SUSTAINABLE TOURISM ~ ELIMINATING POVERTY (ST~EP)

SUSTAINABLE TOURISM ~ ELIMINATING POVERTY (ST~EP)
An Overview
By Trevor Sofield, Johannes Bauer, Terry De Lacy, Geoffrey Lipman & Sean Daugherty

Copyright © CRC for Sustainable Tourism Pty Ltd 2004
All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright
Act, no part of this book may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the publisher.
National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
Sofield, Trevor.
Sustainable tourism - eliminating poverty : an overview.
Bibliography.
ISBN 1 920704 81 7.
1. Tourism - Economic aspects. 2. Tourism – Environmental aspects. 3. Sustainable development. I. De Lacy, Terry. II. Lipman,
Geoffrey. III. Daugherty, Sean. IV. Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism.
338.4791
Contact information
For further information please contact Prof Trevor Sofield, University of Tasmania [Ph: +61 3 6324 3578 or email:
Trevor.Sofield@utas.edu.au]
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report has been undertaken by the Australian Cooperative Research Centre for Sustainable Tourism, supported by funding from
AusAID.
ii

CONTENTS
Abstract v
Chapter 1INTRODUCTION 1
Outline 2
Chapter 2 KEY ISSUES AND PRINCIPLES OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM AS A TOOL FOR
ELIMINATING POVERTY (ST~EP) 4
Definition 4
Strategies for ST~EP 4
Expanding economic benefits and opportunities 4
Managing non-economic aspects 5
Developing pro-poor policies/processes/partnerships 5
Potential Benefits and Disbenefits of ST~EP 5
Economic benefits 5
Non-Economic benefits 5
Potential disbenefits 6
Chapter 3 TOURISM AS A COMPLEX DYNAMIC SYSTEM 8
Chapter 4 HOLISTIC APPROACH TO COMMUNITY-BASED TOURISM DEVELOPMENT FOR
POVERTY ALLEVIATION 11
Chapter 5 THE NECESSITY FOR AN INTEGRATED INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AND
EMPOWERMENT 14
Empowerment 14
Chapter 6 THE ROLE OF THE WORLD TOURISM ORGANIZATION (WTO) AND UNCTAD IN
SPONSORING AND PROMOTING ST~EP 17
WTO 17
UN Conference on Trade And Development (UNCTAD) 18
Chapter 7 ACTIVITIES OF OTHER INSTITUTIONS AND AGENCIES IN TOURISM AND POVERTY
ALLEVIATION DEVELOPMENT 19
Tourism Organisations 19
United Nations Agencies 20
UN Environment Programme (UNEP) – World Ecotourism Summit 20
Government Development Assistance Agencies 20
Overseas Development Institute, UK 20
Netherlands 20
New Zealand, Canada and the Nordic States 21
Germany 21
International Financial Institutions 21
Asian Development Bank 21
The World Bank 22
International/Non-Governmental Organisations (I/NGOs) 22
Chapter 8 LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (LDCs) IN EAST ASIA AND THE SOUTH PACIFIC 24
Chapter 9 TOURISM IN THE SOUTH PACIFIC 25
The Status and Role of Tourism 25
Constraints regarding tourism and development assistance 26
Issues of Contention 28
Traditional values and culture 28
Natural disaster capabilities 28
Leakage 29
Decentralisation 29
Chapter 10 TOURISM IN EAST ASIA 31
The Status and Role of Tourism 31
East Asia’s LDCs 32
Nam Ha Ecotourism Project, Luang Namtha 33
China 35
Chapter 11 GOVERNANCE, TOURISM AND POVERTY ALLEVIATION 36
iii

Governance and the South Pacific 36
Issues of Land Tenure in the South Pacific 36
Law and Order 38
Legislative Impediments to Indigenous Tourism Ventures 39
Engaging Governments 40
Engaging the Private Sector 40
Chapter 12 THE ENVIRONMENT, TOURISM AND POVERTY ALLEVIATION 41
Chapter 13 GENDER, TOURISM AND POVERTY ALLEVIATION 43
Women’s Employment and Participation in Tourism 43
Chapter 14 CONCLUSIONS 45
Appendix I Summaries of Pro Poor Tourism Case Studies from Overseas Development Institute (ODI) 47
Appendix II UN Millennium Development Goals 54
Appendix III Koroyanitu National Heritage Park, Fiji 55
Appendix IV Mana Island Resort, Fiji 57
Appendix V Legislative impediments to indigenous tourism ventures 58
Appendix VI Green Globe 59
REFERENCES 65
iv

Abstract
For more than fifty of the world’s poorest countries tourism is ranked first, second or third in terms of their economies,
and tourism is the only service industry to show a positive balance of trade with flows from first world countries to
developing countries exceeding those in the opposite direction by US$66 million (World Tourism Organization 2000).
Yet tourism has only very recently been recognised by some aid donors, some international funding agencies, and some
segments of the industry as an appropriate instrument for poverty reduction.
At the World Summit on Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg, South Africa in August 2002, the
World Tourism Organization (WTO), supported by UNCTAD, took a global lead in this field, launching the concept of
‘Sustainable Tourism as an effective tool for Eliminating Poverty’ (ST~EP), and beginning the process of putting a
program in place to implement the concept. This initiative linked the longstanding WTO pursuit of Sustainable Tourism
with the United Nations leadership on Poverty Alleviation that was the focus of the WSSD in Johannesburg. ST~EP
may be seen as a response by the global tourism industry under the leadership of WTO to the United Nations
Millennium Development Goal to halve extreme poverty by 2015.
This report explores the development of what has been termed Pro Poor Tourism in other quarters, up to the
launching of the WTO initiative on ST~EP. The UK Department for International Development (DFID) has played a
significant role over the past five years in exploring ways to harness tourism for poverty reduction, for which it coined
the phrase ‘Pro Poor Tourism’ (PPT). However this term has negative connotations for the industry and ST~EP is a
more acceptable acronym.
PPT/ST~EP is not a new form of tourism. It is not a new kind of tourism product. It is an approach to tourism
in which the tourism cake is tilted so that benefits are specifically directed towards the poor. As a new field of
endeavour for development assistance bureaux and international funding agencies there is no established track record on
which they can draw to consider implementing their own policies. Hence a major component of the WTO program on
ST~EP is to facilitate research and identification of best practice models.
Because tourism is often seen in narrow terms as purely a private sector undertaking, its constellation of
backward and forward linkages into all other areas of economic activity, into society and culture, into the environment
and into Government, are often ignored. However, once tourism is understood as a complex system its capacity to work
as a positive tool for poverty reduction is enhanced. In this context, the role of Government is crucial because without
pro-active Government intervention empowerment of impoverished and disadvantaged segments of populations will be
difficult to achieve. It is argued that for empowerment to succeed, measures to improve the lot of the poorest segments
of a population must be backed by legislation for without a supportive legal framework vested interests will always be
able to challenge affirmative action towards the poor and any pro poor activity will not be sustainable.
v

Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Endemic poverty, unemployment, regional imbalances and economic and social deprivation have been the focus of
significant development assistance in the countries of Asia and the Island Pacific for almost five decades. Since the
largest numbers of poor, depressed and discriminated people live in rural areas those sectors which deliver benefits to
rural areas have been designated as priorities for development action. Decentralisation is therefore often a major plank
in the armoury to tackle poverty alleviation in many of the Asian and Island Pacific countries.
While dramatic advances have been made in many countries, major problems remain especially in remote and
rural areas. In Nepal, for example, despite targeted programs in such areas as agriculture, forestry, health and education,
the numbers living below the poverty line have increased from 30% twenty years ago to more than 42% now (UNDP
Report 1998). Poverty is increasing in countries such as Solomon Islands as political instability has led to economic
dislocation and deteriorating living standards despite more than 25 years of Australian and other development assistance
directed towards rural and community development. In African countries, poverty has become increasingly prevalent in
marginal regions such as mountains or pastoral land (semi-desert) and areas of deforestation. Paradoxically the
successful designation of protected areas (by 1998 some 30,000 such areas had been established, covering almost 9% of
the world’s terrestrial surface) has created new poverty in some places because of restrictions placed on traditional land
use systems - often of indigenous minorities - without conventional development alternatives, as areas previously open
to them have become closed/protected.
Tourism has rarely been recognised as an effective agent of change for poverty alleviation and has been largely
ignored in the development assistance programs of most donor countries, international aid agencies and nongovernmental
organisations. While ‘green’ tourism, eco-tourism and community tourism have some acceptance among
decision-makers, practitioners and advocates as appropriate developmental activities, the focus has been on the need to
ensure that tourism does not erode the environmental and cultural base on which it depends rather than consider the full
range of impacts on the livelihoods of the poor.
The lack of conventional links to development agencies such as FAO, UNDP and conservation agencies (e.g.
WWF, IUCN) has been compounded because such organisations, while increasingly important in the international
environmental agenda, have often viewed tourism in a hostile light either as a competitive land use or as a threat to
ecosystems and the conservation ethic. There is also the issue that without a traditional science and research background
such as forestry and agriculture, the tourism industry has been handicapped in positioning itself intellectually. This
situation is gradually changing as scientists and academics become engaged in tourism research. And as research into
sustainable tourism expands, the potential for tourism to make a contribution to poverty alleviation is becoming better
understood.
According to the World Tourism Organization (WTO), tourism is one of the three largest industries in the
world, rivalling the petroleum industry and automobiles and automobile products. A reduction in world poverty is an
internationally agreed priority and targets have been set to halve poverty by the year 2015 (UN Millennium
Development Goals 2000). Achieving poverty reduction requires actions on a variety of complementary fronts and
scales, but a prerequisite of significant progress is pro-poor growth – growth which benefits the poor.
As an industry that is clearly important in many poor countries, can tourism be one source of such growth?
1

Outline
BOX 1: A GLOBAL PICTURE OF TOURISM & WORLD POVERTY
� Tourism accounts for 11% of the World’s GDP and employs 200 million people.
� It is the world’s fastest growing industry according to the World Tourism
Organization.
� In developing countries, international tourism is increasing by 9.5% a year
compared to 4.6% worldwide.
� Tourism is the only service industry where there is a positive balance of trade
flowing from First World to Third World countries - from US$4.6 billion in 1980
to US$6.6 billion surplus in 1996 (WTO 2000).
� In 1997 developing countries received 30.5% of world international tourist arrivals
(177.6 million), compared with 24% in 1988 (Goodwin, 1998).
� International tourism accounts for 36% of trade in commercial services in advanced
economies and 66% in developing countries.
� Tourism accounts for 3% -10% of GDP in advanced economies and up to 40% in
developing countries.
� International tourism is one of the top 5 exports for 83% of countries and the main
source of foreign currency for at least 38% of countries.
� International tourism is significant (over 2% of GDP or 5% of exports) and
growing (i.e. by at least 50% in 1990–7) in almost half of the 48 low-income
countries, and in virtually all the 53 low income and middle income countries.
� Among the 12 countries that are home to 80% of the world’s poor, tourism is
significant or growing in all but one (WTO 1998).
� There has been a global slow-down in international travel following the 11
September 2001 terrorist attacks on the USA, compounded by the Bali bombings,
the war in Iraq, and most recently the SARS virus which has crippled tourism flows
from and into many Asian destinations. Domestic tourism in some countries
demonstrated an increase in the period since September 11 as internal visitation
was substituted for overseas destinations. As these shocks subside international
tourist flows are expected to recover within one to two years.
(Source: WTO Annual Reports 1997-2002)
This study commences with a definition of Sustainable Tourism as an effective tool for Eliminating Poverty (ST~EP) or
so-called Pro Poor Tourism (PPT). In chapter 2 it then examines in some detail key characteristics, issues and principles
underlying the concept. Chapters 3-5 position ST~EP in the context of the need to understand tourism as a complex,
dynamic system; the need to design interventions for whole-of-community participation and involvement; and the
crucial role that governments must play in assisting societal change and providing legislative support if empowerment is
to prove durable and thus able to contribute to sustainable tourism that can alleviate poverty.
The initiative by the WTO in association with UNCTAD to place ST~EP on the global agenda for an ethicsdriven
approach to tourism development and poverty alleviation is then outlined in Chapter 6. This is followed by a
description of the ST~EP program to be introduced by WTO at its 15 th world conference in Beijing in October 2003,
and describes the WTO’s global ‘Code of Ethics’ by which principles ST~EP will be guided.
Chapter 7 provides a survey of concurrent activity in this field, identifying aid donors such as Britain and the
Netherlands, international finance agencies such as the Asian Development Bank and the World Bank, nongovernmental
organisations, and other UN technical agencies.
Chapter 8 then moves onto an outline of the issues of poverty confronting Lesser Developed Countries in East
Asia and the South Pacific, to set the scene for the next two chapters.
Chapter 9 examines tourism development and poverty alleviation in the South Pacific, noting that there has
been an almost total neglect of the tourism sector in these countries by aid donor countries, despite the fact that in ten of
them tourism is the largest industry and the greatest generator of jobs and foreign exchange. Chapter ten focuses on
2

tourism and poverty alleviation in East Asia. These two regions are chosen simply to broaden the scope of case studies
from the focus on Africa, not in terms of any downgrading of the massive needs that Africa faces in trying to alleviate
the poverty which is endemic to much of that continent but rather to assist in understanding the global spread of poverty
and the role that tourism can play in alleviating human misery and poverty through programs such as ST~EP.
The next three chapters take three themes out of many that could be examined for the relevance of ST~EP.
Chapter 11 appraises Governance, tourism and poverty alleviation. Chapter 12 considers issues of the Environment,
tourism and poverty alleviation. And Chapter 13 scrutinises Gender, tourism and poverty alleviation, particularly in the
context of opportunities for employment of women. Finally, Chapter 14 draws a number of conclusions about tourism,
poverty alleviation and WTO’s global initiative, ST~EP.
3

Chapter 2
KEY ISSUES AND PRINCIPLES OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM AS A TOOL
FOR ELIMINATING POVERTY (ST~EP)
While tourism development has a long history of engaging communities, it is only very recently that a focus has
emerged on the potential and capacities of tourism to be a tool for poverty alleviation. This focus has emerged as part of
a much larger and broader commitment by development assistance agencies and donor governments worldwide over the
past decade to apply their efforts more sharply to poverty alleviation as a foundational aspect of their development
interventions. ‘Pro-poor tourism’ is a term that arose out of a DFID-commissioned review of the links between tourism
and poverty reduction and, as a result, was successfully placed by DFID on the agenda of the 7 th meeting of the United
Nations Commission on Sustainable Development in 1999 (Ashley & Roe 2002). While the idea of harnessing tourism
more effectively for poverty reduction had been developed by the start of the new millennium there was no documented
experience specifically on ‘Pro Poor Tourism’ (PPT). Understanding of PPT was advanced in a significant way by the
establishment in 2000-2001 of an ODI-funded research project designed to underpin the theoretical basis of PPT and
related experience in fields of community tourism, ecotourism, ethical tourism, etc., with reference to a series of six
case studies. The aim ‘was to move the PPT discussion down to practical analysis of actual work in the field. But at the
same time, it needed to draw the analysis and findings back up to the level of generalisations and policy level, to
develop international analysis of PPT’ (Ashley 2002:3). The six case studies selected for analysis (see Appendix I,
Summaries of the Case Studies) were not specifically designed as PPT initiatives but they were identified as having a
major orientation towards, and objectives designed to assist in, alleviating poverty. The ODI project has to date
generated more than 20 studies into PPT and this body of work has informed the discussion which follows.
While the emergent literature from aid agencies tend to use the term ‘pro-poor tourism’, it is also refers to
tourism as a tool for ‘poverty reduction’ or ‘poverty alleviation’, and Sustainable Tourism as an effective tool for
Eliminating Poverty (ST-EP). Industry sources prefer these less pejorative terms as Pro Poor Tourism tends to alienate
tourism managers, investors and most importantly tourists (WTO June 2002; Pacific Asia Travel Association
conference May 2002). A survey by Meyer (2003) for the Overseas Development Institute of aid personnel involved in
the six PPT case study projects indicated a very strong preference for PPT to be discarded. Increasingly the WTO’s
term, ST~EP, is becoming widely accepted and it has been adopted by UNCTAD among others. We will use this term
in preference to PPT (unless quoting directly from sources that use ‘PPT’).
Definition
Following the ODI lead, ST~EP is defined as tourism that generates net benefits for the poor. ST~EP strategies aim to
unlock opportunities for the poor, rather than to expand the overall size of the tourism sector. As the overall tourism
sector of a country grows, ST~EP interventions attempt to involve the poorest sections of a nation in the industry in
ways which will alleviate their poverty. It is not a form of tourism. It is not a tourism product, although new products
may be initiated. It is an approach to tourism which accepts that the so-called ‘trickle-down effect’ is often minimal or
non-existent and that more direct action is required if the most disadvantaged sections of a population are to realise
benefits from tourism growth. ST~EP focuses on ‘tilting’ the cake at the micro, meso and macro levels towards the poor
rather than expanding the cake. ST~EP opportunities may extend beyond purely economic ones and encompass other
livelihood benefits or engagement in decision-making (Roe & Urquhart, describing PPT, 2001).
Strategies for ST~EP
A review of PPT/ST~EP literature over the past 3-4 years, following the work of authors such as Ashley, Goodwin,
Holland, Meyer, Roe, Urquhart and others (see reference list) provides a set of twelve main strategies (nine identified in
the ODI literature) in three main categories defined by Ashley, Roe and Goodwin (2001) which have been utilised in
attempts to harness tourism for poverty alleviation. They are as follows:
Expanding economic benefits and opportunities through:
• Introducing new business opportunities (including micro-enterprises);
• Expanding existing business opportunities;
• Expanding employment opportunities; and
• Enhancing collective benefits.
4

Managing non-economic aspects through:
• Capacity building and training;
• Empowerment (eg through increased capacity for decision making, land ownership);
• Enhancing benefits to infrastructure and environment and on the other hand;
• Mitigating environmental impacts that affect poor people; and
• Addressing socio-cultural effects of tourism.
Developing pro-poor policies/processes/partnerships through:
• Building a more supportive policy and planning framework;
• Promoting participation in the tourism system; and
• Partnerships with the private sector .
Potential Benefits and Disbenefits of ST~EP
One of the difficulties in dealing with tourism and poverty reduction is the lack of a set of indicators with which to
measure impacts. ST~EP is as much about improving the quality of life of individuals as it is about economic
performance and the need is therefore to move beyond measuring national GDP or other macro-economic indicators to
focus on the impacts at the local level: on individuals, families and communities. Opportunities may extend beyond the
purely economic to encompass other livelihood benefits, or engagement in decision-making. Emerging though limited
indications of the impacts of current ST~EP initiatives suggest that for the poor, where it happens, such interventions
are invaluable (Ashley, Roe & Goodwin 2001). A few people are lifted out of income-poverty while many more earn
critical gap-fillers, especially in those circumstances where the seasonality of agriculture is complemented by
opportunities to earn tourism-generated income in non-planting, non-harvest times. More still are affected by the nonfinancial
livelihood benefits that emerge as very significant though highly varied, such as improved access to
information and infrastructure, cultural reinforcement and pride in their identity (Ashley et al. 2001).
A wide range of actions are needed to increase benefits to the poor from tourism. These go well beyond simply
promoting community tourism - although work at the grass-roots level to develop enterprises and local capacity is one
key component. Efforts are also needed on marketing, employment opportunities, linkages with the established private
sector, policy and regulation, and participation in decision-making. This involves working across levels and with all
stakeholders – and, importantly, recognising that poor communities are stakeholders who need to be engaged and
brought into decision-making processes where tourism development impinges spatially upon their socio-cultural and
physical assets.
An examination of a range of ST~EP case studies (again distilled mainly from ODI-sponsored research but
including others summarised from listings on the PPT Web site, www.propoortourism.org.uk/ and others from the
CRC for Sustainable Tourism research) provides up to 16 potential benefits which can flow from PPT/ST~EP
intervention. The first five are economic while the remaining 11 are non-economic impacts. The ODI research from its
six case studies suggests that while the latter may be less tangible they are just as important – and usually of greater
significance to more people than the earnings.
Economic benefits
• Aggregate increased income from e.g. Lease payments to communities (though funds are not always well
used and may be small per person, odi research suggests that they are valued as one of the few sources of
community income – to spend on shared investments (infrastructure, drought-coping, etc.)
• Employment: wage income for individuals (employment in the tourism sector and opportunities for
training are generally highly valued – even when regarded as ‘menial’ cleaning jobs by westerners,
according to Roe et al. 2002).
• Casual income, micro-enterprise earnings, informal sector activities
• Financial capital (credit which may be extended by a tourism support program, or a staff credit scheme,
and collective investment from community payments for e.g. Leasing land).
Non-Economic benefits
5
• Distribution of non-monetary benefits, e.g. clean water supply and electricity extended to adjacent village
communities by a tourism development.
• Human resource development (skills, education and training).

• Access to health services (e.g. In Solomon islands, the anuha island resort, tambea resort and vulelua
island resort all provided anti-malarial clinics for staff and families in surrounding villages; resort radio
links provided communications in medical emergencies).
• Physical capital (access to new infrastructure such as roads, transport services provided in the first instance
to service tourism ventures but available for shared local use. This emerged as a particularly valued
outcome from the six odi case studies, even though it had not been an explicit pro-poor strategy of
operators or governments).
• Donations for community welfare e.g. a community centre, a new school, a new church (as in wakaya
island in Fiji, sunset island resort off nuku’alofa in Tonga), etc.
• Social capital and community organisations where social mobilisation occurs and incentives for
community action are provided.
• Improvements to natural capital in those instances where ecologically sustainable practices, protection and
conservation of the environment are introduced by tourism operations.
• Influence over policy making through community involvement in decision-making (empowerment by this
means can be very important to the poor, who by definition are often marginalised and without a voice.
Where tenure or ownership rights lie with the poor, the control they gain over tourism operations is
invaluable – Fiji’s native lands trust board exercises a key role in this context. See Appendix IV on mana
island resort).
• Access to market opportunities and new livelihood options.
• Enhanced traditional values.
• Access to information not previously available.
• Optimism, pride and participation (related especially to empowerment).
• Support for traditional cultural elements such as festivals, singing and dancing, arts and crafts.
• Support for protection and conservation of the environment.
• Physical security (may be enhanced for locals as well, when measures are introduced for tourists and
tourism operations).
Potential disbenefits
There are also potential disbenefits (most identified by the ODI researchers) which need to be taken into account, some
of which are:
• Exposure to risk and exploitation – poor communities invariably lack the education and sometimes the
worldly knowledge to avoid exploitation by tourism interests
• Adverse impacts on traditional structures resulting in community instability (e.g. intergenerational conflict
between young skilled members and untrained elders in a community; between women and men)
• Adverse impacts on cultural elements (e.g. mass production of artefacts, changes in festivals, song and
dance to cater to visitors rather than remaining anchored in traditional values, resulting in facile spectacle
with deeper meaning pushed aside), commoditisation
• Materialism and individualism replacing collective community-based organisation capacities and values.
• Loss of access to natural resources such as coastlines and lagoons, water, forests – where poor
communities are dependent upon these for survival they may be particularly threatened by inappropriate
tourism development (but equally by mining, agricultural development or urban expansion)
• Physical security may be weakened by tourism development which leads to an increase in outsiders taking
up residence, increases in crime, and drugs and prostitution.
It should be noted however, that such impacts are not restricted to tourism intervention but are in fact a
common accompaniment to modernisation in all its forms, modernisation which often has pre-dated the arrival of
tourism by decades (for example, ‘western’ style education which for five days a week divorces young people from the
traditional forms of apprenticeship associated with family activity in many societies; the rural-urban drift as the
attraction s of towns and cities prove irresistible; and the impact of television and the Information Technology and
Communications (ITC) revolution). Tourism can in fact be utilised to counter some of the adverse impacts, e.g. through
revival of traditional festivals, arts and crafts.
As mentioned above, an acknowledged difficulty in assessing the benefits or otherwise of ST~EP projects is
the lack of effective tools to measure impacts. A study of six ST~EP initiatives were assessed by Meyer (2003:15) and
the 14 respondents who had worked on the six projects were ‘reserved in identifying impacts on the poor. While all
were enthusiastic about the value of the approach, few could identify actual measurable impacts … and replied that a
longer time frame would ideally be required.’ This is such a relatively new field that there is no real pro-poor tourism
program which could be subjected to detailed assessment and all commentators agree that because of the need to
6

individualise interventions to construct an appropriate project there is no common blueprint which could be followed.
However, there is general consensus that ST~EP interventions should focus on human capital, training and
empowerment as key areas of need and opportunity for aid agency involvement. Engaging the private sector is also a
fundamental need if commercially attractive and viable products are to be created (Ashley & Roe 2002; de Jong 2003).
Over-arching these areas is the need for a supportive public policy framework which involves intervention at the macro
level in contrast to specific community involvement at the micro level. As the DFID noted the current challenge for
governments and donors in tourism development is to respond to changes in broader development thinking, by
formulating strategies to enhance impacts of tourism on the poor (ODI 2001). The first step is to place tourism-forpoverty-alleviation
on the development assistance agenda, recognising that enhancing poverty impacts of tourism is
different from commercial, environmental, or ethical concerns. These issues will be explored in greater detail below.
7

