any business.

Indirect employment can be made possible if the area is simultaneously developed as a tourism village not only with supply units, shops but also entertainment. They require technical advice, support and particularly understanding of the tourism industry and a marketing drive.

The quality of food produced in nearby areas may not be suitable for tourists. This is a concern of hoteliers. Another point is that communities may be unaware of tourist expectations which is partly caused by lack of language skills.

Somavia’s recommendations include a) Encouraging dispersion of tourism to poor areas, through infrastructural investment and marketing, b) Revising regulations that impede the poor in employment or small business, and support small business more generally and c) Consulting with residents when making decisions about tourism in their areas.

Some developing countries have the problem of admitting that the country is in the developing stage. In tourism activities for instance, the visitors would be more than happy to engage themselves in an activity that would help the poor as part of their holiday. They return with the pleasant feeling that they have done something worthwhile in the country while having a holiday.