Although PPT and ST-EP are signifi cant policy initiatives, the utilisation of tourism to combat poverty faces signifi cant challenges, which has led to a ques-tioning of the extent that tourism can actually alleviate poverty and assist poor people to have improved livelihoods. These limitations are exemplifi ed in Box 5.2 which considers the use of tourism for poverty reduction in the case of Humla in Nepal. The basic tenet of tackling poverty through tourism rests upon ensuring the economic involvement of the poor in the industry. To achieve this requires
enlightened political leadership, philanthropy from the private sector and tourists, access to resources and the ability to establish meaningful partnerships between different stakeholders. As the major player infl uencing tourism investment and the distribution of its benefi ts, the willingness of the private sector to adopt an ethos of providing opportunities for the poor will be critical to the success of PPT and ST-EP initiatives.
Although governments have the power to infl uence the tourism industry, they are unable to legislate that private investors must provide non-commercial benefi ts for the poor. Nevertheless, the success of any poverty reduction strategy is dependent upon visionary leadership by government and, critically, they must recognise the potential of tourism as a means of alleviating poverty. Similarly, international donor agencies such as the World Bank, and the Asian and African Development Banks need to be aware of the potential and be willing to support poverty reduction strategies using tourism. Government and international devel-opment agencies also have a key bridging role in attempting to establish mean-ingful links and cooperation between the established industry and the poor in attempts to give them access to participation in tourism. In meeting this objective, policy frameworks determined by governments have a signifi cant role to play in facilitating the involvement of the poor in tourism. This would include the alloca-tion of resources for training, micro-loans for enterprise development, and fair-trade strategies. Examples of such initiatives undertaken by the Netherlands Development Organisation (SNV) and United Nations Development Agency (UNDP) are given in Boxes 5.2 and 5.3.
BOX 5.2 PRO-POOR TOURISM IN HUMLA, NEPAL
Humla is one of the most remote and under-developed regions of Nepal, situated in the north-west corner of the country on the border with Tibet and ranked as the fourth poorest region in Nepal with a human population of approximately 50,000. The people in the area suffer from severe food defi cits and occasional disease epidemics.
Development options are severely limited by its cold mountainous terrain, only 1 per cent of the land being suitable for agriculture, and its poor infrastructure, even the district capital of Simikot is ten days walk from the nearest road. Lack of opportunities for women is an evident issue as Humla is the lowest ranking region of Nepal in terms of women’s empowerment.
Given the poor infrastructure, the Netherlands Development Agency (SNV) has been active in improving trails and foot suspension bridges
within the area. Besides aiding the movement of people and facili-tating the transport of goods by animals – including mules and yaks – the main Hilsa-Simikot trail is now of a standard to permit trekking tourism. However, the numbers of tourists trekking on the route is in hundreds per annum, meaning that tourism makes a limited contribu-tion to economic and social development in the region. This limited effect is compounded by economic leakages with much of the tourism revenue resting with trekking agencies based in Kathmandu who sell the trips to the trekkers.
The majority of the people live below the World Bank poverty line, very few have regularly paid jobs and some are ‘landless’, struggling to produce even one month’s worth of food. A problem in developing stronger tourism linkages within the area is the limited availability of local products and services for the outside agencies to use; for example, many of the trekking agencies bring all their food with them from Kathmandu. It is subsequently proposed to develop a multiple-use visitor centre for the region, where different tourism stakeholders could meet and exchange services, products and information. This would permit the coordination of services such as transportation, guides, portering equipment and agricultural produce – for example, vegetables, fruit and poultry – with the aim of maximising opportunities for the access of the poor to the tourism market. However, one of the problems faced in developing mean-ingful links between the private sector agencies and the poor is a cultural and political problem. Trekking companies have already established relationships with the local ‘elite’ who operate a monopoly on trekking in the area and control market competition and access.
Alongside helping to develop the infrastructure, the role of the SNV is also to act as a facilitator for pro-poor tourism through the District Partners Programme (DPP), which aims to provide an institutional environment for sustainable economic development initiatives for women and men. This involves acting as a coordinator of stake-holders, including village committees, the private sector and NGOs who are working in the area. Emphasis is placed on participatory planning, stakeholder involvement and capacity building for the poor to work in the tourism sector. This capacity building includes aspects of product development, marketing strategies and the establishment of linkages with outside trekking agencies. Having identifi ed the potential feasibility of tourism in Humla, training has been given to
the District Development Committees and NGO staff operating in Humla in aspects of sustainable and pro-poor tourism. The sourcing of funding for micro-tourism enterprise development is also another important role for SNV.