Chapter 3
TOURISM AS A COMPLEX DYNAMIC SYSTEM
In pursuing the aim of utilising tourism as a tool for poverty reduction it is essential to move away from a narrow
definition of tourism as an industry composed only of enterprises in areas such as accommodation, natural and cultural
attractions, built attractions (museums, art galleries, heritage buildings, theme parks and casinos), tour operators, travel
agencies, airlines, coach companies and cruise ships and the images of destinations created by marketeers. It is
necessary to understand tourism as a system (Gunn & Var 2002; Leiper 1995; Mill & Morrison 2001) and to explore its
multiplicity of backward and forward linkages into community (stakeholder participation, social and cultural impacts),
the bio-physical environment, the wider economic milieu (local, regional, national and international levels) and
government (policy and planning, regulatory, and provision of infrastructure such as transport and communications,
facilitation of domestic and international visitation, etc). Looking further into tourism as a system, it is integrated not
only into the private sector as businesses but as a service industry linked into more sectors of the economy than
virtually any other area of economic activity. The support services sector is often ‘invisible’ in terms of tourism
because these providers of goods and services to the front line operators do not deal directly with tourists (e.g.
architectural services for resorts; communications systems for global reservations; aluminium production for aircraft,
tour coaches, window frames, etc).
Treating tourism as a complex system illuminates the way in which backward and forward linkages could
provide opportunities for poorer sections of communities and for intervention in enterprises not always recognised as
part of tourism but which are nevertheless tourism-dependent in whole or in part for their sustainability and economic
viability. By working in the area of backward linkages in activities not automatically regarded as 'tourism' it is possible
to identify points of ingress for development assistance aimed at alleviating poverty. In some countries it is feasible to
work with the frontline sector (those ventures which deal directly with visitors, such as trekking lodges), but in others
more opportunities may exist in the support services sector (e.g. growing orchids at the village level for Thai Airways).
A simple example drawn from the western world is the role of boarding kennels for cats and dogs: without such a
facility many people would be unable to take a holiday because there would be nowhere to leave their pets. The
proprietors of boarding kennels do not recognise that they are in the business of tourism although their venture may be
entirely dependent upon tourism. If tourism is not understood as a system composed of a large number of inter-related
businesses and support services, then it is all too easy to focus on trying to identify opportunities for development
assistance only in those activities instantly recognised as being 'in tourism'. When introducing ST~EP into developing
countries it is necessary to ‘look outside the square’ and identify opportunities associated with tourism which are not
necessarily frontline tourism businesses. Tourism as a system extends well beyond the delivery of tourism products and
is a significant economic factor in traditional aid sectors like agriculture, where tourism can increase productivity
through the sale of local products to tourism businesses and/or tourists. It also encompasses the informal sector where
opportunities for poorer segments of populations (women, lower castes, indigenous minorities) may exist.
Rather than leading to a 'static standpoint' the systems approach when combined with complexity theory
provides a dynamic way to proceed to understand how tourism functions. A conventional dissection of systems into
their component parts results in seeing the world in terms of static clockwork mechanisms, with mechanistic clockwork
like relationships being assumed. But this conventional approach can obscure the fact that the whole is greater than the
sum of the parts and that ‘there is a dynamic life-like emergent complexity in many systems’ (Faulkner & Russell
2003:209). In the Cartesian/Newtonian paradigm, the effect of disturbance are ameliorated by negative feedback
mechanisms and the system constantly returns to equilibrium; but complexity theory asserts that in self-organising, lifelike
systems, positive feedback and non linear relationships are more prevalent, the effects of even minor disturbances
can be accentuated and we can end up with the so-called ‘butterfly effect’ where a small change can precipitate a chain
reaction that results in a fundamental shift on the structure of a system. The chaos-complexity perspective provides a
much deeper approach to many aspects of tourism-as-a-system such as the analysis of host-guest relationships and
community involvement in tourism, the competitive relationships between providers of similar services/products, or
cooperative relationships between vertically integrated providers, or terrorist activities in one part of the world and a
boost to tourism arrivals in safe destinations and so on (Faulkner & Russell 2003:215).
8

9
Figure 1: Tourism as a System – Component Parts: the Framework
TRANSIT
REGION
VISITOR GENERATING REGIONS
– DEMAND SIDE: FRONT LINE SECTOR
SUPPORT
SERVICES
SECTOR
BIO-PHYSICAL
ENVIRONMENT
DESTINATION
- SUPPLY SIDE
FRONT LINE
SECTOR
COMMUNITY
TRANSIT
REGION
GOVERNMENT
Figure 2: Tourism as a System – Inter-relationships: the Clockwork
TRANSIT
REGION
VISITOR GENERATING REGIONS
DEMAND SIDE - Front Line Sector
SUPPORT
SERVICES
SECTOR
BIO-PHYSICAL
ENVIRONMENT
DESTINATION
SUPPLY SIDE
Front Line Sector
COMMUNITY
TRANSIT
REGION
GOVERNMENT

Because tourism is a system of many hundreds of inter-related industries encompasses a large number of
sectors it contributes significantly to broad based growth where it becomes a major generator of income and
employment. By ‘tilting the tourism cake’ ST~EP initiatives can diversify livelihood strategies for the poor. The ODI
commissioned a report (Ashley et al. 2001) that examined ‘fitting Tourism into Pro-poor growth factors’ and its major
conclusions were as follows:
� Pro Poor Growth increases demand for the goods and services of the poor, reduces the costs paid by the
poor in meeting their basic needs, increases the asset base of the poor, decreases their exposure to
vulnerability and risk, and results in increased government revenues which can be used to provide goods
and services to the poor.
� Tourism can contribute to these factors in Pro Poor growth in various ways. Tourism is a labour intensive
sector and has the potential to reduce poverty through employment. Tourism often causes local inflation but
can also reduce costs and access to health care or transport infrastructure. Tourism can be negative to the
Poor’s asset base but can improve the Poor’s access to assets. Tourism can in some circumstances
exacerbate the vulnerability of the poor, but it can also reduce vulnerability and diversify livelihood
strategies, for example by diversifying rural economies based on agriculture. Tourism may not be directly
involved in government spending but may stimulate government to spend monies in this way.
� Tourism’s Pro Poor growth potential derives from it being a diverse industry where the customer comes to
the product which provides considerable opportunities for linkages. It is highly dependent on natural capital
and can be more labour dependent than manufacturing. A higher proportion of tourism benefits go to
women.
10

Chapter 4
HOLISTIC APPROACH TO COMMUNITY-BASED TOURISM
DEVELOPMENT FOR POVERTY ALLEVIATION
Conceptually, and as a corollary to incorporation of tourism as a complex system, it is necessary to integrate tourism
development into community development holistically for poverty alleviation. If tourism is used as a tool in isolation
from other aspects of village development it will not be able to maximise the linkages necessary to ensure its
sustainability. To be sustainable tourism projects must be linked to wider village needs and be constructed through local
institutions which have the support of the majority of the community (Sofield & Bhandari 1998). In conceptual terms
perhaps the major point to emerge from the lessons of rural village tourism projects in Nepal is that tourism
development cannot be pursued in isolation from integrated community development and local institution building: a
total approach must be adopted. Without holistic integration there is a risk that tourism development may be viewed as
an end in itself instead of as one vehicle to reduce poverty and assist in attitudinal change, especially with reference to
the environment and conservation. A tourism project may be utilised as the entry point for social mobilisation within
village communities but it must be a systems approach which guides that intervention.
Allied to an integrated approach is the need to take great care in engaging the local community in appropriate
institution building. There needs to be comprehensive consultations with communities, who must be empowered to set
the agenda for their own development. Bottom-up rather than top-down decision-making is to be encouraged.
As part of an integrated approach built around tourism development, attention would automatically be able to
be given to the issue of high leakages from and weak linkages with the productive sectors of the local economy. For
example, an awareness training component would assist local farmers to maximise income generation from increased
tourism through the growing of new crops or the sale of better quality produce for import substitution (‘import
substitution’ covering not just goods from outside the country, but outside the local region). With an integrated
approach attention would also be paid to relating tourism development to alternative technologies and environmental
effects and impacts. These might include solar power to replace wood and charcoal for some forms of energy, and
pressure cookers to reduce the need for heating energy. Re-afforestation could be part of the same approach resulting in
improved resource conservation and consumption.
In the context of backward linkages the capacity for tourism to create new economic inter-relationships among
and between community members, and with households in the immediate geographical vicinity of participating
settlements (activities, ventures and services which are required to support tourism) need to be identified. In the context
of forward linkages new mutually beneficial partnerships are essential if village based tourism is to succeed e.g. keying
into tour companies at the national level in order to market village destinations and products both domestically and
internationally. Without such linkages village based tourism enterprises would remain invisible in the market place and
unable to realise their potential.
In focusing on the poor, gender inequity, the disadvantaged, the discriminated and oppressed sections of the
population (lower classes, lower castes), including indigenous minorities in some countries, communities as a whole
would need to receive assistance. Experience suggests that if a project is centred exclusively on a ‘target group’ within a
community, it may raise opposition or even hostility from others within that community who perceive that their
interests are threatened or that one segment of the community is receiving favoured treatment and benefits not available
to others. There is a risk that the target group and its project may be marginalised (this has been the experience of some
women’s only projects). It is suggested that without a carefully planned integrated community development approach,
tourism development of itself cannot lead to poverty alleviation, environmental regeneration and the empowerment of
local communities, which in many developing countries, for example Nepal, are three of the most crucial development
concerns.
Any assessment of tourism potential must take into account the location of the site in terms of ALL parts of the
system, for the presence of a break in the chain could result in an inability to precede no matter how great the scenic or
other attraction resource at the local level. A factor that is absolutely critical to the development of pro poor tourism is
the role of the community as hosts to tourists, their interactions and relationships. Self-development, education, training
and awareness of greater human potential for involvement in tourism development to reduce poverty are an integral
component of the ‘host community’ factor. Assessment of an area or site should also therefore incorporate assessment
of Community, its social capital, its ownership of or access to resources (including land, traditional culture, social
cohesion, local leadership, entrepreneurial capabilities, and so forth).
11

INTERNATIONAL
NATIONAL
REGIONAL
LOCAL
International
LINKAGES
LINKAGES
with national interests
and the national economy
LINKAGES
with District and Regional
economy
THE
COMMUNITY
LINKAGES
WITHIN and
BETWEEN
community
members
(local economy)
LINKAGES
with area in immediate vicinity of project
community
FORWARD
LINKAGES
BACKWARD
LINKAGES
Figure 3: COMMUNITY BASED TOURISM DEVELOPMENT: backward
and forward linkages
12

13
BOX 2: HIGH HIMALAYAN VILLAGE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT
An assessment of a major UNDP tourism initiative in Nepal found that in
villages where lodge owners on Himalayan trekking routes were the only
sections of the communities to receive major benefits from tourism assistance
projects, a new class was created and major divisions in the villages developed
within a short period of time. Inadvertently the UNDP project contributed to a
differentiated class structure because increasingly the lodge owners were seen as
the ‘haves’ and the rest of the villagers as the ‘have-nots’ by the villagers
themselves. Improvements rendered to the lodge owners under the UNDP
project were visible and tangible. Spin-off benefits to others were less direct and
intangible, and there was scepticism that increased tourism and returns for lodge
owners would result in growing markets for farm produce and handicrafts from
other villagers (backward linkages into other sectors of the village economy).
On the other hand, where communities as a whole had received benefits (e.g.
every household provided with running water and a hygienic toilet, the whole
village paved rather than only those paths where lodges were located), and when
a village-wide committee rather than one composed only of lodge owners had
been set up, then community harmony was much higher.
The major lesson to emerge from these Nepalese rural village pilot projects was
that tourism development should not be pursued in isolation from integrated
community development and local institution building: a holistic approach must
be adopted if discord and socio-economic differentiation within village society
was to be avoided.
(Sofield & Bhandari 1998)

Chapter 5
THE NECESSITY FOR AN INTEGRATED INSTITUTIONAL
FRAMEWORK AND EMPOWERMENT
Hand in hand with managing the issue of pro poor tourism from a systems approach and holistic community
development is the need to construct a multi-faceted institutional framework. This framework should extend vertically
and horizontally through the encompassing environment of Society (attitudes) and Government (public policy
formulation) which ‘control’ how (or indeed if) poverty is addressed formally and informally. Vertically it would
embrace a range of players and stakeholders commencing from the household level (functional groups), extending to
the community level (e.g. village development committees), through the district level to the provincial level and finally
to the national level (involving for example Ministries of Local/Regional Development, Ministries of Planning and
Development, Ministries of Tourism). The framework would extend laterally to include linkages with line ministries
such as Public Works, tourism industry associations such as a Trekking Agencies Association or a Hotels Association
(the private sector), to NGOs (the domestic civil sector) INGOs and foreign governments (the international aid donor
sector). It would be aimed at building a multiplicity of partnerships and support services all capable of contributing to
the alleviation of poverty through tourism. It rests firmly on good governance. Its outcome is empowerment of
impoverished communities.
Empowerment
Empowerment has entered the popular vernacular as a generic term denoting a capacity by individuals or a group to
determine their own affairs. However the lack of a clear definition has resulted in a proliferation of usage where
different authors define the term in the context of their personal experience or a particular situation.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary (Sykes 1987:339) defines ‘empower’ as:
‘to authorise, license (person to do); give power to, make able, enable, to commission’
The concept of empowerment currently has much wider application than its original roots in political science.
It has been 'discovered' as relevant to all kinds of situations in many disciplines. For example, in education, empowering
teachers in the management of schools and universities, and/or empowering students (eg. Apple 1995; Fagan 1989), is
seen as relevant to improved quality of staff teaching and student learning. It is regarded as an important concept in
sociology and anthropology, where empowerment of minorities and marginalised groups is viewed as a prerequisite for
their successful adjustment to the dominant society or their capacity to withstand mainstream values (Hokansen Hawks
1992; Kymlicka 1995; Pettman 1992; Ross 1992).
Criminologists, in analysing the generally significantly higher rates of criminal activity by, and jail populations
of, disadvantaged ethnic minorities also draw upon empowerment as a solution to part of the problem (e.g. Cuneen
1990, 1992; Hazlehurst 1987, 1993, 1995; Smandych, Lincoln & Wilson 1995). Other areas of minorities studies, such
as the women's movement (Minkler & Cox 1980; Wheeler & Chinn 1989), the Black Power movement (Minkler & Cox
1980), gay rights and people with AIDS (Haney 1988; Epstein & Coser 1981), the aged and the disabled (Rose & Black
1985), have adopted empowerment advocacy to counter perceived discrimination and advance their perceived rights.
Business management has adopted empowerment in terms of devolution of authority and decision-making
from top-level executives to workers on the factory floor (Jones & Davies 1991). The Shangri-la Hotel chain has
adopted elements of this form of empowerment in their operational approach to management.
14

Figure 4: Vertical and Horizontal Integration
Political science views empowerment in terms of a re-assignment of power to a group or community or nation
whose power had been alienated by force (e.g. Boldt 1993; Lijphart 1995). This element of a return of power because of
prior disempowerment-empowerment is lacking in most other disciplines' consideration of the concept. For them (i.e.
other disciplines) the conferring of power or granting of rights to groups that may never have experienced real authority
previously (eg. factory workers, hotel staff, patients, pupils, impoverished communities) is seen as empowerment.
Simmons & Parsons (1983:199) have a summary definition of empowerment as ‘the process of enabling
persons to master their environment and achieve self-determination.’ They consider that empowerment may occur
through individual change, interpersonal or interactional change, or change of social structures, that have an impact on
the individual. Onyx and Benton (1995:50) define empowerment as ‘the taking on of power at both the individual and
social levels’ and when it ‘it located within the discourse of community development (it is) connected to concepts of
self-help, participation, networking and equity.’ They consider participation is a vital part of empowerment since such
involvement in decision-making affecting peoples' lives opens the door to ‘confidence, self-esteem, knowledge and (the
development of) new skills.’
The question that much of the discussion on empowerment leaves ambiguous is the degree of self-reliance or
self-sufficiency necessary for empowerment to have occurred. At one end of the spectrum are those writers who
consider that it is essential for self-help to be total, with minimal outside intervention or assistance. At the other end of
the spectrum are those who consider that involvement in decision-making is sufficient (e.g. McArdle 1989). An
immediate problem with the purist's approach is that often it is those most in need who have the least resources and
capacity to help themselves. This has proved the case in many community development programs in Third World
countries. There has been a high failure rate of such programs because of the fallacious assumption that communities in
poverty had the capability to help themselves once the opportunity was presented to them: external assistance was to be
occasional or 'one-off' lest the community become dependent upon that outside source of support (Kotze 1987). There is
also the problem that such impoverished communities may lack even the basic knowledge to set an agenda for
discussion of appropriate development and in a sense be disempowered prior to any consideration of the issues because
of their inability to control the agenda.
15

The difficulty with accepting the other extreme view is that except for involvement in decision-making,
everything else is left to the experts and the professionals. It can be criticised as tokenism, particularly because it fails to
recognise the fundamental proposition that as long as the process is controlled by others who have access to the
resources then the process is actually one of disempowerment (Rose & Black 1985).
Because empowerment is a process that involves relationships between individuals and/or communities and
others, it is a transactional concept nurtured by the effects of collaborative effort (Kieffer 1984). To be effective,
empowerment requires more than actions to increase self-esteem, or one's efficacy, or promoting positive behaviour of
different kinds: it will normally require environmental change as well (Wallerstein & Bernstein 1988). Put another way,
there will be intrinsic and extrinsic connections between those ostensibly being empowered, those 'doing' the
empowering, and a range of economic, political and social forces that shape situations (Butterfield 1990). For
empowerment to be effective there must be accompanying change in one or others of these areas since empowerment is
a multi-dimensional concept (Kieffer 1984).
In order for empowerment to succeed as a process of sharing of power, both parties (i.e. the one that empowers
and the one that is empowered) must share a common purpose. If indigenous participation by impoverished
communities in tourism development is the goal, then it must be a vision shared equally by those who define the
parameters of development and the village communities themselves. Mutual goal setting and decision-making will be
present. Both parties must exhibit commitment to the process: the party that has power must be willing to devolve
authority, provide choices and encourage involvement in decision-making; and the party being empowered must be
prepared to assume responsibility and participate in goal-setting and decision-making (Hokansen Hawks 1992). In a
case of genuine empowerment the lines distinguishing the 'empowerer' from the empowered will be somewhat blurred
because the emphasis will be on achieving the common purpose, not on control over others. The result is one in which
the empowered community will have an increased ability to set and reach goals for its own ends.
The clear conclusion to be drawn is that if tourism is to be an agent for change with target programs to alleviate
poverty then it must become engaged at both the political and social levels to empower impoverished communities. It is
contended that empowerment of and by communities cannot occur without social forces at some point in time
combining with political forces of the state to arrive at a new balance of power relations. A detailed analysis of five case
studies in the South Pacific at the regional, national and community levels revealed that unless legislation was put in
place to support improvements to the lot of the poorest segments of populations, any action/gains could be successfully
challenged by more powerful interests able to access the legal process: as a result empowerment was ephemeral and
illusory: achievements could not be sustained. The role of ‘positive discrimination’ intervention by governments
supported with an appropriate legislative framework is therefore crucial if empowerment and sustainable tourism
development is to occur (Sofield 2003).
16

Chapter 6
THE ROLE OF THE WORLD TOURISM ORGANIZATION (WTO) AND
UNCTAD IN SPONSORING AND PROMOTING ST~EP
WTO
The concept of a program to link the longstanding WTO pursuit of Sustainable Tourism with the global leadership
initiative of Poverty Alleviation emerged in the run-up to the August 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development
(WSSD) in Johannesburg. The WTO Secretary General mandated his Special Advisor, Trade in Tourism Services, to
create a broad strategy for WTO, embracing ongoing program work on ‘Sustainability: Trade and Poverty’ –
subsequently termed ‘Liberalisation with a Human Face.’ ST~EP was conceived as a model implementation initiative to
capture the spirit and the attention of the Johannesburg Assembly, as well as provide a leadership program for the sector
(Lipman, personal correspondence, 2002). A key element was the linking of WTO with the United Nations Conference
on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the technical agency which specialises in channelling assistance to the Least
Developed Countries (LDCs). The partnership with UNCTAD is designed to deliver a tripartite framework consisting of:
1. A Foundation to raise funds from new sources;
2. A Research Network to link sustainable tourism with poverty elimination; and
3. An Operational Mechanism to seed fund model projects (Report to WTO 15 th Global Conference, Beijing,
2003).
S
T
E
P
Research
Linkages
Principles
Good Practice
Figure 5: ST~EP Framework
ST~EP Framework
Foundation
Fund Building
Disbursement
Guidelines
Awards / Promotion
Operations
Application
Monitoring
LDC Models
www.st-ep.com
ST~EP was launched by WTO with UNCTAD at the Johannesburg World Summit and is a manifestation of
the UN Millennium Development Goal to halve extreme poverty by 2015 and also of WTO’s Global Code of Ethics.
The WTO Global Code of Ethics was developed with the input of members and associates of the WTO. ‘Developed
after extensive research and several years of consultation it reflects general declarations of the UN system on society,
interdependence, social inclusion and human rights, as well as the mandate given to the World Tourism Organization
(WTO) by the UN Commission on Sustainable Development to lead the sector's sustainable development crusade. It
sets out broad principles for responsive and responsible development of sustainable tourism’ (Frangialli 1999). With
reference to ST-EP, the ten Articles of the Code of Ethics incorporate 48 clauses which provide an underpinning of the
principles to guide the way in which research into ST~EP and operations of sustainable tourism may constitute the
access point for alleviating poverty. The ten articles cover the following broad topics:
17
• ‘Tourism's contribution to mutual understanding and respect between peoples and societies

• Tourism as a vehicle for individual and collective fulfilment
• Tourism, a factor of sustainable development
• Tourism, a user of the cultural heritage of mankind and contributor to its enhancement
• Tourism, a beneficial activity for host countries and communities
• Obligations of stakeholders in tourism development
• Right to tourism
• Liberty of tourist movements
• Rights of the workers and entrepreneurs in the tourism industry
• Implementation of the principles of the Global Code of Ethics for Tourism.’
(http://www.world-tourism.org/projects/ethics/principles)
The ST~EP Foundation is designed to achieve inter alia the following objectives:
• To support research and tourism projects that meet ethical standards, in accordance with the UN
Millennium Development Goals and the WTO Global Code of Ethics and which link sustainable tourism
with poverty elimination;
• To inform public opinion on the importance of sustainable tourism projects in developing countries
generally and the world’s poorest countries specifically;
• To analyse sustainable tourism needs and opportunities in countries with developing economies, that might
be addressed to accomplish the Foundation’s aims;
• To co-operate with other international organisations working towards similar goals;
• To publish a Progress Report, to be presented at an annual ST-EP Forum organised by WTO with
UNCTAD; and
• To host an annual Global Leader’s Lecture on ST-EP and the Millennium Development Goals, in
conjunction with a related Awards Ceremony.
During the start up phase, pro bono support is being provided from various sources covering Foundation
development, sponsorship approaches and research criteria development. It is anticipated that the Foundation will be
formally activated on commitment of an initial funding level of US$2 million which will initiate 10 research projects
and 20 model projects as well as adequate funds for start-up implementation (Lipman, personal correspondence, 2003).
UN Conference on Trade And Development (UNCTAD)
UNCTAD moved into a new phase in support of tourism with the Third United Nations Conference on the Least
Developed Countries held in Las Palmas, Canary Islands, Spain, 26-29 March 2001, the theme of which was ‘Tourism
and Development in the Least Developed Countries.’ UNCTAD concluded at the conference that tourism had a
‘catalytic impact on the economic development and efficiency’ of the LDCs (UNCTAD 2001). This conference resulted
in UNCTAD seeking a partnership with WTO to pursue its tourism-specific objectives, and the outcome, as delineated
above, was the ST~EP initiative launched at the WSSD in Johannesburg.
Since 1971, the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) have been officially designated by the United Nations as a
category of countries suffering from structural handicaps in their socio-economic development and regarded by the
international community as deserving special treatment in support of their efforts to overcome these handicaps. The list
of LDCs is reviewed by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations every three years. In the last triennial
review (2000), the criteria used were as follows:
• A low national income (measured through the gross domestic product per capita, with a $900 ceiling for
newly admitted countries);
• A low level of human capital development (measured through a composite index based on health, nutrition
and education indicators); and
• A high degree of economic vulnerability (measured through a composite index based on indicators of
economic instability, insufficient diversification, and the handicap of smallness).
After the admission of Senegal as a result of the 2000 review, the category currently includes 49 countries, 34
of which are in Africa, 9 in Asia, 5 in the Pacific, and one in the Caribbean. In chapter 8 of this report we shall examine
the situation in the eight LDCs in the South Pacific and East Asia: Kiribati, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu and
Vanuatu; and Cambodia, the Lao Republic and Myanmar. This focus is not to gainsay that Africa and other parts of the
world do not need more research and all the effort which can be mustered to implement ST~EP in those countries:
rather it should simply be seen as a modest attempt to broaden the scope of case studies beyond the emphasis thus far on
Africa.
18

Chapter 7
ACTIVITIES OF OTHER INSTITUTIONS AND AGENCIES IN TOURISM
AND POVERTY ALLEVIATION DEVELOPMENT
This section reviews the involvement of some major actors currently engaged in PPT/ST~EP.
Tourism Organisations
Figure 6: ST~EP Institutions and Agencies
In addition to WTO, the Pacific Asia Travel Association (PATA) has become active in supporting efforts to utilise
tourism for poverty alleviation. PATA is the peak tourism industry association for the Asia Pacific region and following
the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development it enunciated its own policy on sustainable tourism and
pledged to assist in the task of poverty alleviation. At the Second Global Summit on Peace through Tourism, Geneva,
February 2003, the President of PATA, Peter de Jong, announced its policy which drew on the WTO/UNCTAD
formula and the ODI experience. PATA’s research into tourism and poverty alleviation identified one area not
highlighted by others – the importance for poverty alleviation of targeting backpackers, budget travellers and young
travellers. These segments should be targeted, PATA argues, because of their particular travel characteristics:
• their propensity, as adventure travellers, to pioneer new areas
• their documented substantial spending in locally-owned outlets
• there is thus less economic leakage
• total spend is often more than other segments because they stay longer
• they are content with basic infrastructure and modest creature comforts so large capital expenditure on
facilities and infrastructure is not necessary
• their expenditure contributes to development of regions where there may be few if any other possibilities of
economic activity;
• they prepare the way for two and three-star hotels
• there is a significant percentage of repeat visitations in these segments, especially young travellers (de Jong
2003).
The PATA report also stressed that tourism should be regarded by development agencies as an ally in
alleviating poverty because of its potential to contribute to:
19
• education
• land reform
• provision of health services
• information technology
• access to credit and
• empowerment of women (de Jong 2003).

