Pro-poor tourism initiatives in developing countries: analysis of secondary case studies.
Xavier Cattarinich
The
purpose of this project was to conduct a wider overview of existing PPT
initiatives and to contribute additional - if less systematically researched
- case study materials that would supplement the core case studies of
the ODI, IIED, and CRT study on PPT initiatives
The analysis contained in this report is based on a review of the relevant
research literature (both published and unpublished), and on the results
of two series of questionnaires and telephone interviews with organisations
that claim to practice PPT. The research is exploratory, and due to the
limitations of the data and the methodology, the conclusions drawn in
this report should be viewed as tentative at best.
'Improved use of the environment and natural resources' is the only outcome that all 17 actors/enterprises (i.e., international NGOs and donors, private companies, and local/national NGOs and CBOs) that responded to the screening questionnaire reportedly have in common. Most environmental initiatives pursued by the four local/national NGOs/CBOs and the two private companies that participated in the follow-up survey included environmental education. Other initiatives included reforestation programmes, the use of solar power and non-electrical compost toilets, and the creation of a 'food forest' (in Samoa). When the six follow-up respondents were asked to rank order the significance of their impacts for the poor, however, 'improved use of natural resources and the environment' was not ranked among the most important impacts. Rather, the majority of participants in the follow-ups viewed economic initiatives such as job creation and local sourcing as most significant. While these findings may only reflect particularities among the follow-up cases, it equally is possible that they reveal a general trend: that many actors pursue initiatives that have beneficial environmental impacts, but that those initiatives and impacts are of secondary importance for the poor.
All but one enterprise claimed in the screening survey to generate 'funds for the community,' and 'more casual labour,' 'jobs,' 'new opportunities for the informal sector and small businesses,' and the provision of 'skills or education' also figured prominently among the impacts reported by respondents. Of the latter, 'new opportunities for the informal sector' and 'skills/education' were more frequently cited by NGOs and CBOs as areas in which their PPT initiatives have had a significant impact, while private companies emphasised 'more jobs' and 'casual labour.' Donors and international NGOs were too few to draw any kind of pattern from their responses.
In terms of specific initiatives, the one most frequently cited across all actor categories in the screening survey was 'working with the poor to address the cultural impacts of tourism.' The follow-up survey indicated that in many cases, 'cultural initiatives' involve little more than a participatory approach to tourism planning with local communities, and encouraging the poor to maintain their 'cultural authenticity' or restricting their exposure to foreign tourists. NGOs and CBOs frequently reported 'working with the poor to address the environmental impacts of tourism,' 'providing training or education in tourism,' 'increasing participation of the poor in tourism policy,' and 'involving poor people in planning/siting decisions.' None of the respondents that participated in the follow-up, however, had formal and explicitly pro-poor involvement at the policy level. Private companies were more likely to employ the poor in tourism jobs or as casual labourers. The least frequently cited initiatives among all actors were 'providing credit to small enterprises' and 'revising tourism regulations to increase participation of the poor.' Overall, infrastructure development was the least frequently cited outcome of PPT initiatives.
Factors cited by respondents that inhibit the poor from participating in tourism include: lack of human, physical, and/or financial capital, and in some cases a lack of marketable assets. Factors cited by respondents that impede the pro-poor potential of enterprises include: corrupt authorities and elites, government opposition to community-based tourism, land conflicts, lack of cooperation/conflicts of interest between residents, environmental pressures, low market demand for particular tourism products, and local jealousies. The factors evidently interact. Those that inhibit the participation of the poor impede the pro-poor potential of enterprises, and vice versa.
A
review of the literature suggests that in order for tourism to maximise
its poverty reduction potential, the application of SAPs in developing
countries should be re-evaluated, national and international regulations
for outbound tour operators from the industrial countries should be revised
in order to facilitate partnerships with domestic operations in destination
countries, and TNCs must alter their behaviour and act in a more socially
responsible way. In relation to the latter point, most respondents indicated
that the key to making tourism more pro-poor lies in consumer awareness
and pressure on tourism businesses.
Communication