The practical outcomes of the project to date include improved sani-tation (over 400 toilets have been built on the trail); community support funds for the development of micro-enterprises have been approved; a tax of US$2 per tourist is now being levied; and one community campsite has been developed. Ultimately, how successful the scheme proves to be depends upon political will, stakeholders’
partnerships and available resources. The vulnerability of tourism to external factors has been demonstrated by the recent civil war between the Maoists and the then government, which caused a decrease in tourism demand to Nepal, a situation that is now hopefully fully resolved.
Source: after Saville, 2001
BOX 5.3 NEPAL: TOURISM FOR RURAL POVERTY ALLEVIATION PROJECT (TRPA)
This project was funded by the United Nations Development Project (UNDP) and illustrates the use of tourism for development across several government ministries. Its aim was to tackle poverty through the creation of a sustainable tourism development project in line with Nepal’s Ninth National Development Plan (NNDP) for the period 2000–2005. A holistic approach that integrated the poverty alleviation objectives of other economic sectors including health, transport, agriculture and environment was taken. The aim of this strategy was to demonstrate how tourism could be used for poverty reduction and at the same time complement the wider objectives of other government ministries. For example, an objective of the Ministry of Health was to provide clean drinking water to all communities and improve the levels of sanitation. This objective would need to be met through the TRPA project, because without a water supply and a suit-able level of sanitation, sustainsuit-able tourism would not be possible.
A further objective of the NNDP was to improve the biophysical envi-ronment of Nepal, and more specifi cally to remedy the envienvi-ronmental problems arising from the existing economic and social conditions,
especially poverty. The TRPA was seen to have a signifi cant role in achieving this objective.
A range of pilot projects were established in impoverished districts of Nepal in 2001, the basis for identifying the selected geographical areas being a series of indicators developed by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). These included life expectancy and health standards, literacy levels, remoteness and lack of public infrastructure, gender inequality, and per capita income. Six districts were chosen, from which target groups were identifi ed to maximise the impacts tourism could have on alleviating poverty and aiding the poor. By 2006, tourism ventures had been established with 48 Village Development Committees (VDCs) in impoverished parts of Nepal.
Inherent to the approach of TPRA was the participation of local communities in tourism ventures. Thus emphasis was placed upon impoverished village communities undertaking self-assessment in terms of their capabilities and resources for tourism. The extent to which the scheme has been successful is unknown as it awaits detailed assessment. However, it has brought together three levels of government – national agencies and ministries, District Develop-ment Committees and VDCs with industry stakeholders – and facili-tated community empowerment. Examples of practical projects include the construction of a Sherpa porters’ shelter at Namche for 60 porters with beds, toilets, washing facilities and a kitchen. Prior to this, there were no facilities for porters – injuries and the death of porters being a major concern of trekking tourism in Nepal. Another project was the establishment of a micro-hydro energy project in Phortse village in Lower Sagamartha that helps to supply electricity to households and tourist lodges. This is an area that has substan-tial tourism but has suffered a major energy crisis resulting in defor-estation. A further initiative is capacity-building training workshops including environment and waste management, biodiversity, lodge management and accountancy.
Source: after Rossetto et al. , 2007
The case study of Humla (Box 5.2) vividly illustrates the challenges that are faced in geographically isolated regions of countries, in this case a landlocked country, which is one of several contributing factors to the underdevelopment that character-ises Nepal. The role of SNV as a facilitator and coordinator has been important for bringing various stakeholders together with interests in tourism. The second case
study in Box 5.3 , the ‘Tourism for Rural Poverty Alleviation Project’ is signifi cant because of its ambition to link tourism into achieving the priorities and objectives of several government ministries. This is important as the political ranking of ministries of tourism may be relatively low compared to other ministries, including agriculture and health, just as International Development Agencies may fi nd themselves in low position relative to other government departments. Through being able to demon-strate how tourism can make a positive contribution to opportunities for health and education within an integrated planning approach across government ministries, tourism’s chances of playing an active part in achieving targets such as MDGs and improving the poor’s well-being are enhanced.