United Nations Agencies
Multilateral agencies such as the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the UN International Labour
Organisation (ILO) have been active in policy and planning for tourism in a range of countries, and underwriting
tourism training to enhance social capital. Utilising tourism development to reduce poverty has not been on their
agendas until very recently, but in 1999 the UN Commission on Sustainable Development urged governments to:
‘maximise the potential of tourism for eradicating poverty by developing appropriate strategies in co-operation with all
major groups, indigenous and local communities.’ ST~EP is designed to do this, putting poor people and poverty at the
centre of the sustainability debate. In 2000 the UNDP became a pioneer in PPT/ST~EP with a major project in Nepal
termed ‘Tourism for Rural Poverty Alleviation Programme’ (TRPAP), designed by Sofield et al. (1999). This is a fiveyear,
US$5 million project aimed specifically at a range of target communities occupying the lower socio-economic
levels and castes in Nepal, involving 5 districts with 14 micro ventures. It is however too early as yet to assess the
impacts arising from this initiative. However, work in Nepal on ST~EP development assistance suggested that a
national program for poverty alleviation through tourism would need three inter-related objectives:
1. The first is to develop an appropriate institutional framework at different levels to sustain the program in
both the short term and the long term. In this context Ashley et al. (2001) also stress the need for a
governmental role to underpin any strategy because of the disempowerment of the poor and the fact that by
definition they are ‘out of the loop’ in decision making: only governments have the capacity to bring them
into the process in the long term. The Nepal Government’s Ninth Development Plan 1997-2002 provided
his framework with its entire thrust focused on alleviating poverty.
2. The second is rural community tourism development activities which address the socio-economic concerns
of the poor, the emphasis being as much on the social and cultural as the economic.
3. The third would be to initiate, improve and/or strengthen backward and forward linkages of tourism
activities and ventures. While the thrust of the exercise would be the second objective, it could only be
achieved on the back of the first objective (Sofield & Bhandari 1998; Sofield, Gurung, Hummel, Dhamala
& Shrestha 1999).
UN Environment Programme (UNEP) – World Ecotourism Summit
In the framework of the UN International Year of Ecotourism, 2002, under the aegis of the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Tourism Organization (WTO), over one thousand participants from
132 countries, from the public, private and non-governmental sectors met at the World Ecotourism Summit, Québec,
between 19 and 22 May 2002. The Québec Summit represented the culmination of 18 preparatory meetings held in
2001 and 2002, involving over 3,000 representatives from national and local governments including the tourism,
environment and other administrations, private ecotourism businesses and their trade associations, non-governmental
organisations, academic institutions and consultants, intergovernmental organisations, and indigenous and local
communities. Its main purpose was the setting of an agenda and a set of recommendations for the development of
ecotourism activities in the context of sustainable development, to be pursued through the World Summit on
Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg, August/September 2002, as the ground-setting event for
international policy in the next 10 years. The Quebec Communique emphasised that, as a leading industry, the
sustainability of tourism should be a priority at WSSD due to its potential contribution to poverty alleviation and
environmental protection in endangered ecosystems. It recognised that many such areas (endangered ecosystems) are
home to peoples often living in poverty, who frequently lack adequate health care, education facilities, communications
systems, and other infrastructure required for genuine development opportunity, and that ecotourism if managed in a
sustainable manner can represent a valuable economic opportunity for local and indigenous populations and their
cultures and contribute significantly to their well-being. The Quebec Communiqué appealed to inter-governmental
organisations, international financial institutions and development assistance agencies to ‘assist in the implementation
of national and local policy and planning guidelines and evaluation frameworks for ecotourism and its relationships
with biodiversity conservation, socio-economic development, respect of human rights, poverty alleviation, nature
conservation and other objectives of sustainable development.’ (Quebec Communique 2002:5).
Government Development Assistance Agencies
Overseas Development Institute, UK
As noted, the ODI has been involved in researching and understanding ways in which tourism can be applied as a tool
for poverty alleviation for the past five years, with a view to incorporating what it has termed ‘Pro Poor Tourism’ into
its overseas aid programs, particularly in the poorer countries of Africa (see Appendix I, case studies).
Netherlands
The Dutch aid agency, SNV, is one of the few agencies in addition to ODI to place ST~EP on its agenda and it has been
undertaking projects in tourism for poorer communities for the past five years in countries as varied as Albania, Laos
20

and Nepal. SNV was appointed by the UNDP as the Project Director for its five-year pro poor tourism program in
Nepal (Tourism for Rural Alleviation of Poverty Programme, 2002-2007). SNV recognises that reducing poverty
through tourism development asks for gender equitable, pro-active and strategic interventions to support poorer people
to participate and benefit from tourism development and to distribute tourism income or revenues to more people in
remoter districts outside capital cities and urban concentrations. Its focus is on strengthening the capacity of key
national organisations (good governance) supported by interventions in districts and destinations which emphasise:
• social mobilisation of poor people into community-based organisations (CBOs);
• support for small and micro enterprise development; and
• support for policy implementation and district planning through partnerships (mainly at meso and macro
level), including improved access to potential tourist destination, resource management and alternative
energy.
(J. Hummell, SNV project coordinator, Nepal and Laos, personal correspondence, June 2002)
New Zealand, Canada and the Nordic States
New Zealand is active in ecotourism community-based ventures in the South Pacific island countries, but conservation
rather than poverty alleviation has been the major focus of its interventions. A number of other countries such as
Canada and the Nordic states (Denmark in particular) have also delivered some assistance for tourism development in
Third World countries, but such expenditure has been a minor component of their aid programs and has not been
specifically directed towards poverty alleviation.
Germany
Germany’s government development assistance agency, GTZ, has recently indicated that while tourism is not currently
a priority issue in German development co-operation activities, it could be a meaningful development policy option –
especially where regional rural development and nature conservation are concerned, and acknowledges that the
development potential of tourism has been unsatisfactorily exploited.
International Financial Institutions
The key global and regional financial institutions responsible for development assistance such as the World Bank and
the Asian Development Bank have moved recently to include ST~EP in their investment and assistance portfolios.
Asian Development Bank
In April 2002 the Asian Development Bank (ADB) signalled a major shift in its funding policies for tourism
development, away from international tourism planning workshops and marketing events to reposition its assistance to
tourism ‘as a poverty-alleviator rather than just a job-creator or foreign exchange earner’ (Muqbil 2002, p.1). At the
seventh Greater Mekong Sub-Region Tourism Forum held in Bangkok, Arjun Thapan, ADB Director, Social Sectors
Section, Mekong Department, noted that the ADB, as Asia's leading development institution, had redirected its
strategies to the eradication of poverty in the world's most populous continent, partly as a response to the September 11,
2001, terrorist attacks in the United States. In this context ADB assistance for pro poor tourism would favour pro-poor
policies that led to genuine social, cultural and environmental benefits. The Bank ‘had become much more wary of past
policies that may have inadvertently set tourism off on an anti-poor course via unguided development, poor planning,
environmental destruction and the inevitable decline of destinations. … In future the bank will focus on expanding
business and job opportunities for the poor; retention of benefits at the local level; integration of tourism into local
development plans and appropriate benefit sharing systems; development of conservation ethics and promotion of local
products; ensuring sustainable development; infrastructure, capacity building and training; and participation and
empowerment’ (Muqbil 2002:1).
In 2002-03 the ADB funded a ‘Strategic Environmental Analysis’ of the current Fiji Tourism Development
Plan as a joint exercise between WWF and the ADB. One of the outcomes was the recommendation that further tourism
development focus on enhancing the distribution of the economic benefits to the outer regions/outer islands with a focus
on poverty alleviation.
Also in May 2003, the ADB released its policy document on ‘Technical Assistance For NGO Partnerships For
Poverty Reduction’ (ADB 2003). Financed by its Poverty Reduction Cooperation Fund with an initial allocation of
US$0.5 million, this initiative is designed to implement the Bank’s 1998 policy on cooperation between ADB and
NGOs to integrate NGO experience, knowledge, and expertise into the Bank’s operations so that ADB-supported
activities could more effectively address poverty alleviation issues. From June to November 2002, ADB’s NGO Centre
conducted a series of 14 participatory workshops throughout the Asia and Pacific region that involved about 500
representatives from the ADB’s major stakeholders: governments, NGOs, the private sector, and ADB resident mission
and headquarters staff. The consultation process culminated in a one- week ‘write shop’ that produced a report entitled
‘ADB-Government-NGO Cooperation: A Framework for Action 2003-2005’, and which laid the base for the May 2003
21

eport cited above. Regional and rural development was identified as a key area for assistance and community-based
tourism project proposals from eligible NGOs may be considered for funding.
The World Bank
The World Bank also announced a major re-orientation of its policies to encompass poverty alleviation. In its World
Development Report (2001) it identified its move from the ‘old framework’ which pursued labour-intensive economic
growth and the broad provision of social services to a ‘new framework for action’ entitled ‘Attacking Poverty’. The WB
noted that poverty and its causes were multidimensional and required a multi-dimensional response. Its new framework
has three ‘pillars’ – opportunity; empowerment; and security. These are not ranked in any particular order, are all
different but inter-related, each is important, and together they constitute a single integrated poverty reduction strategy
(World Bank 2001).
‘Opportunity’ is characterised by:
• Implementing market reforms for growth, where design sequencing should take into account the
institutional context and poverty effects even if reforms do not contribute to a systematic decrease in
inequality;
• Making markets (and sectors) work for poor people, particularly at the micro level by simplifying licensing
and tax systems and reducing minimum capital requirements for thrift institutions and rural banks; and by
• Expanding poor people’s assets and tackling structural inequalities, using the redistributive power of the
state through expenditures, developing synergies across sectors, engaging multiple agents in the process -
the public sector, the private sector and communities, and introducing market-based land reforms and land
titling (World Bank 2001). The application of these policies to tourism, and to PPT in particular, are
obvious.
‘Empowerment’, the second pillar, is characterised by:
• Making Institutions work for poor people, with inter alia public actions focused on social priorities, legal
systems that promote legal equity and are accessible to poor people, the curbing of corruption, bureaucratic
obstruction and bureaucratic harassment, and promotion of decentralisation with broad participation by the
poorer sections of a population; and by
• Building Social Capital and removing social barriers through support for membership-based organisations
and cooperatives, and reducing discriminatory norms and practices (World Bank 2001).
‘Security’, the third pillar, acknowledges that poorer sections of a population will suffer disproportionately in
times of natural disasters, and political and economic crises. World Bank assistance is therefore predicated on
preventive action and better management of such disasters and crises to mitigate the impacts on the poor
(World Bank 2001).
The World Bank strategy proposes a series of global actions to promote all three pillars:
• market-opening by developed countries;
• promotion of global financial stability;
• financing of international public good;
• facilitating participation of poor countries – and poor people – in global forums; and
• increased aid and debt relief targeted at poverty reduction (World Bank 2001).
ST~EP fits squarely into this over-arching strategy.
International/Non-Governmental Organisations (I/NGOs)
While there are many I/NGO’s active in various forms of tourism development in developing countries, and some make
a contribution to poverty reduction, their main focus tends to be on conservation of natural resources, biodiversity, or
environmental issues, e.g. Nepal’s Annapurna Conservation Area Programme (Adikhari & Lama 1966), Tanzania’s
Ngorongoro Ma’asai Land Use Project, and Samoa’s ecotourism program. They have not attempted to measure poverty
and apply the reduction of poverty to the tourism activities of their programmes. There is a weather change under way,
however, because last year the World Ecotourism Summit (Quebec, June 2002) recognised that tourism has significant
potential to contribute to poverty alleviation. As noted above, its Communiqué acknowledged the World Summit on
Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg as the ground-setting event for international policy on sustainability
in the next 10 years and recommended that tourism as a tool for poverty alleviation be a priority topic for discussion.
The International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), a UK-based INGO, prepared a policy
paper for the Johannesburg WSSD in association with ODI in which it argued that in all Pro Poor Tourism approaches
there are a number of stakeholders needed at various levels and to varying degrees depending on the individual project
needs. In order to ‘tilt the cake’ to the poor these stakeholders need to take on various roles in Pro Poor Tourism
22

initiatives at the micro, meso, and macro levels. Government, the private sector, non-governmental organisations,
community organisations and the poor themselves all have critical and very different roles to play in PPT. There is
much that only governments can do, so a leading role for government in PPT is a great advantage. At a minimum, there
needs to be a public policy environment that facilitates PPT. Donor governments, through their aid agencies’ role in
supporting tourism plans and the sustainable tourism’ agenda, can also promote PPT. The private sector can be directly
involved in pro-poor partnerships. At a minimum, private operators should participate in product and market
development to ensure commercial realism. The poor themselves are critical to PPT, but they often also need to be
organised at the community level in order to engage effectively in tourism. It is often invaluable to have a fourth party
to act as a catalyst and support PPT efforts of others – this is often, though not always, a role for a non-governmental
organisation. Early experience shows that PPT strategies do appear able to ‘tilt’ the industry, at the margin, to expand
opportunities for the poor and have potentially wide application across the industry. Poverty reduction through PPT can
therefore be significant at a local or district level. National impacts would require a shift across the sector, and would
vary with location and the relative size of tourism (Roe & Urqhuart 2002).
23

Chapter 8
LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (LDCs) IN EAST ASIA AND THE
SOUTH PACIFIC
It is appropriate in the context of ST~EP to focus on the role of tourism in the eight LDCs which are located among the
countries of East Asia and the Pacific.
In terms of the importance of international tourism for the economies of LDCs although only 0.5 percent of the
world’s exports of services originate from LDCs, international services are an important part of their economies. In
1998, services accounted for 20 percent of the total exports of goods and services of the LDCs. However, in 13 of the
49 LDCs, services export receipts exceeded merchandise export receipts and in all but three of those, the share of
tourism services exports in total foreign exchange earnings was more than twice the percentage of merchandise exports.
The share of the LDCs in the world’s exports of international tourism services was 0.6 percent in 1988 (with 2.4 million
international tourist arrivals) and 0.8 percent in 1998 (5.1 million). Throughout the 1990s, tourist flows toward the
LDCs increased more rapidly than tourist inflows to the rest of the world. This growth was particularly strong in seven
countries (Cambodia, Mali, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Myanmar, Samoa, Uganda, Tanzania), which hosted
over 1.2 million visitors in 1998, in comparison with 0.4 million in 1992. During the 1990s, tourism growth was much
slower in several LDCs, while a decrease was observed in a number of countries that suffered socio-political and
economic instability (UNCTAD 2001).
The growth of international tourism receipts in LDCs was significant during the 1990s: total receipts more than
doubled between 1992 and 1998 (from $1 billion to $2.2 billion). Particularly strong over the decade was the growth in
international tourists’ expenditure in Cambodia, Tanzania, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Samoa, Uganda and Haiti. In 1998,
tourism was among the five leading export sectors of goods or services in nearly two thirds of the LDCs (31 out of 49);
it was among the three top export industries in 22 LDCs; and it was the largest source of foreign exchange earnings in
seven of them (UNCTAD 2001).
The LDCs face a number of constraints affecting the development of their tourism sectors. These include:
• Vulnerability to natural external shocks (Solomon Islands suffered from 14 earthquakes and 5 cyclones
between 1977-1996; Vanuatu had 14 earthquakes and 11 cyclones in the same period).
• Vulnerability to non-natural external shocks of a political or economic nature which may disadvantage the
tourism sector – the 1991 Gulf War, the Asian economic ‘melt-down, the September 11 (2001) terrorist
attacks on New York; the Bali bombings, the invasion of Iraq 2002; the SARS epidemic 2003.
• Structural handicaps that hinder tourism development. The LDCs are not only influenced by geographical
constraints and external shocks beyond their control, they also incur structural handicaps that are closely
associated with their general situation of under-development. Most of these handicaps could be overcome
or reduced through the implementation of appropriate policies. The main structural handicaps affecting
tourism development in the LDCs relate to weaknesses in physical infrastructure (transport,
accommodation); communications infrastructure; human resources; and in density and quality of intersectoral
linkages ‘Island-ness’, smallness and remoteness may adversely affect tourism development (as in
the case of Tuvalu and Kiribati). Transport costs may be a real deterrent. But in other instances these
factors may serve to enhance the appeal of a destination in terms of its romance and exclusivity.
• Weaknesses related to the policy environment. Coherent domestic policies are key determinants of an
enabling environment for the tourism sector. Their absence or inadequacies severely affect the performance
of tourism operations in most LDCs. Therefore, the internal policy environment is equally as important as
factor endowment (UNCTAD 2001).
24

Chapter 9
TOURISM IN THE SOUTH PACIFIC
The micro-nations of the Pacific region ‘are notable for their cultural, physical, and political diversity. However, their
remoteness from global markets, narrow economic and natural resource bases, and vulnerability to natural disasters
constitute a daunting challenge in maintaining positive development paths in a dynamic global environment. Pacific
island economies tend to be characterised by a large and inefficient public sector, contrasting sharply with a weak and
under-developed private sector. In many countries the majority of the population still derive their livelihood primarily
from the informal sector. High population growth coupled with sub-standard infrastructure means that many
governments face difficulty in providing adequate levels of services to their people, with health and education systems
often stretched beyond capacity. More broadly, key positions across the public and private sectors suffer from severe
shortages of trained personnel. Capacity constraints in key governance institutions, particularly those dealing with law
and order issues, may also contribute to political instability’ (AusAID 2003).
The Status and Role of Tourism
From a very small beginning tourism has, over the past three decades, become the single largest generator of foreign
exchange for seven South Pacific countries. They are the Cook Islands, Fiji (before the attempted coup in 2000 tourism
annual receipts were more than twice those of sugar, and have very quickly regained that level), Niue, Micronesia
(FSM), Palau, Samoa, Tonga, and Vanuatu. Tourism is very important in the micro economies of Kiribati and Tuvalu
despite the miniscule number of annual visitors (less than 4000 p.a. to Kiribati and about 1000 p.a. to Tuvalu). It was of
lesser importance in Solomon Islands and visitation has virtually ceased following the destabilisation of government in
that country in 1999 following the inter-island conflict between Guadalcanal and Malaita. In PNG perceptions of
endemic inter-tribal conflict and associated dangers for visitors have meant that its enormous potential for tourism
development has never been realised. Nauru has never attempted to develop any tourism, although for more than
twenty-five years until its virtual demise five years ago Air Nauru played a major role in providing air services for
tourism between many of its island neighbours. For dependent entities such as French Polynesia, American Samoa,
Guam and the Marianas tourism has been their major industry for several decades, and in New Caledonia it has ranked
second only to nickel.
In terms of the five LDCS in the South Pacific, for Vanuatu the tourism and international business services
industries now account for more than half of the entire export economy. The number of international visitors increased
substantially over the 1990s, after a period of instability in the performance of its tourism sector (UNCTAD 2001). In
Tuvalu, where international services now largely dominate the economy, tourism has remained the primary foreignexchange
earner, even though the performance of this sector has remained static over the last decade and a half, at an
annual rate of 1,000 international visitors per year (UNCTAD 2001). In Samoa, the tourism sector has overtaken the
coconut products industry as the main source of income. In 1998, the tourism sector accounted for almost half of the
total foreign exchange earnings. As a result of the steady growth observed in tourism services and in international
business services, the service export receipts of Samoa are now more than three times greater than its merchandise
export earnings (UNCTAD 2001). In Kiribati, where the contribution of tourism to the export economy has always
remained under 10 percent, it stood at only 6 percent in 1998. The structural handicaps of extreme smallness and
remoteness are the overriding factors explaining the stagnation of tourism performance (3,000 visitors in 1985; 4,000 in
1998) and the modest ranking of the sector among sources of foreign-exchange earnings. That copra exports were three
times greater than tourism services exports in 1998 (nearly four times in 1985) (UNCTAD 2001), is a clear indication
that modern economic activities can find severe obstacles in overtaking the traditional economy when faced with
insuperable structural disadvantages of ‘islandness’ (van Trease 1993). In the Solomon Islands , where political
instability crippled the tourism sector in 2000, the performance of the sector demonstrated little growth (with a gain of
only 4,000 visitors per year) between 1985 and 1998. The country, however, possesses cultural and environmental
assets that are conducive to stimulating tourism development and could in theory achieve a tourism performance equal
to that of Vanuatu. Prior to 2000, Solomon Islands tourism accounted for only 3 percent of total exports (UNCTAD
2001).
Despite the over-riding importance of tourism to the island economies it has attracted very little development
assistance from aid donors. On the other hand hundreds of millions of dollars have been expended over the past thirty
years by aid donors in attempts to develop other sectors, especially agriculture, which has been in constant decline.
When the value of major crops such as copra (all Island countries), palm oil (PNG and Solomon Islands), sugar (Fiji),
coffee (PNG and Vanuatu), cocoa (PNG, Solomon Islands, Samoa), vanilla (Tonga), bananas (Tonga), squash (Tonga),
oranges (Cook Islands, Fiji), and passionfruit (Niue) is contrasted with tourism receipts for the period 1970 to 2000, in
25

every case the value of these primary products in real terms has declined and the only sector to demonstrate a
continuous upward trend has been tourism (Sofield 2003). In some instances, despite injections of millions of dollars,
production has ceased completely. For example, Samoa and Solomon Islands have ceased cocoa production despite
millions of aid dollars. The Cook Islands and Fiji have ceased orange growing other than for the local markets.
Passionfruit ceased in Niue in the early 1980s. Banana production for export ceased in Tonga in the late 1970s,
tomatoes soon after, and copra oil in the mid-1980s. Cattle projects in Fiji and Solomon Islands funded by Australia
failed to be sustainable. Even fisheries, which would seem to have particular relevance and potential given the known
tuna resources of the region, has experienced mixed success in terms of donor assistance. FAO provided Solomon
Islands with a fleet of ten pole-and-line tuna boats in the 1970s, which ceased operations more than 12 years ago. The
donor-funded tuna fishing industries in Fiji and Kiribati are floundering. The Forum Fisheries Agency, funded largely
by aid donors since 1978 when it was established per a decision of the Niue South Pacific Forum summit meeting, has
had little success in developing Island tuna industries, although it has been successful in monitoring and exacting fees
from Distant Water Fishing Nations such as USA and Japan.
It is of interest that with the exception of the European Community, which provided more than US$12 million
to establish and then provide project funding for the Tourism Council of the South Pacific between 1986 to 2001,
(TCSP Annual Reports) aid donors have mainly ignored the most vibrant sector – and indeed the only really successful
sector, tourism - in their development assistance programs. It could be argued that this is reason enough for aid donors
to focus on other sectors: but to do so ignores the imbalance of benefits from such tourism development which in some
of the recipient countries has a high percentage of foreign investor interests with often limited benefits for local
communities. Much more could be undertaken for the benefit of indigenous communities.
In the past five years New Zealand has provided approximately AUD$1.5 million for small ecotourism
projects, although the project documentation indicates that environmental conservation rather than tourism per se has
been the major motivational factor in the provision of such assistance. Australia has funded a national tourism
development plan for regional Tonga (1998-2001) for $3 million, but again the emphasis has not been on poverty
reduction but rather national development planning per se.
Constraints regarding tourism and development assistance
In some ways tourism has been ‘the forgotten sector’ of development assistance. A number of reasons may be deduced
for the reluctance of aid donors to direct development assistance to the only really successful sector in some of the
South Pacific countries. While the following reasons have been listed numerically they are not in any particular order of
priority.
The first is that tourism is a relatively new sector in most developing countries and has no embedded history of
receiving assistance, unlike for example, agriculture, education and health. While the Tourism Council of the South
Pacific (whose title was changed to South Pacific Tourism Organization in 2001) received significant support from the
European Community only eight of the countries were eligible for such assistance. Much of this support was limited to
marketing rather than development per se although several projects were undertaken (In 1981 a meeting was held
between the European Community and former colonies of its members (the so-called ACP Group, or African-
Caribbean-Pacific countries) in Lome to discuss development needs. The Pacific group (Fiji, Kiribati, Papua New
Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu and Western Samoa), accepted a European Community suggestion
that financial assistance be made available for regional tourism under the Lome II Trade Facility. This limited funding
to ACP member states so other Forum Island countries such as Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Niue,
Marshall Islands, Nauru, and Palau were unable to access such assistance (Arndell 1989:83).
A second reason is that without a long history behind it tourism education has lagged far behind other
disciplines so that many countries lack trained tourism-specific expertise able to assess, analyse or evaluate the merits
of tourism as a sector for development assistance. A 1994 study of Cook Islands by the Asia Productivity Organization,
for example, found that there were more than 300 experts in the Ministry of Agriculture overseeing in that year
NZ$120,000 worth of primary exports, while the Cook Islands Tourist Bureau struggled with just ten staff (only two
with a degree, in economics) to oversee a tourism industry which brought in NZ$55 million in that year (APO 1994).
The Cook Islands displayed great capacity to design and submit agricultural projects for donor assistance, but the overworked
tourism staff simply had no time for project submissions although arguably their need was substantial.
By the same token many development agencies lack in-house expertise in tourism so that from both ends of the
equation (i.e. donor/recipient) it is not uncommon for tourism to be overlooked. The ‘Cook Islands situation’ typifies
the imbalance in allocation of resources to tourism compared to other sectors and the time lag and bureaucratic inertia
evident in many countries concerning re-allocation of resources to meet new needs when national development planning
is considered.
A third reason is that in most countries (Australia included) tourism has grown exponentially and so not only is
there an imbalance in resources devoted to this sector vis-à-vis other sectors but in many cases its actual contribution to
national development and its economic weight is under-estimated. Only in 1999 did Australia introduce satellite
accounting and for the first time the Australian Bureau of Statistics was able to place a definitive value on tourism
26

activities - AUD$69 billion for f.y.1998 with international tourism contributing $17 billion of the total (ABS 1999).
A fourth reason is that tourism as commonly understood (i.e. consisting only of front line operations such as
resorts, hotels, attractions, tour companies, travel agents, theme parks, airlines, etc) is regarded as the province of the
private sector and that development assistance is:
• inappropriate and
• not required in any case,
the argument being that ‘if there is a dollar to be made the private sector would have done it; if not then obviously it is
unviable and cannot therefore be justified as a recipient for donor aid’. In the context of the widely-held perception that
tourism as a private sector area is inappropriate for receiving donor assistance it is of interest that the same reservations
have not applied to other private sector areas such as sugar, cocoa, coffee, cattle, airlines, shipping services, fisheries,
etc, all of which have received very significant injections of development assistance in the South Pacific.
This is why it is considered vital that tourism be approached as a system rather than a narrowly-defined
economic sector. As Sinclair, Blake and Sugiyato (2003:30) note, tourism is best regarded not as an industry but as ‘a
composite product, a collection of numerous interrelated industries and markets.’ Its real capacity for contributions to
national development and community welfare and as a tool for poverty alleviation can only be fully understood when
the broader approach is taken, encompassing a range of activities not readily associated with tourism.
A fifth reason is that tourism in the region has attracted a hostile press from many academics and other
commentators for a number of years. Jafari (1990) labelled these writings as ‘the cautionary platform’ with attacks
launched against tourism in terms of environmental impacts, adverse socio-cultural effects, high ‘leakage’ factors in
many developing countries, foreign ownership exploitative of local interests, etc. This anti-tourism voice has been as
vociferous in the South Pacific as it has been in the Caribbean and in parts of Asia and Australia. Most of these studies
have looked at tourism in isolation however and have not compared it with other sectors such as agriculture, mining or
manufacturing in the same terms. Some forms of tourism have indeed been less than beneficial: and they have generated
serious adverse impacts. But such impacts are of course relative.
To provide but one example, all tourism plant in Solomon Islands (prior to the outbreak of internecine warfare
in 1999) occupied less than 100 hectares with far less environmental impact than just one Australian agricultural aid
project, Kolombangara ‘Cattle Under Trees’. That project resulted in the clear-felling of 5000 acres of rainforest, major
pollution of 55 streams, and the resultant pollution of more than 20 kilometres of coastline and degradation of coral
reefs, before it was terminated after ten years and $6 million as a failure/disaster. The well-documented environmental
degradation caused by the Ok Tedi gold mine in PNG is another case in point, with donors providing millions of dollars
to allow the PNG Government to become a major shareholder in the venture. The point is that in some instances tourism
can be more benign environmentally, culturally and socially than other alternative forms of development, and also make
a greater contribution economically to national, regional or community welfare (Cooper 2003; Faulkner 2003; Gunn
2002; Hall 1999; Poon 1989; etc). The need is to put polemics aside and undertake rigorous research to determine
where the balance of advantage lies. The introduction of a tourism studies program at the University of the South
Pacific in the past five years has tempered some of this criticism and led to sounder research-based findings.
A sixth reason is that because tourism in the minds of many is linked with a hedonistic lifestyle and frivolous
activities, historically it has not always been not regarded as ‘real development’ and suggestions that it could be an
appropriate tool for economic development, especially for poor rural communities, has been given scant regard
(Crocombe & Rajotte 1980). Despite evidence of the economic contributions which tourism has made and continues to
make to many economies, including South Pacific island economies, there remains a negative perception in some
quarters which can militate against it being given a priority in terms of development assistance by both donors and
recipients alike. Its potential to make even greater contributions can therefore be neutralised by disapproving attitudes
among some key decision makers. In Tonga, for example, by royal decree Sunday is a day of worship and rest and
virtually all forms of commerce are banned; the ‘frivolity’ of tourism is regarded as inappropriate. Resorts, hotels and
guest houses on the main island of Nuku’alofa provide a bare minimum of service with no active entertainment. Flights
in and out of the country are forbidden. No tours operate with the exception of a ferry to Sunset Island resort; beach
bathing and barbecues are banned. This policy affects the entire economy and all commercial activity of course, but
‘Sunday observance’ effectively reduces Tonga’s tourism industry to six days a week.
These conservative attitudes found expression in early discussions of the South Pacific Forum and its
Secretariat. Although tourism was written into the Secretariat’s functions (with trade, transport and economic
development) in the very first Communique issued by the Forum countries in 1971 (South Pacific Forum, 1971), it was
not until 15 years later that government leaders agreed to establish a regional tourism development program (Tuvalu
Forum Communique, 1984). The reasons for this lengthy delay are complex but a key factor was an initial reluctance by
Island prime ministers and presidents to accept tourism as an appropriate sector for development. The first four Forum
summits (1971-1975) all record doubts about tourism expressed by Island leaders such as Ratu Mara (then Prime
Minister of Fiji), Sir Albert Henry (then Premier of the Cook Islands) and Tupua Tamasese Lealofi (then Prime Minister
of Samoa) - despite the fact that these same leaders all supported tourism when they approved the charter of the Bureau
for Economic Cooperation at the fourth Forum summit meeting held in Apia, Samoa in April 1973. Subsequently as
other islands became independent, they added their voices of caution e.g. the prime ministers of Solomon Islands (Sir
27

Peter Kenilorea, 1979), and Vanuatu (Father Walter Lini, 1981), both of them ordained Anglican priests (Piddington,
1986). General Rabuka with the support of the Methodist Church imposed a Tonga-like Sunday observance on Fiji for
the first two years after his coup in 1987; and again in 2000 the Methodist Church attempted to assert such control when
a disaffected national, George Speight, held the country’s parliamentarians hostage for almost two months.
In the past decade as economic realities have asserted their dominance and the generation of foreign exchange
and employment by tourism have become apparent, such opposition to tourism has dissipated to a significant extent; all
of the Island countries now have tourism development plans. But the legacy of anti-tourism sentiment lingers in
segments of most Island country populations. It is a factor which needs to be taken into account in considering
development assistance to this sector and underlines the fundamental importance of engaging in broad government and
community consultations.
Issues of Contention
With reference to the South Pacific this anti-tourism sentiment has been expressed in terms of tourism providing only
low-paid itinerant employment, degrading and debasing Islanders by reducing them to servants for insensitive,
hedonistic playboys/girls, is highly seasonable, is responsible for ‘de-agriculturisation’ (a version of the rural/urban
drift, with resorts replacing the city as the magnet), is largely foreign-owned with high leakage, is highly centralised
holding back regional development and destroys traditional values and cultures (Baines 1987; Britton 1987; Crocombe
1987; Clarke 1987; Rajotte 1982; Prasad 1987). All of these claims have been challenged and a brief overview of the
contrary evidence is presented here.
Traditional values and culture
Regarding traditional values and culture, tourism has been an agent of change for only forty years, in contrast to the
missionary influence (150 years); modernisation ever since the arrival of colonial forces in the region also about 150
years ago and the accompanying monetisation of the economy; modern education which removed generations of
islanders from their traditional forms of training and ‘apprenticeships’ in such areas as canoe building, house
construction, artefacts making, and so forth; and the communications and information technology revolution which has
exposed even remote villages to global trends and issues (Briguglio et al. 1996; Hall & Page 1997) . The socio-cultural
impact of tourism by contrast with these other agents of change has been minimal. In the other direction, tourism has
been responsible for the revival of some traditions and customs, e.g. fire walking in Fiji which was banned by
missionaries in the 1850s but re-emerged in the 1960s in response to cruise ship visits to Suva ( Stymeist 1996); the
Penetecost ‘land divers’ (ghol) of Vanuatu (de Burlo 1995; Jolly 1994), and the re-emergence of traditional forms of
dancing and singing in Samoa, Tonga and Cook Islands which had also been banned by missionaries.
In terms of seasonality, a review of the annual reports of the development banks and/or central planning
agencies of the Island countries reveals that the one sector to demonstrate steady growth throughout the last thirty years
has been tourism, and that agricultural products have been subjected to the vagaries of seasons to a much greater extent.
While tourism registers seasonal fluctuations, it retains the capacity to continue generating a cash flow throughout the
year. Unlike crops, tourism can maintain income earnings in off-peak periods by specific marketing strategies such as
discounted fares and reduced-price accommodation packages. Generally tourism is not affected by drought and indeed
the high sunshine hours in the western islands of Fiji which have less than 10’ of rain per year are favoured destinations
that have attracted the bulk of tourism investment.
Some tourism employment may be seasonal, but so is agriculture (and tuna fishing), a point that is often
overlooked when tourism is being criticised. While tourism's seasonality may be a disadvantage in terms of a
continuing cash income, it is not necessarily so for those who can return to their home villages during the off-season
and help in local rural activities including farming and fishing (Tisdell, Aislabie & Stanton 1988). In the South Pacific
countries this pattern of a return to the village is a general one for seasonal employment, and is not confined to the
tourism industry.
Historically, it is difficult to penetrate new markets for agricultural exports. But in the case of tourism, a
downturn in the economy of a major source market which might affect tourist inflows, such as recession in Australia,
may be countered with a promotional campaign in a new market such as the USA which will mitigate the economic
impact quickly and effectively. The agricultural sector does not have the capacity/flexibility to recover either from
natural disasters or difficulties with source markets in the same way as tourism.
Natural disaster capabilities
A case in point is the different capabilities of the two sectors to withstand cyclones. Crops will be wiped out for a year.
But the effect on tourism is generally only a few weeks. This is because of the adoption of Australian and New Zealand
building codes in most of the Island countries, so that resorts and other tourist facilities can now withstand all but the
most destructive cyclones (Favell 1986). News of a cyclone affecting Vanuatu, Fiji or Samoa may act as a short term
depressant on visitor numbers (4-6 weeks) while repairs are made; and then arrivals increase again. Fiji has seen its
sugar harvests decimated seven times in the last thirty years and its annual production reduced by half on another four
28

occasions because of cyclones. Tree crops (coconuts, oil palms) uprooted by a cyclone take six-to-seven years for new
plantings to grow and come into production. Copra production in the Solomons, Vanuatu, Fiji, Samoa and Tonga has
been disrupted for several years at a time following the devastation of cyclones, Samoa losing virtually all agricultural
production for two years following Cyclone Ofa in 1990 for example. Tonga suffered a drought-induced decline of 2%
of GDP in 1997/98 because of agricultural failures. Tourism receipts during the same periods recorded significant
increases. The record of steady tourism growth in the South Pacific, when contrasted with agricultural production and
weather-induced risk factors, forcefully negates the notion that tourism is so seasonal as to be a high risk sector to be
avoided. The tourism sector is more resilient than many other sectors and often better able to undertake sound disaster
management (Drabek 1995; Faulkner 2001).
The case of sugar in Fiji is particularly interesting. This is a commercial crop grown mainly by Indo-Fijians on
land leased from the Fijian mataqali (land owning clans) and yet it has attracted more than AUD$30 million in direct
and indirect development assistance from a range of aid donors over the thirty year period 1970-2000. In the years
1970-2000, tourism outperformed sugar in terms of foreign exchange earnings for 23 years, receipts from the former
achieving more than twice those of sugar between 1983 to 2000. 1987 (the year of Rambuka’s two coups) was an
exception as visitation dropped from 284,000 in 1986 to only 160,000; but by 1988 the figure had climbed to more than
300,000 and it had again achieved earnings more than twice those of sugar. The attempted coup by Speight in 2000
affected sugar exports almost as much as tourism since India successfully sought to have Fiji excluded from the
Commonwealth Sugar Agreement.
Leakage
Because of narrow economies with few support industries early tourism development in the South Pacific, especially
resort tourism, featured high leakage factors (Dwyer 1988). This still remains the case in come countries and for some
five star properties However as tourism growth has created demand for new products some of the island countries have
been able to respond and backward linkages into the local economy have increased substantially. Fiji illustrates a case
of how leakage from tourism has decreased markedly in the past 20 years. Initially, in the 1970s tourism in Fiji had a
high leakage factor as few of the goods and services required by the forms of tourism development (mainly expatriate
owned and managed resort tourism, supplemented by small boat cruise tourism and scuba dive operations) were
available in Fiji. For every dollar earned an estimated 70 cents was expended on imports. By contrast for sugar the
leakage factor was estimated at the time at about 49c in the dollar (Sawailau 1989). By 2000 however the situation had
changed significantly. Local industries were producing furniture, fabrics, cement and other materials and equipment. A
thriving market garden sector had developed in the Sigatoka Valley and around Nadi resulting in import substitution.
Beer and soft drinks were being manufactured locally. Fibre glass boats were being made locally. Even production of
such exotic products as quail for up-market resorts had been developed locally. A survey of ten resorts in 1994
indicated that the leakage factor had been reduced to an estimated 55 cents in the dollar (Sofield 1998). At the same
time a number of new indigenously owned small operators had entered the market in Fiji and their leakage factor was
even less: usually below 20 cents in the dollar (Sawailau, personal correspondence, 1994). A study by Milne (1988) of
small locally owned guest houses in Niue revealed a leakage factor of only 10 cents in the dollar.
Sugar production demonstrated a reverse process. By 2000 many of Fiji’s sugar farms had modernised;
tractors, trucks and narrow gauge trains had replaced bullocks as the major form of power/transport. The vehicles,
associated machinery and spare parts had to be imported and increased fuel also had to be imported. In addition, a
decrease in soil fertility due to cropping the same lands for more than 100 years reached critical levels, which requires
the importation of fertilisers on a continuing basis. Fiji’s refineries were also modernised and it was estimated that the
leakage factor for sugar was more than 60 cents in the dollar (National Planning Office, personal correspondence,
2000).
Decentralisation
Rural-urban drift has been a constant factor in the economic and social development of all Pacific Island countries since
colonial regimes replaced the decentralised village-based societies with a centralised administration (Douglas 1996).
The consequent changes in demographic patterns were historically present well before the advent of tourism on any
scale. Tourism has not played a major role in speeding up this shift, contrary to the view of Rajotte (1982) and others,
since the capitals of the South Pacific states are not dominated by tourism activity. There are many other economic and
social elements exerting much greater ‘pull’ in attracting increasing numbers to the urban centres of the South Pacific
than tourism (Hall & Page 1997). The capitals do of course serve as obvious locations for the business tourist (only a
small percentage of the total number of arrivals for most countries - less than 10%), for international airport entry and
customs services, for communications services, for travel agency services and for related activities such as tour
operators. They also serve as the fulcrum for policy formulation and implementation, of which strategies for tourism
will be but one facet. Backward linkages may be significant. But to the extent that many resorts and community-based
facilities and attractions in the South Pacific are located outside the capitals, then tourism has made a positive
contribution to decentralisation.
29

A case in point is the proliferation of resorts in the Mamanuca Islands chain west of Nadi in Fiji. In 1995 there
were 11 island resorts employing more than 1,500 people directly, whose activities provided additional indirect
employment and income for another 500 families, and which were largely responsible for maintaining a population of
more than 6,000 on the islands. When the resorts of the Coral Coast and Pacific Harbour, Viti Levu, (12), of Denarau,
south-west of Nadi (3), of Savu Savu, Vanua Levu and Taveuni (eight) and eastern island resorts (5) were added to the
Mamanucas for a total of 39 with 3,014 rooms, and contrasted with the number of hotels and apartments in the
Suva/Nausori area (14 with 493 rooms), it could be deduced that in fact tourism had made a significant contribution to
decentralisation in Fiji. Even when Nadi (160 km by road from Suva, and location of the international airport) with its
10 hotels and guest houses totalling 595 rooms was combined with Suva for urban tourism plant, the ratio of urban to
rural/off-shore islands was still 3:1 (Fiji Hotels Association 1995). However it could be argued that since Nadi's
development as an urban centre was tourism-dependent (its growth was predicated on the services which grew
incrementally out of its site as the country's international airport) then in fact it is more aptly classified as regional and
its figures should not be included with those of Suva.
In all South Pacific countries, and in many of the east Asian countries tourism has been a major force for
decentralisation with many ventures and activities located in regional and rural areas.
None of these arguments should be interpreted as a case against investment in and development assistance to
agriculture. After all the majority of the populations of the South Pacific and east Asia are rural farmers/fishermen,
many of them existing at subsistence levels. The point is rather that millions of dollars have been expended on a
declining sector in every country in the South Pacific, with projects aimed at the export sector rather more than food
security, while the most dynamic sector, tourism, has been largely ignored. The allocation of some of the development
assistance expended on agricultural projects aimed at the export market for the generation of foreign exchange (vide
cocoa in Samoa, coffee in PNG, forestry in Solomon Islands, copra in Tonga, etc) towards tourism may have made
more effective contributions to national, regional and community development. Tourism development can share with
agriculture a focus on village/community participation, regional development, and a similar capacity to deliver regional
and rural infrastructure (roads, power, communications, access to health services, etc). It is tourism which has resulted
in the development of the Mamanuca Islands chain in Fiji and the ferry services which link the indigenous villages
there; and it is tourism which has justified airports with jumbo jet capabilities in many South Pacific Island Countries.
30

Chapter 10
TOURISM IN EAST ASIA
The economies of East Asia demonstrate significant variation. Maintaining economic growth and a secure environment
conducive to development and poverty reduction will remain a challenge for many East Asian countries in the next five
years. Lower growth is likely in Indonesia and the Philippines than in Vietnam and China, and the outbreak of Severe
Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) impacted adversely on some economies. East Asian countries will need to
maintain the openness to global trade and investment that saw dramatic growth in the 1980s and early 1990s, and
commit to improving their governance. Most national economies in the region appear more robust now than in 1997,
(the year of the so-called Asian ‘melt-down’) but continued reform is essential to weather high levels of risk, attract
investment and achieve long-term and sustainable growth. ‘While many regional countries have achieved continuous
current account surpluses and improved their foreign reserves since the 1997 financial crisis, public debt levels remain
high and, in South-East Asia, private investment remains weak. Corporate and financial sector reform and strengthening
law and justice systems will be needed to foster private sector development and investment’ (AusAID 2003).
The Status and Role of Tourism
In Asia, especially in the South East Asian countries including Vietnam and Cambodia, tourism is positioned as one of
their top five income generating activities. In 2000 (the most recent year for which WTO statistics are available), China
received more than 31 million international visitors, Malaysia more than 10 million, and Thailand 9+ million. A number
of these countries have received tourism project assistance although in most cases to date the emphasis has been on
protected area management, the development of natural and cultural heritage sites, and national planning. Significant
funds have also been provided for marketing, but as noted in the summary of the ADB and WB policies on tourism,
they are now diverting such assistance in an effort to find a focus on poverty reduction through appropriate tourism.
Arrivals for all Asian destinations were showing an increase until September 11, 2001 when as part of the
global downturn in tourism their visitor numbers also registered decreases. Arrivals in 2002 remained at a depressed
level and just as they began to trend upwards the 12 October 2002 Bali bombing again reduced international demand for
travel within the East Asia region. The latter has had a devastating impact on Bali’s tourism industry and Indonesia in
general. In early 2003 the SARS virus, combined with the war in Iraq, compounded the situation and international
tourism suffered one of its most significant declines in recent years (WTO 2003). Domestic tourism increased as people
deferred international travel, although in the case of Asian destinations (China excepted) this increase has no capacity to
equal revenue generated from international travel and of course has not contributed to foreign exchange earnings.
However, tourism has demonstrated resilience to such shocks before and it is anticipated that once the effects of these
events diminish numbers will again increase (Drabek 1995; Faulkner 2002). The various externalities are examples of
chaos/complexity theory at work in the context not just of tourism but other industries and national economies, where
steady-state equilibrium and stability are invariably of a temporary nature and the dynamics of change constantly
introduce new phases in the evolution of tourism (Russell & Faulkner 2003). The effect of the ‘pent-up demand
syndrome’ resulting from deferred international travel will likely sharpen the recovery when it occurs: new coherent
configurations of supply and demand will emerge in response to changing conditions (Prideaux 2003).
East Asian countries all have a focus on poverty alleviation in terms of national development plans, and in
recent years they have begun to focus on the potential of tourism to assist in meeting national objectives in this regard.
Indonesia has emphasised the role of tourism particularly since its oil production began to decline. Vietnam, Cambodia
and Laos have embarked on new tourism development plans to assist rural and regional communities and Thailand’s
long-standing tourism development program has traditionally involved a commitment to rural development and poverty
reduction. The Greater Mekong Sub Region tourism development plan which involves all four countries has poverty
reduction as a key goal. Malaysia has a similar tourism development plan emphasising rural tourism and poverty
reduction. Political instability and insurgency troubles in the Philippines have limited that country’s attempts to harness
tourism as effectively as it would wish and its commitment to tourism planning has tended to be inconsistent. Myanmar
has attempted to use tourism to legitimise its military regime but despite this politicisation some efforts have advanced
rural tourism and the welfare of rural communities.
31