Yet, tourism cannot have a universal geographical application in combating poverty in developing countries and there are several challenges to its use for poverty reduc-tion as shown in Figure 5.2 . Scale and resources of place are important variables in the likely prioritisation of tourism for poverty reduction. An evident pre-requisite for tourism development is that there is an asset base of natural and cultural resources that is attractive for tourists. Consequently, tourism’s use in combating poverty will
Figure 5.2 Challenges to the use of tourism for poverty reduction Source: after UNWTO, 2006b
Lack of coordination and Lack of political awareness between partnerships between national and international authorities of tourism stakeholders in the potential of tourism for poverty
PRS reduction
\ I
Qualityand Structures of political economy
sustainability of the that restrict the poor's
natural and cultural economic opportunities, e.g.
resources for tourism land ownership
M."i"9'Y""~ l
Challenges to the use of tourismI /
Potential high for poverty reduction in LDCs ~ economic leakageof tourists supportive ~ factor
of the poverty tourism
~
agenda
~
Uncertain commitment of the private sector to demonstrate social responsibility and to engage with the poverty reduction agenda
Competition from other destinations offering a similar product Volatile tourism demand
caused by external factors, e.g.
terrorism , natural disasters, economic recession and shifting market tastes
be restricted to specifi c regions and locations, and subsequently not all LDCs and regions of developing countries will be able to benefi t equally. In Ricardian termi-nology, some places will possess the natural and cultural resources that lend them a much stronger comparative advantage than others. Geographical scale also infl u-ences the intensity of the impacts of tourism on poverty reduction. As Ashley et al.
(2001) comment, whilst poverty reduction through PPT may be signifi cant at a local or district level, its national impacts would vary according to the relative importance of tourism to the national economy.
The characteristics and hegemonic relationships of political economy will also be infl uential in determining the success of tourism and poverty initiatives. Local tenure and land-ownership issues will be important in deciding not only which land is used for tourism but also the extent to which poor people have access to resources for their livelihoods. Where poor people lack ownership rights, they are vulnerable to development decisions which may act directly against their own interests. In contrast, tenure over land, wildlife or other tourism assets can give the poor market power, enabling them to play an active participatory part in decision-making and secure benefi ts from tourism (Ashley et al. , 2000). There is also a need to educate policy makers about tourism. Whilst governments have become more aware of the macro-economic benefi ts that can be gained from tourism as explained in Chapter 2 , there is a lack of awareness of how tourism can be used for poverty reduction. As the UNWTO (2006b: 5) point out: ‘it is often believed that tourism can develop and bear fruits for the host society solely through the action of private investors, which in the case of most LDCs is mostly foreign’, a perspective which has been shown to be wrong, as the economic, environmental and social costs of inappro-priate tourism development have become more evident.
Partnerships between the different tourism stakeholders will be essential to the success of tourism poverty reduction schemes. Beside an enlightened approach from national governments to incorporate tourism into PRSs where viable and a political will to empower the poor through capacity building and opportunity crea-tion, all the stakeholders in tourism will need to adopt an informed and philan-thropic approach to how tourism can be used to help the poor. Issues of ethics and collective working for a greater social good vis-à-vis an emphasis on the individual benefi t of an organisation will determine the success of any poverty strategy. For example, hotel owners and tour operators need to work with local communities and local government to develop a model of tourism that actively presents the poor with livelihood opportunities. The private sector also needs to evaluate its supply chain linkages to local suppliers, attempting to develop and maximise these where possible to multiply income and employment opportunities for the poor.
A further key tenet of poverty reduction is the strengthening of inter-sectoral link-ages with tourism to enhance economic benefi ts for the poor and reduce high economic leakages from tourism. One sector of the economy for which this is
particularly important is agriculture. As Torres and Momsen (2004) note, agricul-ture remains the livelihood of most of the poorest people in developing countries and tourism has the potential to create extra demand for local agricultural produce.
However, the development of this backward linkage is dependent upon the tourism industry being willing to facilitate communications and negotiations with local farmers, and they, in turn, having the ability to supply produce of a quality and regularity that is demanded by the industry.
A further reason for the necessity to develop linkages to other economic sectors such as agriculture is that without it, there is a danger that a polarised form of devel-opment based upon tourism may take place (Brohman, 1996). Subsequently, as tourism becomes more successful, the rest of the economy fails to follow, causing a disparity of wealth between tourism and other types of economic activity (Torres and Momsen, 2004). The medium- to long-term effects of this are for more natural and human resources to be used for tourism as it becomes more fi nancially benefi -cial than other economic sectors. The ultimate effect may be to create an economic over-dependency upon tourism and a subsequent threat to livelihoods and social well-being if demand falls. The threat of a decrease in tourism demand, combined with the vulnerability of tourism demand to external factors, is a signifi cant chal-lenge to the use of tourism as means for development or tackling poverty. Events such as terrorism, natural disasters, economic recession and changing market tastes all threaten tourism demand. Even if it may seem that prioritising the use of tourism for poverty reduction lends a moral authority to a right for the success of a tourism destination market competition from other destinations will remain. The use of tourism for poverty reduction does not bestow an automatic right for success on a destination; its success will depend on marketing and the quality of the product just as for any other tourism destination or type of tourism.