Table 1: East Asia Visitor Statistics, 1999-2000 [Source: WTO, Annual Report, 2001]
East Asia
WTO member countries
China
Hong Kong
Indonesia
Japan
Korea
Macau
Malaysia
Philippines
Singapore
Taiwan
Thailand
Vietnam
Non WTO countries
Brunei
Cambodia
Lao Republic
Myanmar
EAST ASIA VISITOR STATISTICS
2000
(000s)
31,299
13,059
5,064
4,757
5,322
6,688
10,272
2,171
6,258
2,624
9,580
2,150
0,984
0,466
0,720
0,271
1999
% difference
15.50%
15.30%
7.10%
7.20%
14.20%
32.40%
28.90%
-8.20%
10.50%
8.80%
10.70%
14.20%
China is perhaps the success story globally in terms of utilising tourism for its national development. It listed
tourism as one of its ‘four pillars of economic development’ five years ago and has directed major resources to the
sector. It has actively sought external assistance and a range of aid donors are currently involved in major provincial
level tourism planning and implementation exercises. Canada has provided funding and experts for tourism planning for
five provinces (Wall 2003, personal correspondence). The WTO has coordinated tourism planning for six provinces.
The Dutch Government is funding a five-year programme in Yunnan Province which has impoverished rural
communities and ecotourism as one of its key objectives (the joint Sino-Dutch ‘Forest Conservation and Community
Development Program’). Experts from Australia’s CRC for Sutainable Tourism have been engaged as consultants to
work on tourism development, ecotourism and poverty reduction projects in the Provinces of Guangdong, Guilin,
Hubei, Sha’anxi, Sichuan, Outer Mongolia, Tibet and Yunnan, with funding from a range of sources.
East Asia’s LDCs
In terms of the performance of the tourism sector in the three east Asian LDCs, Lao People's Democratic Republic has
experienced rapid progress in tourism activities. The number of international visitor arrivals had grown to 260,000 in
1998, from 30,000 in 1992, thereby making tourism the second largest sector of the export economy accounting for 20
percent of total exports in 1998 (UNCTAD 2001). Cambodia enjoyed a three-fold increase in its tourism activities
during the waning years of the 1990s. The number of international visitor arrivals grew from 88,000 in 1992 to 220,000
in 1998. In 1998, only the timber-related industry (sawn timber and logs), accounting for 43 percent of the export
economy, exceeded the tourism sector, which represented almost 10 percent of the total export economy (UNCTAD
2001).
In Myanmar, a relatively diversified economy has been developing in spite (or as a result) of the political
isolation of the country. In this context, tourism has remained the fourth largest export sector of the economy, still much
smaller than the dominant primary and processing industries. However, very strong growth was observed in tourism
performance during the 1990s. The number of tourist arrivals multiplied by seven, from 26,000 in 1988 to 194,000 in
32

1998. Like Cambodia and the Lao People's Democratic Republic (with comparable cultural assets as a basis for relevant
specialisation), Myanmar is rising to become one of the most valued tourist destinations in Asia. Moreover, it has the
capacity to make the tourism industry a source of increased prosperity for the benefit of its impoverished people
(UNCTAD 2001).
The Lao Republic provides an example of a case study involving New Zealand development assistance to the
tourism sector. The primary tourist attractions of Laos are natural and cultural heritage. It is home to 47 distinct ethnic
groups with a rich variety of traditional built heritage and living cultures. 12% of the land mass is protected in nature
reserves. Both the natural and cultural heritage provides significant resources for sustainable community-based
ecotourism involving the disadvantaged minorities. The tourism industry is presently one of the few opportunities for
Laos to earn significant foreign exchange. UNESCO coordinated a broad range of ecotourism initiatives in the Luang
Namtha region of Northwest Laos (part of Laos’s 3 rd largest protected area, 222,400 ha) with the Tourism Authority of
the Lao PDR as the implementing agency. The Programme attracted a wide range of donors and NGO project funding,
including Japan, New Zealand, European Union, Netherlands, US-based NGO’s, a US outdoor leadership training
school, and Germany. It included:
• A participatory approach incorporating input from local communities, authorities, and guides for the eight
villages (population 2000) in the scheme;
• A permit system for park entry;
• Three trekking programs, and a boat trip program;
• Ethnic minority village home-stays in simple purpose-built traditional lodging;
• Developing related income generating activities such as handicrafts;
• Capacity building by training local villagers as eco-guides, in tourism management, interpretation and
impact monitoring of resources;
• Sourcing all goods and services locally; and
• Integrating tourism as a tool for rural development.
(UNESCO 2002)
Nam Ha Ecotourism Project, Luang Namtha
The Nam Ha Ecotourism Project is a NZODA funded ecotourism project that is focused on conservation. The Nam Ha
Ecotourism project earned a UN Award for achievement in Sustainable Development and Poverty Alleviation (Robson
Online). The objective of the project was to promote an ecologically sustainable ecotourism project for Laos. The
implementing agency is the Laos National Tourism Authority (Schipani & Morris 2002).
In 16 months this ecotourism initiative received 2,000 tourists from 38 countries, who went on treks and boat
trips. Tourists have mainly been backpackers with an average spend of US$9 per day and an average length of stay for 4
days. According to Schipani and Morris (2002) the benefits of the project include a growing conservation ethos among
authorities, local villagers, and local guides. The income received from the ecotourism initiatives is being spent on
essential medicines, rice, clothing and household items. All revenue is retained in Luang Namtha. The gross revenue
from October 2000 to February 2002 was US$34,400. This amounts to forty percent of all village income in the
participating villages for this project during this 16 month period (8 villages, population of 2000). Currently NZODA
has provided a Grant to UNESCO for NZ$200,000 to manage the project. NZODA has provided grants totally
NZ$838,000 (Robson Online).
33
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 7: Main Reasons for Visiting Luang Namtha
Luang Namtha Main Reasons
for Visiting (%)
(Schipani & Morris 2002)
Ethnic Minorities
Nature
Culture
New Destination
Handicrafts
Other
Food

Figure 8: Distribution of Nam Ha Ecoguide Service Gross Revenues
The Nam Ha Ecotourism Project, Lao Republic, highlights:
• Local support for conservation.
• Tourism products supplying 40% of participating villages’ income.
• All goods, services, and staff are sourced locally.
• Rural tourism development and diversification of rural income generation.
• Monies received in income are being spent on essential medicines, rice, and clothing.
• The project is making a significant contribution to poverty reduction although its primary purpose is
conservation-oriented.
The informal sector is a very important part of tourism throughout East Asia and a study by ODI into Bai Chay
in Vietnam demonstrates the way in which it can provide opportunities for women especially.
BOX 3: BAI CHAY, HA LONG BAY , VIETNAM
Bai Chay, Ha Long Bay, Vietnam provides an example suitable for a
detailed case study. According to a recent DFID pilot study about
twelve local families run private lodges or small hotels, and restaurants.
However, local involvement in tourism spreads far beyond this, to an
estimated 70–80% of the Bai Chay population. In addition to those with
jobs in the hotels and restaurants, local women share the running of a
number of noodle stalls, many women and children are ambulant
vendors, and anyone with a boat or motorbike hires them out to tourists.
However, the informal sector is often neglected by planners.
The Bai Chay project highlights:
� the importance of the informal sector for income generation and
poverty alleviation, especially through -
� the participation of women.
(ODI, 2002)
34

China
Jiuzhaigou Biosphere Reserve, Sichuan Province, China, also provides a graphic example of how tourism can assist in
poverty alleviation. The reserve gained World Heritage Site listing in 1991 because of its outstanding biodiversity and
landforms. Its central features are mountain ranges descending from the Tibetan Himalayas and enclosing two high
valleys with a series of 108 calciferous lakes and waterfalls which together with the high alpine forests constitute the
habitat for endangered species including inter alia the giant panda, the lion monkey and possibly the snow leopard. Its
biodiversity (both flora and fauna) is high. There were originally nine Tibetan villages inside the reserve boundaries
(‘Jiuzhaigou’ means nine stockaded villages’ valley) which date back 1200 years, but currently only six remain. They
have a population of 200 families totalling about 1,100 people, and before tourism became an approved form of
economic development in China in 1984 they were subsistence herders.
A fieldtrip to the Reserve in 2001 (De Lacy, Bauer and Sofield) indicated that visitation to the reserve had
increased from 100,000 ten years ago to more than 800,000 in 2000 to 1.1 million last year (Zhang, Jiuzhaigou
Management, personal correspondence 2002). Of these about 70,000 were overseas visitors, the remaining 1+ million
being Chinese domestic tourists. One of the benefits is that the previously impoverished Tibetan communities residing
inside the reserve boundaries have, through access to income generated by this level of visitation, set up a cooperative
to purchase a fleet of 207 large and 21 mini ‘green’ buses (gas powered replacing diesel and petrol fuelled vehicles).
These are the only means of transport allowed inside the park so the communities have established a virtual monopoly.
Each bus has a Tibetan driver and carries its own Tibetan guide, most of them women. Funds for the ‘Green bus
cooperative’ were provided as a loan from the Government-owned China Development Bank. The Government has also
regulated to prevent any form of ‘outside’ tourist accommodation, refreshment stall or souvenir shop other than Tibetan
lodges, home-stays and outlets in the Tibetan villages, thus ensuring additional income-generating opportunities are
available to the minority communities. Visitor entrance fees generate more than USD$15 million p.a. of which an
estimated US$0.5 million flows through to the Tibetan communities directly, who are employed in the reserve
management and with the bus company. In addition the provision of sewage systems for the villages to preserve the
environment of the park and other infrastructure development (sealed roads, power) constitute indirect flows with direct
non-financial benefits. The Tibetan minority has reaped significant benefits and poverty has been virtually eliminated
from the Tibetan villages inside the Reserve. The reserve has recently been successfully certified as an international
Green Globe destination which ensures it exhibits best practice in environmental and social sustainability.
The Jiuzhaigou Biosphere Reserve, China, case study highlights:
35
• The role of government in providing supporting policy and planning structures,
• especially regulations banning all non-Tibetan villager accommodation inside the Park; and
• all transport other than ‘green buses’.

Chapter 11
GOVERNANCE, TOURISM AND POVERTY ALLEVIATION
In considering the contribution that tourism can make to poverty alleviation, there are many areas which require a
greater research effort in order to understand how best such interventions and contributions could be made. These areas
include (but are not restricted to):
• Sustainable Resource Management: promoting sustainable approaches to the management of the
environment, including rural development, and the use of scarce natural resources.
• Globalisation: assisting developing countries to access and maximise the benefits from trade and new
information technologies
• Human Capital: supporting stability and government legitimacy through improved basic services like
health, education, and water and sanitation services
• Security: strengthening regional security by enhancing partner governments' capacity to prevent conflict,
enhance stability and manage trans-boundary challenges
It is in the area of Governance however where the tourism industry could build a major partnership with
governments, as recognised by the WTO ST~EP initiative. Good governance is the fundamental building block for
development because it cuts across all parts of the development agenda and all aspects of private sector and aid
investment. Effective governance ensures that sound fiscal, monetary and trade policies are instituted to create an
environment for private sector development. A dynamic private sector creates jobs and incomes, generates wealth and
ensures resources are used efficiently. ST~EP is designed with the flexibility to operate equally comfortably within
government development programs, aid donor assistance programs, and private sector investment.
Governance and the South Pacific
In this South Pacific there are three key issues related to good governance which need to be confronted when
considering the case for utilising tourism and development assistance as a tool for alleviating poverty. They are
questions of:
• Land tenure;
• Law and order; and
• Legislative obstacles to indigenous participation in tourism.
Issues of Land Tenure in the South Pacific
Entire books and many theses have been written about land tenure issues in the South Pacific (Britton & Clarke 1987;
Cole 1993; Curry 2000; Hall & Page 1997; Larmour, Crocombe & Taungenga 1981; Routledge 1985; ad infinitum) and
it is not the intention to critique that voluminous record in any detail here. Rather, those elements which impinge most
directly on tourism are identified and summarised.
The island countries of the South Pacific have similar legislation relating to land tenure with some localised
variations. There are three main types of land tenure: i) customary ownership; ii) alienated land (often Government
urban lands and former foreign-owned plantations) much of which is now leasehold land; and iii) freehold land.
Customary land is controlled by land-owning units such as clans, with members of the unit having usufructuary rights.
This land cannot be bought or sold: in effect it is held in perpetual trust by the present land-owners for future
generations. Alienated land is land for which compensation had been paid, boundaries surveyed and title registered,
usually as freehold land, prior to independence. After independence most alienated land (e.g. in Vanuatu, Solomon
Islands and Fiji), reverted to a maximum 75 year lease, with customary ownership to be determined at some time in the
future. In Samoa it was only 25 years. Leases may be bought and sold by citizens and to approve foreign investors. In
Fiji about 7% of the land remains as freehold, some under foreign ownership (e.g. Wakaya Island, site of the most
exclusive resort in Fiji) and in the other countries urban land inside town boundaries may be bought by and sold in the
same way. The Governments have ultimate control over urban lands.
Fiji’s land leasing system for foreign investment provides a model which, with appropriate modifications,
could usefully be adopted by other South Pacific governments. Fiji has to a large extent avoided clashes between Fijians
over land ownership because it registered customary land ownership through the mataqali (clans), detailed the
boundaries of land and sea territories as long ago as the 1930s, and established the Native Lands Trust Board to regulate
the leasing of native lands for any commercial venture under legislation (Larmour, Crocombe & Taungenga 1981;
Routledge 1985). While not perfect this legislation protects the rights of the indigenous owners and simultaneously
provides guarantees for investors (Ward 1982; Routledge 1985). Appendix IV provides details of the lease agreement
between Fiji’s largest resort, the foreign-owned Mana Island Resort, and the landowning mataqali, the success of the
36

esort having generated more than F$8 million for the clan since its inception in 1972, completely eliminating poverty
in the land-owning community.
This case study also indicates that the oft-criticised foreign investor in resort tourism may in fact make a
substantial and direct contribution to poverty alleviation provided a partnership with local communities overseen by
government is negotiated. By contrast enclave tourism under foreign ownership (or local elite ownership) which
excludes and marginalises local communities, as evidenced in some countries, must rely upon the trickle-down effect
rather than delivering benefits directly for any influence on poverty levels. It is of interest that in both the World Bank
and Asian Development Bank strategies, the role of private sector/local community partnerships is emphasised. Ashley
et al (2001) in their review of case studies of PPT in South Africa also emphasise the importance of harnessing the
private sector to work with poor communities. They note that ‘ensuring commercial viability must be a priority’ which
will require ‘attention to product quality, marketing, investment in business skills, and inclusion of the private sector’
(our italics) in PPT ventures to improve prospects of successful intervention. Knowledge of the operational networks of
national and international tourism, especially in terms of marketing and accessing global reservations systems and
transport systems, are essential for success and obviously communities will in most cases have no knowledge of, or
expertise in, these areas. Only governments can provide the legal and regulatory framework necessary for leasehold
private sector partnerships to work successfully.
The lack of a leasing system like that operating in Fiji - or deficiencies in existing systems, particularly in
Melanesian countries - has created major obstacles for tourism development. The (spectacular) failure of Anuha Island
Resort in Solomon Islands in 1986 and the inability of that country to attract any significant foreign investment in
tourism subsequently was due largely to the absence of a leasehold framework which could ensure equity for both the
customary landowners and the investor (note however, that the outbreak of civil unrest in 1999 brought all investment
to a complete halt). In the case of Anuha, the traditional landowners were effectively disenfranchised, marginalised and
finally barred from access to their own island when the foreign investors took out a court injunction in an attempt to
prevent disruption of their resort operations. In retaliation the traditional owners ‘invaded’ the island on three occasions,
dug up the airstrip, held management and tourists hostage on two occasions while they demanded redress for their
complaints (inadequate compensation, dismissal of all landowners from employment, low lease payments, destruction
of rainforest and a semi-sacred site). They finally burnt the resort and it no longer exists (Sofield 1996). Where the Fiji
leasing system empowers the traditional landowners, the Solomon Islands legislation effectively disempowered the
Anuha community.
Melanesian customary land tenure is also a source of significant endogenous conflict because in many
instances there are competing claims to land ownership (Iowa 1989). PNG has more than 700 different tribes (linguistic
units) composed of more than 3000 clans with perhaps 150,000 autonomous villages owing allegiance to no other
entity. Solomon Islands has more than 90 tribes, over 400 clans and about 2000 autonomous communities. Vanuatu has
more than seventy tribes, over 300 clans, and about 1,500 autonomous villages. The potential for intra-clan and intertribal
rivalry and conflict is therefore considerable. The possibility of development in an area (not only in terms of
tourism) will invariably result in a spate of claims and counter claims as different tribes or even clans within tribes vie
for the perceived benefits which will flow from the proposed development. When the resort was planned for Anuha
Island in the Solomons, counter claims of ownership by various indigenous interests took two and a half years to
proceed through the courts: most investors cannot afford to wait out such a lengthy period of inaction (Butler & Hinch
1996).
In Melanesian communities where there are many socially-sanctioned ‘levellers’ to prevent one individual or
clan getting too far ahead of others, intra-clan and inter-clan rivalry may also create major problems for tourism. Ranck
(1987) in his case study of autonomous village guest houses in Tufi, Papua New Guinea, catalogued the tensions which
tourism development engendered in the area between competing guest house owners. Similarly, Iowa's 1989 study of
guest house development in Buna, Papua New Guinea, outlined inter-clan and inter-generational tension which
threatened a small community-based resort in Oro Province when rival clans in the same village established competing
guest houses. In a not-untypical Melanesian response the men in a Mendi Highlands village burnt a guest house run by
their women because they considered its success had made the women difficult to control (Iowa 1989). The major cause
of the recent inter-island tribal conflict in the Solomons which has crippled its tourism sector arose from Malaitan
settlement and expansion over a fifty year period on Guadalcanal customary tribal lands alienated for expatriate owned
plantations (Curry 2000).
Throughout the Melanesian Pacific there have been isolated incidents directed against tourism development or
tourists by customary owners attempting to assert or re-assert control over their traditional lands which have been
alienated (i.e. prior to independence land for which compensation was paid, and the land surveyed and registered,
usually for plantations). In Port Vila, Vanuatu, in 1981 (the year after independence) a clash between traditional values
and commercial tourism resulted in indigenes stoning tourists snorkelling and diving on ‘their’ reef which a tour
operator (expatriate) had been using for years. Compensation (rent) was demanded as they reasserted their traditional
rights suppressed under colonial rule. ‘The conflict was economic not racial’ (Baines 1987:19). In Solomon Islands and
PNG there are numerous recorded instances of traditional land owners blocking access to resorts (often by the simple
expedient of cutting down a coconut tree and blocking the road) in attempt to assert their claims for
37

ownership/compensation/participation in benefits from tourism.
The Polynesian countries (Samoa, Tonga, Cook Islands, Tuvalu, Niue) tend not have the same problem
because they are ethnically similar, do not have tribal fragmentation, and their hierarchical chiefly system exercises
established authority over their traditional land tenure system. Kiribati as a Micronesian society also does not have the
same fragmentation as Melanesia and has thus avoided major disputes of land ownership. Nauru is also a Micronesian
society whose land tenure system was codified and registered very systematically when it was a German colony, and the
exploitation of its phosphate resources has proceeded smoothly in terms of whose land was being mined at any point in
time over the past 100 years.
In the context of good governance, consultations with Island Governments on perceived impediments to
tourism development arising from land tenure issues with a view to formulating more workable policies would seem to
be a useful intervention. However it is an emotive issue and a mind-set accepting of a long process rather than a swift
outcome is absolutely fundamental.
Law and Order
Tourism invariably suffers when there are perceptions of law and order issues and the security of visitors may be at risk.
The coups in Fiji in 1987 and the takeover of the Fijian Parliament and the holding of its parliamentarians hostage for
more than 50 days in 2000 vividly demonstrated this with Fiji’s tourist arrivals plummeting. Visitor safety and security
remains a major issue in Papua New Guinea, the Southern Philippines, and Solomon Islands despite concerted attempts
by Governments to redress the situation. However, there are various ways in which visitor security can be addressed
ranging from tourism police to the flow of benefits into the communities in the area. It is suggested that tourism can
have positive impacts on security once the context is identified and addressed. Using Nepal as an example, it seems
more than coincidental that after several years of fierce battles between Maoists and Nepal authorities, costing more
than 3000 lives, not one tourist has been harmed, not one lodge or hotel burnt down. Maoists have recognised that
tourism is Nepal’s major contributor to poor people, and many of the rebels have family members benefiting from
tourism (Bauer et al. 2002). The opposite is the case in Bali and the Southern Philippines where tourists have been
specifically targeted by terrorists and insurgents. However another lesson from Nepal and Fiji, when looking at areas
like Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands, is that the developers of tourism ventures are advised for security
reasons alone to have a firm village (or regional) community base and support (generally based on a flow of benefits).
The observations of Filer and Sekhrans (1998), endorsed by CRC for Sustainable Tourism studies (e.g. Sakulas et al.
2001), suggest that there needs to be a network for tourism services, linkages and demand-supply infrastructure which if
not present may lead to anti-tourism reaction (Bauer et al. 2002). Daugherty provides an example of the security/flow of
benefits nexus from Fiji – see Box 4. The challenge for ST~EP in PNG, the Solomon Islands, southern Philippines and
other places where there may be law and order issues will be the development of linkages between the public and
private sectors with the tourism industry actively fostering community benefits.
38

BOX 4: CORRELATION BETWEEN FLOW OF BENEFITS
AND SECURITY TO TOURISM OPERATIONS
The need for the establishment of a flow of benefits network can be highlighted in the South Pacific, based on
experiences in adventure tourism in Fiji. The adventure tours are multi-day (camping based) sea kayaking
tours in the Yasawa Islands of Fiji. Where communities have received benefits from the venture there have
been few or no security threats to tours. On the other hand, where villagers perceive that there are no benefits
for them, instances of petty theft have occurred. With reference to the latter, landfalls were made without
payment or other benefits to the locals, one a lunch stop on a remote beach and another for one night remote
beach camping on the other side of the island from the villages. Due to recurring petty theft problems from
villagers on the two islands over several years, the tour operator was forced to cancel this itinerary for a tenday
sea kayaking tour to that particular part of the Yasawas.
By contrast, the village of Navotua (2 night village stay on all tours) receives on average $7,500 per year from
the sea kayaking operator from camping fees, mekes (Fijian dancing and singing displays), boat charter
services, sale of handicrafts, and the purchase of local produce and seafood by the operator. The village has
also gained access to transport to the regional centre of Lautoka, and basic health care (i.e. first aid treatment)
through the operator; and an education fund was set up for tour members wanting to contribute monies to the
village. One of the village members is employed as a local sea kayaking guide, making AUD$50 per day
which is then spread among his extended family ($12.50/day FJD is average, though there is scarce
employment in the outer islands). With this flow of benefits to the village no theft has ever occurred in the
village of Navotua.
Tavewa Island residents and villages around the Blue Lagoon rely heavily on tourism and receive a
considerable flow of benefits. Villages and individuals in the area who do receive benefits from the sea
kayaking tours understand the monetary value of tourists and the kayaking venture has experienced no
problem on any tours in these other areas of the Yasawa Islands. In fact, all of the equipment ($100,000 worth)
is kept partially unlocked year round on Tavewa Island in the Yasawas (two islands north to recurring petty
theft region) and no theft has ever occurred.
Security threats to tours, specifically petty theft, correspond to no flow of benefits to villages. If a flow of
benefits were established into these communities by the sea kayaking tour operator, then the possibility of
petty theft happening would be decreased.
(S. Daugherty, 2000-2002)
Legislative Impediments to Indigenous Tourism Ventures
The South Pacific provides another example where good governance extends to the need for more appropriate
legislation to facilitate indigenous participation in tourism development. Most of the governments have policies
designed to achieve this end. However, they also have enshrined in their legislation building codes and standards
imported from Australia for cyclone resistance standards and New Zealand for seismic resistance standards. Only
buildings designed to comply with the Code and submitted by a registered architect or engineer can be approved. To
meet those standards the design must incorporate materials (steel, reinforcing rods, metal bolts, plates, etc) not available
locally. Similarly, the construction methods will be foreign to village house builders and in any case registered
engineers, plumbers and electricians must be utilised. Without compliance with the Code, a certificate of habitation
cannot be gained; hence nor can a business license, nor Third party insurance, and so forth, be obtained.
The costs of even a simple building which meets the standards will thus be beyond the financial and technical
means of most village communities. When the Tourism Council of the South Pacific built a pilot project of six fales
(huts) in Samoa in 1996 the final costs came to US$1 million. They were based on the ‘Bali design principle’, that is
externally they looked like a traditional dwelling but in fact local materials were placed over the structure and disguised
the fact that they had to be made out of concrete, steel, etc. A similar pilot project in the Solomons was costed by the
TCSP at more than US$200,000 (and never built). In Fiji a small prefabricated building which meets its building Code
has been provided in the last two years to some communities in the western Yasawa Islands group at a cost of F$20,000
each, without any equipment, plumbing or electrical fixtures, a modest sum but beyond the means of the village
communities.
Other legislative requirements (fire safety, public food preparation, health and hygiene, sanitation, insurance
for pubic liability, etc) also cannot be met by traditional buildings. The greater the degree of sophistication or
‘internationalisation’ of a village-located dwelling, the less capacity there is for participation by traditional landowners,
and the less the product is able to satisfy market demand for an authentic village experience. Increasingly, alternative
tourism which provides an experiential and educational holiday based on authentic traditional lifestyles, is in global
39

terms capturing an ever growing market. But the situation in most of the South Pacific countries militates against such a
product being legally developed where their legislation inadvertently acts as a major impediment to local community
participation in small scale tourism ventures, in contradiction of their tourism development policies (Appendix V).
In some of the Asian countries however, home stay tourism in traditional dwellings is a strong feature of their
tourism product with significant international appeal. The trekking lodges throughout Nepal and Thailand, for example,
are mainly traditionally constructed buildings. The Indonesian archipelago has many similar examples. But the
NZODA-financed Koroyanitu ecotourism project in Fiji included a small 12-bed eco-lodge which had to comply with
the Fijian building code and cost more than NZ$100,000.
Engaging Governments
A solution may be found by emphasising the necessity for positive support from the public sector, working in
partnership with communities. The need would be to engage the state and political processes at different levels if
community participation and empowerment are to contribute to sustainable tourism development that can help alleviate
poverty. To succeed, amendments to existing legislation and regulations would seem to be required which would permit
an indigenous tourism project to proceed despite non-compliance with the technical and other standards included in the
body of the legislation. Home stay tourism in traditional dwellings for example might be exempted from the normal
legislative requirements. It is therefore suggested that an appropriate form of assistance under governance programs
would be a detailed study of the legislation affecting traditional construction in the South Pacific (Public Works Act,
building codes and standards, health and hygiene, compliance with preparation of food in public places, fire safety
standards, etc). This review would be aimed at determining how appropriate amendments might be made to legislative
provisions which effectively prevent local communities from constructing tourism plant from traditional dwellings. In
association with this, in the context of support for the private sector and poverty alleviation, consideration could be
given to support for making credit more accessible to entrepreneurs - particularly the very poor. ‘By providing small amounts
of credit to the poor, the majority of whom are women, they can escape poverty through their own efforts and thus enjoy a
fuller and more dignified life’ (AusAID 2003).
Engaging the Private Sector
Consideration could also be given to emulating the efforts of the ODI’s PPT program to engage government, the private
sector and I/NGOs in ways to facilitate tourism development to assist poor communities. The ODI experience with two
recent projects indicated the need for government to take the lead - the ‘Sustainable Tourism Initiative’ involving
government, business and NGOs concerned with outbound tourism from the UK, and a South African programme:
‘Pro-Poor Tourism: Pilots in Southern Africa’ (Ashley & Roe 2003). They emphasised the importance of policy in that
‘tangible incentives and less tangible government expectations can strongly influence companies’ commitment to propoor
partnerships. Thus partnerships are easier to establish where government support or leadership is visible’ (Ashley
& Roe 2003:12). These two projects emphasised the fact that different stakeholders had different agendas, different
priorities and spoke a different language, and these differences needed to be articulated for partnerships to evolve. For
example, governments are driven by national interests that are very different from the profit motive that is the driver for
business, while NGOs will tend to be philanthropical and pursue ideals. Even basic language usage will differ: Ashley
and Roe found that when government development agencies and NGOs spoke of capacity building it had nothing to do
with the tourism sector’s understanding of the phrase to mean increasing access, airport runway, frequencies of flights
and numbers of beds. Their experience indicated that business was often wary of NGOs, more used to thinking in terms
of cash, jobs, or minimising harm, rather than enhancing a range of livelihood impacts: mapping out the links and
synergies between core business practice and interests of the poor was a good way to ensure a range of livelihood issues
were addressed, and also the full range of business operations. Ashley & Roe concluded that ‘Simply getting
communication going between the business and development worlds can be eye opening and useful for both sides’
(2003:13).
40

Chapter 12
THE ENVIRONMENT, TOURISM AND POVERTY ALLEVIATION
The WTO has for some years recognised links between environment and poverty, and the role that environmental
sustainability will play in truly long-lasting poverty reduction; its ST~EP initiative is constructed on this premise.
Appropriate forms of sustainable tourism can address environmental causes of poverty where:
• Inadequate access to natural resources limits the development of subsistence or cash economies;
• Land degradation has led to the degradation of natural resources or the protective functions of natural
ecosystems, and undermined the ability of people to sustain their livelihoods; and
• Natural or human-induced air or water contamination results in poor health, which reduces people’s ability
to generate income.
Unlike many other development activities sustainable tourism can create ‘value’ for local environmental
conservation and sustaining local culture. Tourism can shift the focus of the Poor’s natural resources from one of
exploitation to one of conservation. The poor can gain an understanding of short-term gains from resource exploitation
to the value of long term gains of conserving their resources. This may be in small ways such as removing unsanitary
rubbish from villages and keeping trails tidy for tourists (the UNDP Quality for Tourism Project in Nepal which
equipped trails with rubbish bins and set up village-based Work Groups to maintain them), thus helping to alleviate
negative environmental impacts. Or it may be on a larger scale such as a community agreeing not to log its rainforest
and setting it up as a protected reserve for ecotourism (Bouma community, Taveuni, Fiji). Tourism businesses can help
show villages how to use environmentally sound techniques to deal with human waste (e.g. composting toilets) and also
better use of water consumption. In Fiji, the NZODA Abaca and Koroyanitu National Heritage Conservation Project in
the Fiji highlands (Appendix III) markets the natural and cultural resources of the western highlands of Fiji to tourists
and appears to have played a significant role in changing attitudes from one of exploitation of natural resources to
sustainable conservation of those resources.
Active promotion by governments of accreditation schemes such as ‘Green Globe’, a practical response by the
WTO and the WTTC to Agenda 21 to facilitate a much greater environmental responsibility on the part of the tourism
industry worldwide is another avenue that could be pursued (see Appendix VI on ‘Green Globe’). ‘Green Globe’ is a
comprehensive scheme designed to tackle such issues as air pollution and the emission of green house gases by tourism
operations, reduced solid waste, reduction in use of potable water, reduction in energy consumption, employing and
purchasing locally, sensitivity to local culture, and other environmental improvements.
One of the components Green Globe encourages is carbon sequestration – that is, a mechanism to offset the
emission of green house gases by a tourism operation through planting trees to make the operation carbon neutral.
Growing forests naturally remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and convert the carbon into new tree
biomass resulting in carbon storage (sequestration) in both wood and soils. The issue is to evaluate the total amount of
carbon dioxide (CO2) generated through all the operation's activities and to offset as much as possible through uptake
by natural tree growth. Involvement in carbon sequestration can be through large-scale national and international
programs, as well as by direct actions in promoting local tree planting schemes and governments could encourage this
approach, utilising the Poor as the major labour force or setting up nurseries in poor communities to provide the tourism
industry with seedlings, and so forth
BOX 5: GREEN GLOBE - KEY ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL PERFORMANCE AREAS
Environmental issues Social & Cultural issues
• Reducing greenhouse gas emissions • Poverty reduction
• Energy efficiency, conservation and management • Promoting social equity
• Air quality protection and noise control • Raising standards of living
• Management of fresh water resources • Local participation
• Ecosystem conservation and management • Sensitivity to culture and customs
• Land use planning and management • Purchasing locally
• Management of social and cultural issues* • Employing locally
• Waste water management
• Waste minimisation, reuse and recycling
• Storage & use of environmentally harmful substances
41

Australia (through the CRC for Sustainable Tourism) has been given responsibility for applying Green Globe
throughout the Asia Pacific, and has undertaken assessments of tourism ventures in countries as diverse as Sri Lanka,
Thailand and China, as well as Australia and New Zealand.
42

Chapter 13
GENDER, TOURISM AND POVERTY ALLEVIATION
Women’s Employment and Participation in Tourism
Pro Poor Tourism interventions can make a significant contribution to employment opportunities for women, based on
the overall statistics of employment of women in the tourism industry. Women’s employment in the tourism workforce
is higher than in the total workforce in all industries. These figures are based on a UNED-UK study of the ‘Restaurant,
Catering, and Hotel Industry’ in 73 countries between 1988-1998. These sectors were used as a proxy for the tourism
industry as whole since they are the largest employers in tourism. The data do not cover the informal sector which plays
an important part in terms of income generation through tourism, particularly for women.
Women’s employment in general can vary greatly per country from 2% to over 80%. The percentages of
women employed in the tourism industry also varies greatly. For example the UNED-UK study found that in Bolivia
women fill 60% of formal sector positions, while in some Muslim countries only 10% of positions are filled by women.
In the 73 countries surveyed by UNED-UK the three sectors of the tourism industry accounted for 46% of their total
workforce compared to the overall workforce which was 34-40% women (UNED-UK 1999). Often women are most
involved in informal sector activities associated with tourism, particularly hawking, which plays an important income
generation role for women (Shah 2000).
Figure 9: Gender and Tourism (Source: UNED, UK, 1999)
Gender and Tourism: Employment Figures
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Women's %
of
Workforce
Countries with
Mature Tourism
Industry: 50%
Tourism Industry:
46%
Total Workforce:
34 - 40%
Various interrelated factors contribute to women having a higher employment in the tourism sector.
Horizontally in the tourism workforce, women and men are placed in different occupations (related to typified gender
roles); women are employed as waitresses, chambermaids, cleaners, flight attendants, etc., and men are employed as
barmen, gardeners, construction workers, drivers, etc. Vertically the typical ‘gender pyramid’ is prevalent in the tourism
industry with women in lower level positions and fewer career development opportunities and men dominating
managerial positions (UNED-UK Report 1999).
Typically, women are assigned the tasks of raising children, caring for the elderly, and doing household work.
Due to these gender roles women are often forced to choose casual, flexible and seasonal employment. The tourism
sector, because of its size, growth and its diverse and dynamic nature, is enormously flexible and caters to employment
of women in tourism and makes the tourism workforce a good candidate for engaging in efforts for the advancement of
women. There is some argument that seasonality of tourism is good for enabling women to gain employment and
accommodate their stereotypical gender roles. Also, women are perceived, through traditional gender roles, as being
suited to fill certain positions in tourism: occupations in catering & lodging, as waitresses, bartenders, maids,
babysitters, cleaners, housekeeping helpers, launderers, dry-cleaners, and the like are predominately women, 90%
according to the UNED-UK report. The service nature of the tourism industry and the high proportion of low-skilled
43

domestic-type jobs thus increase accessibility to women (Shah 2000). This perpetuates gender stereotypes, but also
allows women to enter the workforce based on their traditionally defined roles (UNED-UK Report 1999).
Implementation of Pro Poor Tourism interventions must address and carefully plan for negatives that tourism
can bring upon women, including women’s rights, stereotypical images portrayed of women in tourism, sex tourism,
and sexual objectification of women. Women can suffer discrimination in tourism and ST~EP interventions must
address women being denied positions of leadership and responsibility, concentrations of women being employed in
low skilled and low paid occupations, and objectified as part of the tourism package/product. Sexual objectification of
women in tourism can include women being expected to dress in an ‘attractive manner’, look beautiful, and ‘play along’
with sexual harassment. Sex tourism must be addressed at all levels from policy-making at the national level through to
education of women at the community level. Stereotypical images in tourism relates to women being portrayed as part
of the tourism product, tourism brochures typifying and selling beautiful women, and/or tourism products conveying
images of friendly smiling women waiting on customers (UNED-UK 1999).
The UNED-UK study found that tourism has a demonstrated record for creating jobs for women and
encouraging income-generating activities of benefit to local communities in destination areas. Participation in tourism
contributes to decreasing individual and household poverty. Tourism provides many entry points for women’s
employment and opportunities for creating self-employment in small and medium sized income generating activities
from which women can gain increased standing and esteem within society. It creates paths for the elimination of
poverty of women and local communities in developing countries.
NGO’s, the private sector, governments and intergovernmental organisations can help women realise their full
potential, a useful way being support in the form of the provision of training and credit. Gender and tourism should not
be divorced from mainstream policy-making and WTO through its ST~EP initiative could take a lead role in developing
projects designed to increase the rate of participation by women in sustainable tourism activities contributing to poverty
alleviation.
44

Chapter 14
CONCLUSIONS
The tourism sector is one of the most dynamic industries globally (despite recent shocks such as the Gulf War and
SARS which have affected travel) and in many developing countries which lack other resources it is one of the few
areas available for development which has a demonstrated track record of growth. As UNCTAD noted (2001:18):
‘When the importance of tourism is recognised all dimensions of the tourism economy should be
regarded as an integral part of the development strategy. This has implications in terms of alleviating
the structural handicaps that many developing countries suffer from. Accordingly, it is important to
stress the catalytic role of tourism development for the entire economy: wherever tourism
development is successful, the economy will derive considerable benefit primarily due to the general
increase in the density, efficiency and competitiveness of goods and services suppliers. This is a
fundamental condition for a wide multiplication of economic linkages and socio-economic benefits.
In short, wherever tourism succeeds, other linkage sectors will succeed, e.g. air transport.’
Recognition by the international community of the importance of tourism as a potential driving force in the
socio-economic development of third world countries suggests that tourism development can be an avenue toward a
growing sphere of trading opportunities and accordingly, one of the most effective methods to avoid the risk of
increased marginalisation from the global economy (which is symptomatic for most LDCs). Through its catalytic role,
tourism appears to be one of the few economic sectors able to guide a number of developing countries to higher levels
of prosperity and for some, to leave behind their Least Developed Country status. Samoa is one example moving in this
direction.
Development assistance agencies and donor governments world wide over the past decade have focused more
sharply on poverty alleviation as a central pillar of their activities and tourism has been subjected to close scrutiny by
some of them as a potential area to realise this objective. A key element in this consideration is that in some instances
poor people have ownership of resources (such as cultural festivals and natural capital e.g. wildlife, forests, lagoons,
scenery) which may be utilised for tourism. Hence the emergence of pro poor tourism or ST~EP.
While ST~EP is relatively untried and untested, the pervasiveness of the tourism industry has impelled an
increasing number of agencies to develop policies designed to use tourism as a tool to alleviate poverty in these
countries. These include notably the WTO, the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank, the British DFID/ODI, the
Netherlands’ SNV, a range of UN technical agencies such as UNCTAD, UNEP, and WCED, other international tourism
organisations such as PATA and many I/NGOs.
It is problematic to leave tourism development, especially in the context of poverty alleviation, to the private
sector in many developing countries because of the existing financial constraints and weak institutional capacity of the
private sector in such countries (UNCTAD 2001). This situation requires that a partnership between the private sector
and national tourism authorities (responsible for the organisation, development and operation of countries’ tourism
industries) be strengthened in order to design and implement an effective ST~EP strategy. Assistance from agencies
with expertise not available locally becomes vital to achieve this objective.
A review of existing literature and limited existing examples of ventures which are built around tourism as a
tool for poverty alleviation, point to a number of conclusions about the nature of PPT/ST~EP and the types of
intervention needed:
45
• There is no single blue-print that can be applied universally. The need is for flexibility due to widely
divergent situations among impoverished groups;
• A diversity of actions across levels is needed at the micro, meso, and macro level on several fronts,
including planning, policy, and investment;
• There is a clear need to engage a wide variety of stakeholders. In this context tourism is better approached
and conceptualised as ‘the tourism system’ not the tourism industry, since in fact its backward and forward
linkages make it integral to virtually every economic sector and its interconnectedness with Government,
the private sector, communities, civil society and the bio-physical environment must all be considered and
partnerships established if it is to make a valid contribution to poverty alleviation;
• Actions outside the tourism sector can boost ST~EP, for example in policy areas such as reform of land
tenure systems, small enterprise support, improved education, and more representative government;
• In many cases inclusion of the private sector will be necessary as part of a strategy to ensure that achieving
commercial viability is a priority;

• External funding may be required to cover start-up costs because by definition poor communities will lack
assets;
• The need is to use tourism development holistically, i.e. economically, socio-culturally and
environmentally, both short term and long term, to create additional income and improve living standards
(eg. health and hygiene, education, basic infrastructure) at the village level as part of poverty reduction;
• Intervention should be based on a participatory approach. Poor people must participate in the decisionmaking
process and be ‘owners’ of the outcomes if their priorities are to be ‘captured’ for poverty
alleviation through tourism, i.e. empowerment is essential;
• ST~EP should focus on self-help (social mobilisation of local groups, strengthening of village and district
planning, decentralisation, etc.) in order to achieve self reliance;
• ST~EP should assist institutional development and capacity building because poorly developed local
institutions are often unable to provide required services to address structural problems of underdevelopment;
• Since growth in agricultural output is seen as the single most important contributor to the alleviation of
rural poverty, tourism development should be designed wherever possible to increase demand for
agricultural produce leading to more farming activities. It would thus provide employment opportunities
leading to increased income in the family and reduction of poverty; and
• ST~EP should be based on sustainable use of natural and cultural resources with conservation as a guiding
ethic.
46

Appendix I
Summaries of Pro Poor Tourism Case Studies from Overseas Development Institute (ODI)
47
1. Wilderness Safaris – Maputoland, South Africa
(Actor - Part of large South African commercial company)
(Source: Ashley, Roe & Goodwin 2001)
• Operation of 2 lodges on a tripartite commercial venture (WS, neighbouring communities, and state
conservation authority)
2. Tropic Ecological Adventures – Ecuador
(Actor - Small Commercial Company)
• Tour packages that include operations run by Amazonian Indians
3. NACOBTA and UCOTA Community Tourism Associations – Namibia and Uganda
(Actor - Domestic non-governmental organisation)
• Promotion of member based trade association of small tourism operators
• Promotion of community involvement in tourism
4. SNV- Nepal – Humla Region Nepal
(Actor - Netherlands Development Organisation)
• Mobilisation of poor people and community groups to participate in tourism
• Very poor region with small trekking industry
5. St. Lucia Heritage Tourism Programme
(Actor - Government Tourism Ministry)
• Diversification of existing tourism and development of new heritage tourism
6. SDI and CPPP Programme – Northern Province South Africa
(Actor - Government Cross-Departmental Initiatives)
• Creation of an investment package to leverage private investment in tourism development on
communal and state land

Case Study 1
Wilderness Safaris, Maputoland, South Africa: Rocktail Bay and Ndumu Lodge
Clive Poultney & Anna Spenceley
This is a case study of a commercial company entering into a contractual relationship with a
community and the state conservation agency to develop up-market tourist lodges. In
addition, Wilderness Safaris (WS) is taking initiatives relating to local employment, local
service provision and the development of complementary community-based initiatives.
WS is a large, well-established Southern African tour operator that caters to the luxury
end of the market. It has a number of lodges and camps across Southern Africa and at a
number of these it is involved in some form of partnership or revenue sharing agreement
with local communities. This case study looks at two lodges run by WS in Maputoland in
the South African province of Kwazulu Natal – Rocktail Bay which opened in 1992 and
Ndumu, opened in 1995.
Ownership and management of the lodges is vested in two companies – a lodge
owning company’ in which the conservation agency, a commercial bank and the
community have stakes; and a ‘lodge operating company’ in which the conservation
agency, the community and WS are partners (although not equal). Despite this tri-partite
equity structure the community has received little in the way of financial dividends so far,
because neither lodge has yet turned a profit. Increased occupancy at the lodges is required
to make them profitable, but this requires development of the destination as a whole and
diversification of the product. It is noted that support of the conservation authority is needed
for further infrastructural and product development, but that the conservation agency seems
reluctant to sanction this due to concerns about the likely impact on the conservation status
of the area.
Progress has been mixed on the other elements of WS’s PPT initiative. The local
employment strategy has resulted in a high proportion of jobs going to local people.
Considerable training and skills transfer has taken place and staff turnover is low. Local
provision of services has occurred to a certain extent with WS utilising local security and
taxi services, and joint planning and implementation of new complementary products has
started with cultural visits to a traditional healer (Sangoma). However, growth of local
businesses associated with the lodges has been slow, and the case study notes ‘untapped
potential’ for local supply of services and products. A consultant has been brought in to
help WS work with the community to develop products, but it is felt that a third party is
needed to organise, coordinate, develop and train for this since these activities are outside
the mandate, and capacity, of one private sector operator.
The case study illustrates three key challenges to such a private sector-community initiative:
• Success is somewhat out of the control of the central actors, being dependent on other
players and on the health of tourism in the wider region;
• The initiative needs to be incorporated within a larger PPT programme involving other
stakeholders to maximise potential;
• Many communities have overly high expectations of involvement in tourism – both in
terms of the levels and rates of returns and also the roles and responsibilities of their
private sector partners.
48

Case Study 2
Tropic Ecological Adventures, Ecuador
Scott Braman & Fundacion Accion Amazonia
This case study illustrates how a small company, driven by motivated individuals, has gone
well beyond normal business practice to support community tourism. It focuses on the role of
Tropic Ecological Adventures in seeking to establish joint products with remote Amazonian
communities, and in marketing other well-established community initiatives.
Tropic Ecological Adventures is a small for-profit company that was established with the
specific objective of demonstrating the ‘viability of environmentally, socially and culturally
responsible tourism’ as an alternative to oil extraction in the Ecuadorian Amazon. It operates
tours to natural areas in Ecuador, including the Amazon, usually for small, high-paying
groups. It has links with several communities, of which two are the focus of the case study:
Tropic has worked with the Huaorani people to develop a joint initiative, bringing tourists
into the community for overnight stays and to experience the Huaorani culture and lifestyle.
It was marketing the long-established Cofan initiative at Zabalo, though it has recently been
forced to suspend these operations due to security issues in this area near the Colombian
border.
Although Tropic found that its community-based programmes were less profitable and
less marketable than some of its other activities it has managed to successfully address this
problem by coupling them with more mainstream packages such as visits to the Galapagos
Islands. Unfortunately, however, a decline in tourism in the Ecuadorian Amazon in 1999 and
2000, following kidnappings and political upheaval, has heightened competition amongst
tour operators and driven down prices which has undermined Tropic’s impact-minimising
approach of bringing in small groups of high-paying tourists. A further set back arose from
the Civil Aviation Authority’s decision to close down the airstrip at the Huaorani site (due to
poor maintenance – a community responsibility). However a new site has been identified and
a business plan developed for which external support is being sought.
The case study highlights a number of key issues affecting PPT:
• The importance of non-financial benefits and the important role that a company like
Tropic plays in linking remote communities with the outside world;
• The limitations of community-based programmes (because of a lack of awareness of
tourism in the community, as well as the need for external investment in infrastructure,
marketing and training);
• The challenges of achieving commercial viability.
49

Case Study 3
Community-Based Tourism Associations in Namibia and Uganda
(NACOBTA, UCOTA)
Elissa Williams, Alison White & Anna Spenceley
This case study covers two broadly similar organisations in Namibia and Uganda. The
Namibia Community Based Tourism Association (NACOBTA) and the Uganda
Community Tourism Association (UCOTA) are membership associations of
community-based tourism initiatives.
NACOBTA and UCOTA aim to increase financial benefits to poor communities
through the improvement and expansion of the niche, community-based, segment of
the industry, and through wider integration of communities into the mainstream
industry. Both organisations work simultaneously at three levels:
• Local – providing support in the form of training, finance, technical assistance
and marketing to individual community-based tourism enterprises;
• Private sector – lobbying for private sector support and patronage of
community-based enterprises and (NACOBTA only) facilitating the
development of partnerships between the private sector and communities;
• Policy – lobbying and advocacy for policy reform that supports communitybased
tourism, and providing a voice for marginalised groups.
It is perhaps at the micro-level that most progress has been made, with activities
focusing around training, technical assistance and business advice, grants and loans for
enterprise development or improved marketing and other business advice. UCOTA is
also involved with conservation and education activities. Many initiatives are now well
established and self-sufficient. However, it is noted, for NACOBTA particularly, that
there is a limit to the organisation’s capacity to deliver the level and amount of training
required to an increasing number of enterprises.
Building links with the private sector is seen as a slow but critical process.
Whereas NACOBTA faced great difficulties with this at first, lacking credibility with
the private sector, considerable progress has been made in this area with a number of
avenues of contact now established. The case study identifies the need for business
skills and a thorough understanding of the workings of the industry and ‘corporate
culture’ in order to gain credibility with the private sector, or to negotiate effectively.
Policy level work is similarly slow, and it is difficult to separate impacts that have
come about as a result of NACOBTA/UCOTA interventions directly from those that
have been part of a wider process of policy development.
Nevertheless, it is clear that the two organisations provide a role that others do not,
and a momentum for change.
The case study highlights:
• The value of membership organisations in providing a ‘voice for the poor’ and
in promoting PPT at all levels;
• The dependence of such organisations on external funding and the
implications this has for their long-term sustainability.
• The huge need for business skills including marketing, strategic planning and
general awareness of the tourism industry if member enterprises are to
become self-supporting and able to compete with the private sector.
50

Case Study 4
Humla District, north-west Nepal
SNV-Nepal
Naomi M. Saville
The SNV-Nepal case study explores the approach of a development agency working with
local communities through social mobilisation, participatory planning and capacity building
in a very poor and remote area of Nepal. The study provides a valuable example of the
‘import substitution’ process –whereby the goods and services required by the tourism
industry are to be produced and supplied locally rather than from Kathmandu
The Dutch development agency SNV, works through its District Partners Programme
(DPP) with district and village development committees, NGOs and the private sector to
‘benefit women and disadvantaged groups at village level.’ Tourism development is one
means of achieving that objective in the remote Humla District of north-west Nepal.
SNV’s PPT strategy revolves around developing tourism initiatives that benefit poor and
disempowered groups as opposed to the Kathmandu-based trekking agencies. The focus of
the initiative is therefore at the local level – on specific enterprises and communities along a
trekking trail – although SNV also engages at the policy level with the Nepal Tourism Board
in Kathmandu. The emphasis of the PPT strategy is on social mobilisation through the
development of community-based organisations; business planning and training designed to
enable the poor to develop micro-enterprises and to take up employment opportunities.
Since the tourism programme commenced in October 1999, the community-based
organisations (CBOs) have developed micro-enterprise plans, of which 32 have been
approved. Six further business plans have been prepared and venture capital fund loans
approved. Kermi has also opened a community campsite and other communities are planning
to follow suit. Community enterprise options for hot springs and village tours have also been
studied and plans are underway to develop them. A Multiple Use Visitors Centre is planned
to provide a focal point for the local provision of tourism services - such as portering, mules,
horses etc - and produce – such as vegetables - to trekking agent and tourists. In addition to
SME development, a number of other initiatives have been implemented including
construction of toilets along the trekking trail, a US$2 per tourist trail maintenance tax and a
tax on pack animal grazing in the community forest areas.
The case study highlights:
• the value of a long-term approach to building participation of the poor, given the extreme
poverty in Humla and lack of capacity amongst the poor;
• the limited time the landless, the poorest of the poor, have to participate in the CBOs;
• the challenges of breaking into the existing well-established and connected tourism elite.
51

Case Study 5
St. Lucia Heritage Tourism Programme
Yves Renard
This case study is an example of PPT that goes well beyond supporting community-based
tourism. It describes a donor-funded government programme that operates at many levels –
from micro to macro – and attempts not just to develop a niche product, but also to shift a
country’s whole tourism sector to a more sustainable footing. It is not a case of ‘a pro-poor
tourism initiative’, but of a comprehensive national tourism initiative that has a strong propoor
component.
The St. Lucia HTP arose out of concerns about the sustainability and equity of tourism
development in St. Lucia. The programme attempts to develop concurrent and
complementary initiatives in the fields of policy reform, capacity building, marketing,
product development and public awareness in order to fulfil two key objectives:
• to facilitate a broader distribution of the benefits of the existing tourism sector (cruise
ship passengers and stay-over visitors),
• to create a new complementary sub-sector, qualified as Heritage Tourism.
This is a four-year initiative that has reached its third year. The case study notes that
foundations have been laid for effective PPT through work at many levels, but in some ways,
the progress so far has been in awareness raising rather than action on the ground.
The Programme claims some success in ‘making cracks in the fortress’ of the existing
industry through, for example, competing for clients on the cruise ship wharf, raising the
profile of local operators, developing new attractive products and attracting tourists to inland
initiatives. However, it recognises that enterprise development by the poor will often be
around communal assets, and for this a supportive policy framework that provides for
collaborative management and for devolution of rights of use and exclusion is required. Lack
of local capacity has also constrained the effectiveness of some interventions, but the case
study also notes that capacity building efforts bode well for the long-term sustainability of the
programme. However, sustainable results will require more time than the funded time frame
of the project and additional external assistance in training, institutional development and
planning is likely to be needed.
At the policy level, the Programme has made a number of specific recommendations –
on incentives and on tour guides – but the case study highlights that far more attention is
required at this level to foster political support and to develop a supportive policy framework.
Marketing activities have also been limited, and the programme needs to build stronger links
and develop a comprehensive marketing framework. Progress in attracting an entirely new
clientele to ‘heritage tourism’ is not apparent.
The St. Lucia HTP highlights:
• the importance of a good and thorough knowledge of the industry;
• the challenge of attracting beach and package tourists away to cultural products;
• the slow pace of a multi-level approach to deliver real change on the ground.
52

Case Study 6
The South Africa SDI and Community-Public-Private Partnerships (CPPP)
Programmes at Makuleke and Manyeleti (Northern Province, South Africa)
Karin Mahony & Jurgens Van Zyl
This case study looks at how pro-poor tourism can be built into the rural growth and
investment strategies of the South African government and in so doing, explores the tensions
between promoting growth and achieving social objectives. It provides a detailed example of
the use of ‘planning gain’ in influencing private investors.
The case study focuses on Manyeleti Game Reserve and Makuleke contractual park
(bordering and inside Kruger National Park, respectively).
• Manyeleti Game Reserve is a focus of the Northern Province Government’s
commercialisation programme and is heavily supported by the Phalaborwa SDI.
Manyeleti is one of the first tourism investment packages to near fruition
• The Makuleke project is a community-based initiative that has been supported by, inter
alia, both the SDI and CPPP Programmes and is being used as a pilot project to guide the
future work of the CPPP programme in the tourism sector. Makuleke is the first example
of land inside a national park being returned to a community for use as a contractual park
through restitution.
In both cases, a tender process to attract private sector investment has been implemented
with a strong use of planning gain – i.e. socio-economic criteria featured strongly in the
evaluation of bids – to encourage pro-poor commitments. Both the SDI and CPPP
programmes are using lessons from Manyeleti and Makuleke for future investment
preparation.
A number of tenders were received for Manyeleti Game Reserve - all of which included
practical proposals on equity sharing, outsourcing, local employment and local service
provision - and negotiations with the short-listed bidders are underway. At Makuleke, the
newly formed Community Property Association (CPA) was assisted in the tender process by
the CPPP programme, and potential bidders were required to address a similar set of socioeconomic
issues in the tender document. However few bids were received, mainly due to the
availability of other more commercially attractive investment opportunities within the Kruger
Park, and not all met the basic conditions set down. Agreement with a private investor has
proceeded and a lodge is expected to open in late 2001. Given the slow pace of the
investment process, the Makuleke CPA is simultaneously working on other tourism plans,
such as a backpackers campsite. While it is clear that the new arrangements will be a
substantial improvement on the concession agreements of the past - which provided minimal
benefit to either the State or community - it is not possible to say how far pro-poor
commitments will reach in practice; much depends on translating the commitments into
contractual obligations, and then ensuring compliance.
The case study highlights:
• it is easier to move away from existing models in which communities are ‘recipients’ of
donated benefits from tourism, to community empowerment because they have a stake in
an enterprise, if there are secure land rights in place;
• there is a tension between pursuing pro-poor objectives and ensuring private investment,
which although not insurmountable, can not be completely avoided, and must be
addressed;
• the commercial attractiveness of the site is critical both to the scale of financial benefits
and to securing pro-poor commitments from the private sector.
53

Appendix II
UN Millennium Development Goals
The UN has established Millennium Development Goals as targets to
halve poverty by 2015. These are broad scale initiatives unrelated to
specific socio-economic activities but immensely relevant to tourism in
developing countries – sustainable and responsible tourism can help
promote awareness & support for these goals, in origin and destination
markets, and create tools and conditions for their fulfilment.
� Eradicate extreme poverty & hunger
o 1.2billion people still live on less than $1 a day.
� Achieve universal primary education
o 113 million children do not attend school.
� Promote gender equality and empower women
o 2/3’s of the world’s illiterates & 80% of refugees are
women & children.
� Reduce child mortality
o 11 million young children die each year.
� Improve maternal health
o In the developing world the risk of dying in childbirth is 1 in
48.
� Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
o These diseases have erased a generation of development
gains.
� Ensure environmental sustainability
o More than 1 billion people lack access to safe drinking
water & reasonable sanitation.
� Develop a global partnership for development
o With targets for aid, trade & debt relief. Too many
countries spend more on.
o Debt service than on social services.
54

Appendix III
Koroyanitu National Heritage Park, Fiji
Koroyanitu National Heritage Park is an NZODA funded ecotourism project in the highlands of western Viti Levu in
Fiji. The primary focus of this project is on conservation but lessons learned from this project can highlight the benefits
of tourism interventions. The Koroyanitu range has the last remaining area of unlogged tropical montane rainforest and
cloud forest in western Viti Levu (Mohamed & Clark 1996). The area also has a high cultural heritage value with
ancient and historic sites including villages, fortifications, ritual worship sites and terraced gardens. The project area is
19,150 ha, belonging to 50 landowning units from 13 different villages. The four main targeted villages are Abaca,
Vakabuli, Nalotawa, and Navilawa. The highlands are also outside of the primary tourism market in Fiji, which is
predominately along the coast on the main islands and smaller islands of Fiji (Mohamed & Clark 1996).
The location of the project entry village of Abaca is 15 kilometres by a 4wd track from Lautoka. Lautoka is the main
industrial centre in western Viti Levu and 35 kilometres drive north of the main international airport in the region, Nadi
International Airport. The highlands are in a pristine environment, an inexpensive option for backpackers and other on
limited budgets to access (by public transport and the 4WD truck from Lautoka $12 FJD one way) and the area is easily
visited within a day. There are many hotels around the Nadi International Airport, which cater to tourists arriving and
departing Fiji. This project is located close enough to this focal point of tourist to tap into the market and incorporate
these remote highland villages into the larger tourism economy.
The principle objective was to gain local commitment to conservation. The project also focused on capacity building
for the communities involved in business management, ecotourism activities (guides, handicrafts, and hospitality),
resource management, and diversification of agricultural products. The villages were given assistance with improved
management and decision-making, linkages with other ecotourism sites and assistance with marketing and promotion of
ecotourism activities, and better road access for tourists and the community (Mohamed & Clark 1996).
The project includes a 12-bed ecotourism backpacker’s lodge and a two-night culture and heritage trek (NZ
volunteer guide and local guides). The ecotourism activities provide the local community with a source of income from
park fees, providing accommodation and food, and transport to the area from Lautoka (Mohamed & Clark 1996).
Source of Ecotourism Income from this project (per person charges in $FJD) are:
� Park fees, $5
� Transport, $8, 1 way ($14 return)
� Local Guides, $5 two-hour waterfall trek, Mt. Batilamu Day trip $15
� Meals: Breakfast $5, Lunch $7, Dinner $10
� Nase Lodge (12 Bed Backpacker Eco-Lodge), $25/night, $150 for Lodge.
� Camping Fees, $10
� Village Stay, $30/night with meals
� All Inclusive 2 night Village Trek with Local guides and NZ Volunteer Guide, $275/approximately
� Local Handicrafts and Guidebooks sold at Visitor Centre
(Abaca Fee Pamphlet)
NZODA project funding, included a 4WD Truck, construction of a 12-Bed backpacker style eco-lodge and visitor’s
information centre, improved road access, interpretive signs, brochures, and a guide book. The New Zealand volunteer
guide helps to train local guides for the overnight treks. This is a community-based project.
There have been many direct and indirect benefits to the villages and villagers involved in the Koroyanitu Heritage
Project. Indirect benefits of the project were due in part to the project funding improved road access and a 4wd vehicle
has now helped the village to gain better access to the regional centre of Lautoka (40,000 people). Villagers have good
access to buy and sell products at the regional market in Lautoka, children can get to school every day in Lautoka, and
the village has better access to health care, and to obtain other basic necessities. The project has created local jobs,
diversified the local economy, helped to maintain cultural traditions, and led to conservation (Corbett 2001) Ecotourism
projects have shifted focus from forestry to conservation (Corbett 2001) a local commitment to conservation was
achieved in two years after commencing the project. There is a current review underway, but comments from the
Project Coordinator Dave Bamford from Tourism Resource Consultants are positive: ‘the Review team were generally
positive about project and the positive benefits’ (E-mail Correspondence, dated June 2002).
Assistance by New Zealand to the tourism sector of Fiji remains relatively small, however, and is directed towards
conservation rather than poverty alleviation. In 2001, out of NZ$5 million in development assistance to Fiji, only 11%
was directed towards tourism – the Koroyanitu ecotourism project and the Bouma Forest ecotourism project in Taveuni,
for a combined total of NZS$600,000.
55

New Zealand Development Assistance to Fiji, 2001
Tourism 11%
Health 2%
Civil Society 15%
Other Social 12%
Trade 3%
Education 43%
Other 14%
56

Appendix IV
Mana Island Resort, Fiji
In Fiji, a form of partnership between the largest (foreign-owned) resort in that country, Mana Island Resort, and local
landowners provides further insights into how tourism may alleviate poverty. In this instance, in 1972 the foreign
investors negotiated a 50-year arrangement with the traditional landowning clan (mataqali Ketenamasi) leasing half of
the 3 kilometre long island for a 640 bed, 4-star resort. Rental was fixed at $6,000 per annum for the first four years,
and at two-and-a-half percent of gross receipts subject to a minimum of $10,000 and a maximum of $25,000 per annum
thereafter, according to the success of the venture. The annual rental is reviewed every 10 years and in 2000 it was
$24,000. Since 1972, the mataqali has received more than $1.7 million in lease fees and the specified percentage of
turnover (Sofield 2002).
Under the terms and conditions of the lease the resort operators must employ members of the land-owning clan
before recruiting others. As a result about 165 of the 180 local staff on Mana are from the mataqali Ketenamasi. This
condition of the lease agreement is a standard one endorsed by the Fiji Native Lands Trust Board (NLTB) and is a
major source of empowerment for the landowners. The largest source of income for the residents consists of wages of
staff employed at the resort. Since 1972 the resort has paid out more than US$7.3 million in wages to its local staff
(more than $0.5 million in 2000) and because of the traditional Fijian system of obligations which extends throughout
the clan, all members benefit and the wants of all will be met to a certain degree (Sofield 2002).
In association with employment of landowners, there is also another standard clause in any agreement which is
designed to advance landowner rights and this relates to appropriate training. Under the terms of the lease of Mana
Island the lessee is required to use his ‘best endeavours to promote training of members of the mataqali Ketenamasi in
all aspects of the resort's operations.’ It has been applied since the opening of the resort and more than 300 members of
the mataqali Ketenamasi have benefited from this clause with a wide variety of training. In 2000 there were only four
expatriate staff and more than 180 Fijians.
In terms of the clan’s village of Yaro, all houses have been modernised and reconstructed to cyclone and seismic
resistance standards. All have septic tank toilet systems. All have clean running water. All have power. All villagers are
comparatively well dressed, their houses are furnished with western furniture (lounge suites, dining tables and chairs,
and some with refrigerators, video sets and TV monitors powered by individual generators). Other forms of
conspicuous consumption include frequent visits to the mainland cities of Nadi and Suva. Every household owns at
least one motorised fishing canoe or small runabout. The local village school is one of the best equipped in Fiji. A
number of the younger generation have proceeded to University. Capacity building and increase in social capital are
included in the successful outcomes. Health standards are significantly higher than in most Fijian villages, and Mana
Island has a resident nurse able to provide a good standard of localised care. With a fast 250-passenger daily ferry
service to the mainland, the Resort has provided a transport service for the villagers not possible by any other means.
There is not a single household remaining in poverty in Yaro village in Fiji because of the role Mana Island Resort has
played over the past thirty years (Sofield 2003).
57

Appendix V
Legislative impediments to indigenous tourism ventures
Since the legislative and regulatory requirements related to the building codes of most South Pacific countries demand
a substantial injection of funds for any tourism project involving capital works, joint ventures with foreign investors
would seem to offer a compromise solution. The Solomon Islands Government promoted this concept, with local
equity being derived from ownership of the land and the foreign investor obtaining his/her shareholding by providing
the capital input and technical expertise required for a given project.
This is not a solution, however, if the joint venture project is basically a village product, (a guest house or several
houses constructed traditionally to provide the tourist with an authentic village experience) because such buildings
cannot comply with the building Code. Since foreign investors must agree to comply with all laws as an integral
component of the process of approval by the Solomon Islands Foreign Investment Board, they would be participating in
an illegal project if they were to become a joint venture partner in traditional structures. The only way in which a joint
venture could obtain an operating licence would be to satisfy all necessary legislative and regulatory requirements.
However, when minimum standards for commercial buildings were met, the capacity of the indigenous investor(s) to
retain a measure of control over a project would be severely retarded. An injection of capital, with lending institutions
and insurance companies insisting on certain requirements, would ‘push’ control into the hands of the foreign joint
partner. Additionally the project would almost certainly require a form of management not available in a village
community. Technical expertise to maintain the buildings, water and sewage systems, and a power plant (diesel
generator, electrical and mechanical equipment) would also be required.
The Tainiu Guest House provides an example of the pitfalls of the joint venture approach. This is a traditional longhouse
built out over the waters of Lake Te Nggano near the village of Niupani in Rennell Island in 1989. Rennell Island
was identified by the Ministry as a priority region for nature-based indigenously owned and operated tourism
development (Liligeto 1990). With support from the Ministry of Tourism, a landowner obtained a grant of some
$12,000 from the Provincial Development Fund (set up to provide finance for community-based projects which had
merit but could not meet the requirements, usually the need for collateral, of formal lending institutions). The longhouse
was constructed using a combination of undressed timbers, milled timber and glass louvre windows, with 18 beds
in an open plan style. There was no architectural or engineering input, the end result being a ‘pioneer’ adaptation of
traditional construction with some modern materials. The landowner was advised by the Tourism Ministry that
European-style toilets, showers and a kitchen were essential to develop a sustainable product able to attract foreign
tourists. The initial funding was insufficient, however, and there were no further funds available from the Provincial
Development Fund, another $10,000 being necessary.
Having exhausted all possible avenues of local financing without success, the owner sought funding assistance from
the Australian, New Zealand and British High Commissions in Honiara. However, all were bound by their own
regulatory requirements and the venture fell outside ‘normal’ guidelines for aid. Finally, on the advice of the Ministry,
the owner sought a foreign partner for a joint venture, offering 30% equity in the project. A willing investor was located
early in 1990 who was prepared to finance the upgrading of kitchen, toilet and shower facilities as well as to provide
assistance for marketing and overseas promotions.
As details of the venture were pursued, however, the ‘illegality’ of proceeding became obvious and prevented the
foreign investor from taking up equity. The long-house could not, for example, gain a ‘Certificate of Habitation’ from
the Public Works Department because it did not comply with the building standards. It failed to meet the health and
sanitation standards. Therefore, it could not be registered as a commercial operation. On the one hand, the foreign
investor was faced with a government ministry threatening to cancel his approval for participation if he failed to comply
with the legislative and regulatory requirements. On the other hand he had the Ministry of Tourism impelling him
towards participation. He found himself in a ‘catch 22’ situation. Thus, despite the active support of the Ministry of
Tourism which promoted Tainiu Guest House as a model for indigenous development, and despite the fact that it
‘opened for business’ in 1990 and hosted some 90 guests in its first six months (without the suggested European
facilities) its capacity to expand and operate as a legal indigenously owned tourism venture was limited by restrictive
legislative and regulatory requirements. The administrative and political systems of government failed to empower the
community.
58

Appendix VI
Green Globe
Since the United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and the promulgation of Agenda 21, Travel &
Tourism operations throughout the world have been focusing on improving their environmental performance and have
been striving for environmentally sustainable outcomes. More and more operations are targeting clean environments,
reduced solid waste, reduction in energy consumption, a better social environment for citizens and other environmental
improvements. In addition, they are looking to determine exactly how well they are performing with their
environmental improvement actions, and are seeking recognition for such achievements, particularly against global
benchmarks. The Green Globe accreditation process drives the environmental sustainability of tourism by facilitating
the conservation of natural and cultural resources and by increasing consumer and community awareness of the
importance of sustainability. It also reduces operating costs of Travel & Tourism operations by facilitating best practice
management:
� 85% of holidaymakers think it is ‘very important’ not to damage the environment while on
holiday (Tearfund 2000).
� More than 60% of UK tourists are willing to pay more for their overseas holiday ‘if the money
goes towards the preservation of the local environment, or to local charities’. 64% of people are
prepared to pay £10 to £25 more to selected tourism operators to ensure commitment to
environmental protection (Tearfund 2000).
� Travellers are prepared to pay an average of US$12 more to each of the following; tour
operators, transport companies, accommodation providers, tourist attractions, caterers and
retailers to ensure commitment to environmental protection (Mori 1998)
� 83% of travellers are inclined to support ‘green travel companies’ according to the Travel
Industry of America (1997).
� American research found that tourists are prepared to pay on average an extra US$10 per day
to visit a ‘green’ ski resort (Hutchinson and Ritchie 2000)
� A recently conducted poll among international tourists in the Caribbean showed that 91% of the
respondents were concerned about the environmental conditions at their trip destination, and
50% claimed that the environment had become a factor in their travel planning over the last 10
years (CAST 2001)
GREEN GLOBE aims to help the Travel & Tourism industry achieve an improved environment for the planet by:
• Reducing greenhouse gas emissions
• Improving energy efficiency, conservation and management
• Air quality protection and noise control
• Good management of fresh water resources
• Ecosystem conservation and management
• Good land management
• Better waste water management
• Waste minimisation, reuse and recycling
• Improved management of social and cultural issues
• Storage and use of environmentally harmful substances
59

KEY COMPONENTS OF THE GREEN GLOBE 21 STANDARD
The GREEN GLOBE 21 STANDARD comprises requirement criteria organised in 5 sections:
SECTION 1: Environment and Social Sustainability Policy
SECTION 2: Regulatory Framework
SECTION 3: Environmental and Social Sustainability Performance
SECTION 4: Environmental Management System
SECTION 5: Stakeholder Consultation and Communication
The GREEN GLOBE 21 STANDARD is supported by a number of mechanisms or tools, including:
A) Key Performance Areas
B) Sustainability Assessment
C) Sustainability Performance Indicators (Earth Check Indicators)
Key Performance Areas
The GREEN GLOBE 21 STANDARD provides Travel & Tourism operations with a framework for achieving year on
year improvement in one or more of 10 Key Environmental and Social Performance Areas.
The Key Performance Areas (KPA) are based on Agenda 21.
Sustainability Assessment
Operations are required to benchmark their sustainability through a Sustainability Assessment. Through the assessment
procedure operations establish their current standing - the nature and significance of their impacts - and determine an
appropriate level of action to deal with these issues.
The significance of each operation’s impacts will depend on its nature, size and location. Consultation with
key stakeholders including employees, customers, and suppliers of products and services is an important part of the
process. Specifically, the Sustainability Assessment involves assessing the performance of an operation within each
KPA against a Baseline Practice Level and Best Practice Level carefully determined by GREEN GLOBE. Key to the
Sustainability Assessment and Benchmarking is the application of a series of Earth Check indicators.
Earth Check Indicators or Sustainability Performance Indicators
Earth Check Indicators have been carefully researched and chosen by GREEN GLOBE to benchmark sustainability
performance.
These have been produced for a wide range of Travel & Tourism Company operational sectors including
airlines, airports, boat cruises, convention centres, golf courses, hotels, marinas, railways, resorts, restaurants, and tour
activities. They have been produced for Communities and Protected Areas.
Examples of Earth Check
Indicators
Example 1:
Sector: Hotels and Accommodation
Key Performance Area: Energy
efficiency, conservation and management
Earth Check Indicator: total energy
consumption (MJ) pa / Guest nights pa or
Area under roof (m 2 ).
Example 2:
Sector: Hotels and Accommodation
Key Performance Area: Management of
fresh water resources
Earth Check Indicator: water
consumed (kL) pa / Guest nights pa or
Area under roof (m 2 ).
60

Details of the Earth Check Indicators
Sustainability Policy
Objective: Produce a clear and straightforward written policy that addresses key sustainability issues raised in the
GREEN GLOBE 21 STANDARD.
The Sustainability Policy is an operation’s statement with respect to its assessment, control and where appropriate,
continual improvement, of environmental and local social impacts. The areas that need to be covered are included in the
GREEN GLOBE 21 STANDARD. A suitable policy statement that can be adopted by operations that have not already
developed one is included on the GREEN GLOBE web site.
Indicator measure: A Sustainability Policy has been produced, endorsed by the operation’s executive officer
responsible for the GREEN GLOBE program.
Low
impact
High
impact
Benchmarking of Performance Against Earth Check Indicator
and Baseline Practice and Best Practice Levels
GREEN GLOBE BENCHMARKING OF
PERFORMANCE AGAINST AN EARTH
CHECK INDICATOR
Potential rate of
improvement in the
Earth Check
indicator
GREEN GLOBE Best Practice level
GREEN GLOBE Good Practice level
Energy Consumption
Objective: Minimise overall energy consumption.
Significant levels of energy can be consumed by infrastructure (e.g. buildings, recreational facilities) and transport
facilities (including customer transfer, maintenance and on-site vehicles). An overall reduction in energy consumed will
have a positive impact on operational costs and can have major environmental benefits, primarily through conservation
of natural resources and lowering associated greenhouse gas emissions.
Energy can be consumed from a variety of sources (e.g. grid electricity, natural gas, gasoline, diesel) and total usage is
assessed on a standard energy unit basis (mega joules, MJ). Electricity consumption is often quoted in kilo-Watt-hours
(kWh) and in the case of other sources, such as diesel, petroleum, liquefied propane gas (LPG) and natural gas, by
volume. All can be readily converted to joules using GREEN GLOBE supplied conversion factors.
Indicator measure: Total energy consumption (MJ) pa / Guest nights pa or Area under roof (m 2 )
Greenhouse gas reductions: Reduction in emissions from energy production and distribution.
GREEN GLOBE recognises that many Travel & Tourism operations are already very energy efficient and/or further
significant reductions in energy from non-renewable fossil fuel sources may for operational and commercial reasons not
be feasible. Therefore, an optional indicator demonstrating the level of involvement in carbon sequestration to offset
greenhouse gas emissions is recognised.
61

GREEN GLOBE also acknowledges that many operations are making significant efforts to utilise energy from
renewable sources (e.g. wind, solar, hydro), conserving both resources and minimising greenhouse gas emissions. This
can be recognised through adoption of an optional indicator that highlights the percentage of renewable energy
consumed pa.
Potable Water Management
Objective: Minimise consumption of potable water.
The operation may be a significant consumer of potable water supplies, not only for human consumption, but also for
other activities such as washing, recreational facilities, gardens and surface cleaning. Many Travel & Tourism
operations are located in regions where fresh water is a concern, such that positive action leading to an overall reduction
(from lowering demand and increasing reuse and recycle) will be a significant contribution to the local environment and
the long-term sustainability of the operation.
The indicator monitors the overall efficiency of potable water usage with a view to promoting reduction without
compromising the operation.
Indicator measure: Water consumed (kL) pa / Guest nights pa or Area under roof (m 2 ).
Greenhouse gas reductions: Reduction in emissions from energy required for potable water treatment, distribution and
disposal.
Solid Waste Reduction
Objective: Reduce the amount of solid wastes.
Used or waste materials sent to landfills represent a loss of resources, and their replacement will increase greenhouse
gases from production and transport of their replacements. The first step for the operation should be to look to reduce
quantities of materials consumed (including packaging), to then consider reuse, or if not possible, recycle.
As part of the Sustainability Policy, consideration should be given to the options that have the best local environmental
impact. For example, recycling may not always be feasible (e.g. no local facility) and on-site waste to energy systems
may be a better route, obtaining both energy and a reduction in the volume of waste disposed (measured either as
uncompacted, or mechanically compacted, material).
Indicator measure:
Volume of waste land filled (m 3 ) pa / Guest nights pa or Area under roof (m 2 ).
Greenhouse gas reductions: Reduction in emissions from energy required for material production, and subsequent
waste transposition and disposal.
Social Commitment
Objective: Develop and maintain positive, productive and sustainable contributions to the local community.
A key issue in achieving sustainability is to consider the social as well as environmental impact of the operation with
local communities. Respecting, where appropriate, local traditions and customs, and purchasing where possible local
goods and services are positive contributions that can be made, and should be incorporated into the operation’s
Sustainability Policy. Other considerations should include active participation in local committees and organisations.
The indicator to monitor is the number of owners, managers and/or employees that have a primary address close to the
operation is used (for remote operations, such as on small non-populated islands, the nearest permanent township can be
used instead of the operation). This encourages local employment and minimises environmental impacts due to
personnel transportation.
Indicator measure:
Employees with their primary address within 20 km of the operation / Total employees
Greenhouse gas reductions: Reduction in emissions from transport energy consumption.
Resource Conservation
Objective: Reduce consumption of natural resources and the impact on ecosystem biodiversity.
An active policy of purchasing supplies of materials from sources using environmentally sound ingredients and
processes can be a major contribution to resource conservation and biodiversity (i.e. through less impact on the balance
of the local ecosystem).
The type of paper used by the operation (e.g. for promotional material, stationary, toilets etc.) is a high profile example
where significant worthwhile reductions in environmental impacts can be achieved. A strategy of internal reuse and
recycle where possible, coupled with the use of products proven to be environmentally friendly (such as those carrying
credible ecolabels) should be adopted.
For paper, ecolabels are likely to signify avoidance of chlorine-based bleaches, use of biodegradable inks and dyes, and
use of wood from sustainable plantations.
Indicator measure: Ecolabel paper purchased pa / Total paper purchased pa.
Greenhouse gas reductions: Reduction in emissions associated with virgin raw material consumption.
62

Cleaning Chemicals
Objective: Reduce chemicals discharged into the environment.
The active (non-water) chemical ingredients of cleaning products (e.g. soaps, shampoos, laundry detergents,
dishwashing detergents, floor and carpet cleaners etc.) can end up in both wastewater (from toilets, washbasins,
kitchens etc.) and stormwater systems (from roofs, car parks etc.). They are potential source of contamination of natural
water bodies in terms of toxicity and disturbance of the natural balance of ecosystems (e.g. phosphates from detergents
are known to contribute to eutrophication).
Along with an overall reduction in the gross amount of chemicals consumed per annum, increased use of ecolabeled
biodegradable cleaning products would be a significant step towards overall reduction in chemical contamination of the
environment.
Active chemical usage is based on the weight of non-biodegradable chemicals in all solids and solutions used for
cleaning.
Indicator measure: Non-biodegradable cleaning chemical use (kg) pa / Guest nights pa or Area under roof (m 2 ).
Greenhouse gas reductions: Reduction in emissions from energy required for chemical production and water
contamination treatment.
Optional Indicators
Carbon sequestration
Objective: Commitment to offset greenhouse gas production.
The long-term solution to reducing greenhouse gas production by Travel & Tourism is to tackle it at source by
introducing more efficient, less non-renewable energy intensive equipment and procedures. However, application of
this ‘cleaner production’ or ‘ecoefficiency’ approach will take time. Additionally many operations in the industry are
already energy efficient and/or further significant reductions in energy from fossil fuel sources may for operational and
commercial reasons not be feasible.
There may be a case, therefore, for looking for alternative strategies to help offset the production of
greenhouse gases. One potential solution is involvement in carbon sequestration as an immediate move towards making
the operation carbon neutral. The issue is to evaluate the total amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) generated through all the
operation's activities and to offset as much as possible through uptake by natural tree growth. Involvement in carbon
sequestration can be through large-scale national and international programs, as well as by direct actions in promoting
local tree planting schemes.
Indicator measure: CO2 sequested (tonnes) pa / Total CO2 generated (tonnes) pa.
Greenhouse gas reductions: Reduction in the impact of CO2 emissions on global warming.
63
CARBON SEQUESTRATION
Growing forests naturally remove
carbon dioxide (CO2) from the
atmosphere and convert the carbon
into new tree biomass (CO2),
resulting in carbon storage
(sequestration) in both wood and
soils.
Sequestration can be an acceptable
mechanism to offset net carbon
emissions under the Kyoto
Protocol, although restrictions do
apply. In particular carbon
sequestration will be credited only
for trees planted after 1 January
1990.

GREEN
GLOBE
MATRIX
Earth Check Indicators & Measures
Sustainability Policy
Policy in place
Energy Consumption:
Energy consumed / Guest night or area
under roof
Potable Water Management:
Water consumed / Guest night or area
under roof
Solid Waste Reduction:
Volume of waste / Guest night or area
under roof
Social Commitment:
Employees living within 20 km / Total
employees
Resource Conservation:
Ecolabel products purchased / Products
purchased
Cleaning Chemicals:
Weight used / Guest night or area under
roof
Optional Indicators & Measures
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Sequestration:
CO2 sequestered / Total CO2 emissions
Operation Selected Indicator:
Agreed measure
Greenhouse gases
Energy management
Environmental & Social
Performance Areas
Air quality
Fresh water resources
Wastewater management
Waste minimisation
Social & cultural impact
Land use management
Ecosystem conservation
� � � � � � � � �
� � � � �
�
� � � � �
� � � �
� � � � �
�
� �
� �
� � �
� � � � � �
� � � � �
64

REFERENCES
Abaca Ecotourism Guidebook and Fee Pamphlet: NZ ODA (n.d).
Adikhari, J. & Lama, T. (1996) Annapurna Conservation Area Project. A New Approach in Protected Area
Management. A Decade of Conservation for Development (1986-1996). Kathmandu: King Mahendra Trust for
Nature Conservation (KMTNC).
Apple, M.W. (1995) Education and Power. New York: Routledge.
Archer, B. (1996) Sustainable Tourism: An Economist’s Viewpoint. In Sustainable Tourism in Islands and Small
States: Issues and Policies. L. Briguglio, B. Archer, J. Jafari and G. Wall, eds., pp.6-17. London: Pinter.
Arndell, R. (1989) Tourism as a Development Concept in the South Pacific. The Courier (July-August):83.
Asian Development Bank (2003) Technical Assistance For NGO Partnerships For Poverty Reduction (TAR:OTH
37116). Report prepared by Grant Curtis, NGO Centre of the Regional and Sustainable Development Department.
Manila: ADB.
Ashley, C. (2001) Methodology for Pro-Poor Tourism Case Studies. London: ODI.
Ashley, C. and Roe, D. (2003) Working with the Private Sector on Pro-Poor Tourism. Opinions and experience from
two development practitioners. London: ODI.
Ashley, C., Boyd, C. & Goodwin, H. (2000) Pro Poor Tourism: Putting poverty at the heart of the tourism agenda.
London: UK Government Overseas Development Institute.
Ashley, C., Roe, D. and Goodwin, H. (2001) Pro Poor Tourism Strategies: Making Tourism Work for the Poor. A
Review of Experience. Pro-Poor Tourism Report no 1. London: Overseas Development Institute, International
Institute for Environment and Development, and Centre for Responsible Tourism, University of Greenwich.
Asian Development Bank (2000) A Pacific Strategy for the New Millennium Manila: ADB.
AusAID (2001) Pacific Program Profiles 2000-01. Canberra: AusAID.
AusAID (2003) Website: www.ausaid.gov.au/ Accessed May 2003.
Australian National Centre for Development Studies (1988) Import Content of Tourist Hotel Food and Beverage
Purchases in the South Pacific. Larry Dwyer, Islands/Australia Working paper No. 88/1. Canberra: ANU.
Baines, G.B.K. (1987) Manipulation of Islands and Men. In Ambiguous Alternative: Tourism in Small Developing
Countries. Stephen Britton and William C. Clarke, eds., pp.16-24. Suva: University of the South Pacific.
Bertram, I.G. (1999) The MIRAB Model Twelve Years On. The Contemporary Pacific: A Journal of Island Affairs
11:105-137.
Bertram, I.G. and Watters, R.F. (1985) The MIRAB Economy in South Pacific Microstates. Pacific Viewpoint, 26:497-
519.
Boldt, M. (1993) Surviving as Indians: the Challenge of Self-Government. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Briguglio, L., Archer, B., Jafari, J. and Wall, G. (eds) (1996) Sustainable Tourism in Islands and Small States: Issues
and Policies. London: Pinter.
Briguglio, L., Butler, R., Harrison, D. and Filho, W.L., (eds) (1996) Sustainable Tourism in Islands and Small States:
Case Studies. London: Pinter.
Britton, S. (1987) Tourism in Pacific Island States: Constraints and Opportunities. In Ambiguous Alternative: Tourism
in Small Developing Countries, Stephen Britton and William C. Clarke, eds., pp.113-139. Suva: University of the
South Pacific.
Butler, R.W. and Hinch, T. (eds) (1996) Tourism and Indigenous Peoples. London: International Thomson Business
Press.
Butterfield, P. (1990) Thinking Upstream: Nurturing a Conceptual Understanding of the Societal Context of Health
Behaviour. Advances in Nursing Science. 12(2):1-8.
Cattarinich, X. (2001) Pro-poor Tourism Initiatives in Developing Countries: Analysis of Secondary Case Studies.
Report to PPT Project. London: ODI.
Clarke, W. (2002) Human Security in the South Pacific. Resource Management in the Asia-Pacific Project, Research
School of Pacific and Asian Studies. Canberra: National Centre for Development Studies, ANU.
Cole, R. (ed) (1993) Pacific 2010 - Challenging the Future. Canberra: National Centre for Development Studies, ANU.
Corbett, R. (2001) Nature and Adventure Tourism in the South Pacific: Trends, Issues, and Lessons Learned.
Presentation from the South Pacific Tourism Organisation Conference, Port Vila, Vanuatu, September.
Crocombe, R. (1987) The South Pacific: An Introduction. Auckland: Longman Paul.
65

Crocombe, R. and Rajotte, F., eds (1980) Pacific Tourism as Islanders See It. Suva: University of the South Pacific.
Cuneen, C. (ed) (1992) Aboriginal Perspectives on Criminal Justice. Sydney: Institute of Criminology.
Curry, G. (2000) Land Disputes in Solomon Islands and Bouganiville. Paper delivered at a seminar on ‘The South
Pacific - Arc of Instability’, Murdoch University, Perth, WA, May.
de Burlo, C. (1996) Cultural Resistance and Ethnic Tourism on South Pentecost, Vanuatu. In Tourism and Indigenous
Peoples, Richard W. Butler and Tom Hinch, eds., pp.255-277. London: International Thomson Publishing
Company.
de Jong, P. (2003) PATA: Harnessing Travel and Tourism as a Leading Force for Poverty Reduction. Paper delivered at
the Second Global Summit on Peace Through Tourism, Geneva, 4-9 February.
Donaghy, R. (1991) Cyclones, Floods and Tourism. Paper presented at the Australian Disaster Preparedness
Conference, Townsville, October 1991.
Douglas, N. (1996) Papua New Guinea. In C. M. Hall and S. J. Page (eds.), Tourism in the Pacific: Issues and Cases,
London: International Thomson Business Press, pp 256-272.
Drabek, T.E. (1995) Disaster responses within the tourism industry. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and
Disasters, 13(1):7-23.
Epstein, C.F. and Coser, R.L (eds) (1981) Access to Power: Cross-National Studies of Women and Elites. Sydney,
Boston: Allen and Unwin.
Fagan, W. (1989) Empowered Students, Empowered Teachers. The Reading Teacher. 42(8):572-578.
Faulkner, W. (2001) Towards a framework for tourism disaster management. Tourism Management, 22(2), 135-147.
Faulkner, W. and Russell, R. (2000) Turbulence, chaos and complexity theory in tourism systems: a research direction
for the new millennium. In B. Faulkner, G. Moscardo and E. Laws (eds) Tourism in the 21 st Century, pp.328-349.
London: Consortium.
Faulkner, W. and Russell, R. (2003) Chaos and Complexity in Tourism. In L. Fredline, Leo Jago and Chris Cooper
(eds) Progressing Tourism Research – Bill Faulkner, ch 9, pp.205-219. Sydney: Channel View Publications.
Favell, J. (1986) Disaster Preparedness in the South Pacific. Unpublished report, South Pacific Bureau for Economic
Cooperation. Suva: SPEC.
Filer, C. and N. Sekhran (1998). Loggers, Donors and Resource Owners-Policy that works for forests and people.
Series no 2: Papua New Guinea. National Research Institute, Port Moresby and International Institute for
Environment and Development, London.
Frangialli, F. (1999) Global Code of Ethics for Tourism. Message from the Secretary-General of WTO: Preparing the
New Millennium. Madrid: WTO
Goodwin, H. (1998) Sustainable Tourism and Poverty Elimination: A Discussion Paper. DFID/DETR Workshop on
Sustainable Tourism and Poverty, 13 October 1998. London: ODI.
Gunn, C. and Var, T. (2002) Tourism Planning. 4 th edition. New York: Routledge.
Haglegam, J. (1998) Traditional Leaders and Governance in Micronesia. State, Society and Governance in Melanesia
Discussion Paper 98/1, National Centre for Development Studies. Canberra: ANU.
Hall, M. and Page, S. (eds) (1997) Tourism in the Pacific: Issues and Cases. London: International Thomson Business
Press.
Hall, M. and Page, S. (eds) (2000) Tourism in South and South East Asia: Issues and Cases. London: Butterworth-
Heinemann.
Haney, P. (1988) Providing Empowerment to the Person with AIDS. Social Work. 33(3):251-256.
Hazlehurst, J.M. (1995) Perceptions of Justice: Issues in Indigenous and Community Empowerment. Sydney: Avebury.
Hokansen Hawks, J. (1992) Empowerment in Nursing Education: Concept Analysis and Application to Philosophy,
Learning and Instruction. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 17:609-618.
Huffer, E. and Molisa, G (1999) ‘Governance in Vanuatu: In Search of the Nakamal Way’. State, Society and
Governance in Melanesia Discussion Paper 99/4, National Centre for Development Studies. Canberra: ANU.
Iowa, B. ( 1989) An Examination of Low Cost Tourism Accommodation Development. Papua New Guinea's Indigenous
Village Based Guest House Industry. Townsville: Unpublished SPFP Research Paper, James Cook University.
Jafari, J. (1990) Research and Scholarship: The Basis of Tourism Education. Journal of Tourism Studies 1(1):33-41.
Jolly, M (.1994) Kastom as Commodity: The Land Divers as an Indigenous Rite and Tourist Spectacle in Vanuatu. In
Culture, Kastom, Tradition: Developing Cultural Policy in Melanesia, L. Lindstrom and G.M. White, eds. Suva:
University of the South Pacific.
Kieffer, C (1984) Citizen Empowerment: A Developmental Perspective. Prevention in Human Services, 3:9-36.
Kolma, F. (1997) Hagen landmark torched after a fight, The National, 17 October 1997
66

Kotze, D. (1987)Contradictions and Assumptions in Community Development. Community Development Journal,
22(1):31-35.
Kymlicka, W. (1995) The Rights of Minority Cultures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lamour, P. (ed) (1998): ‘Governance and reform in the South Pacific’, Pacific Policy Paper No.23, National Centre for
Development Studies. Canberra: ANU.
Larmour, P., Crocombe, R. and Taungenga, A., eds (1981) Land, People and Government: Public Lands Policy in the
South Pacific. Suva: University of the South Pacific.
Leiper, N. (1995) Tourism Management. Melbourne: RMIT Press.
Lijphart, A. (1995) Self-determination Versus Pre-determination of Ethnic Minorities in Power – Sharing Systems. In
The Rights of Minority Cultures. W. Kymlicka, ed., pp.275-287. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McArdle, J (1989) Community Development Tools of Trade. Community Quarterly, 16:47-54.
Meyer, D. (2003) Strengths and Weaknesses of a Pro-Poor Tourism Approach, Results of a Survey to Follow-Up Pro-
Poor Tourism Research Carried Out in 2000-2001. London: ODI.
Mill, R.C. and Morrison, A. (1992) The Tourism System. Engelwood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Milne, S. (1988) South Pacific Regional Tourism Project. Madrid: UNDP/WTO RAS/86/134.
Milne, S. (1992) Tourism and Development in South Pacific Micro-States. Annals of Tourism Research 19:191-212.
Milne, S. (1996) Tourism, Dependency and South Pacific Micro-states: Beyond the Vicious Cycle? In Island Tourism:
Trends and Prospects, D. Lockhart and D. Drakakis-Smith, eds., pp.281-301. London: Pinter.
Minkler, J. and Cox, K (1980) Creating Critical Consciousness in Health Applications of Freire’s Philosophy and
Methods to the Local Care Setting. International Journal of Health Services, 10(2):311-322.
Mohamed, N. and Clark, K. (1996) Forestry on Customary-owned Land: Some Experiences from the South Pacific.
Rural Development Forestry Network.
Muqbil, I. (2002) ‘Asian Development Bank Signals Funding Pull and Visa Push.’ Travel Impact Newswire, New
Edition 15, Wednesday, April 10, 2002
Mowforth, M. and Munt, I. (1998) Tourism and Sustainability: New Tourism in the Third World. London: Routledge.
NZODA (2002) Country Review Fiji. Wellington.
Opperman, M. (ed) (1997) Pacific Rim Tourism. Wallingford: CAB International.
Pettman, J. (1992) Living in the Margins. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
Picard, M. (1993) Cultural Tourism in Bali: National Integration and Regional Differentiation. In: M. Hitchcock, V.T.
King & M.J.G. Parnwell (eds.) Tourism in South-East Asia, pp. 71-98. London: Routledge.
Picard, M. and Wood, R.E (eds) (1997) Tourism, Ethnicity, and the State in Asian and Pacific Societies. Honolulu:
University of Hawaii Press.
Piddington, K. (1985) The South Pacific Forum: The first 25 years. Suva: SPEC.
PPT website: www.propoortourism.org.uk/ppt_pubs.htmlT
Prasad, P.C. (1987) The Impact of Tourism on Small Developing Countries. In Ambiguous Alternative: Tourism in
Small Developing Countries. Stephen Britton and William C. Clarke, eds., pp.9-15. Suva: University of the South
Pacific.
Rajotte, F. (ed) (1982) The Impact of Tourism Development in the Pacific. Ontario: Trent University.
Ranck, S. (1987) An Attempt at Autonomous Development. The Case of the Tufi Guest Houses, Papua New Guinea. In
Ambiguous Alternative: Tourism in Small Developing Countries. Stephen Britton and William C. Clarke, eds.,
pp.154-166. Suva: University of the South Pacific.
Robson Online: http://www.robsononline.co.nz. ‘Overseas Aid Section’
Roe, D. and Urquhart, P. (2001) Pro Poor Tourism: Harnessing the World’s Largest Industry for the World’s Poor.
London: UK Government Overseas Development Institute.
Roe, D., Goodwin, H. and Ashley, C. (2002) The Tourism Industry and Poverty Reduction: A Business Primer Propoor
tourism briefing No.2. London: ODI, IIED, ICRT.
Roe, D., Harris, C. and de Andrade, J (2002) Addressing Poverty Issues in Tourism Standards. London:ODI.
Rose, S. and Black, B. (1985) Advocacy and Empowerment: Mental Health Care in the Community. New York:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Ross, R (1992) Dancing with a Ghost: Exploring Indian Reality. Markham: Octopus Publishing Group.
Routledge, D (1985) Matanitu. The Struggle for Power in Early Fiji. Suva: University of the South Pacific.
Sasako, A (1997) Mercenaries and mayhem, Pacific Islands Monthly. May, pp. 13 - 14
67

Sakulas, H., Bauer, J.J., Lawrence, T., Birckhead, J. & T. De Lacy (2000) Integrated Conservation and Development-
Some lessons from Wau Ecology Institute In Craig, J. and D. Saunders (eds.) Conservation in Production
Landscapes, Surrey Beatty and Sons. Sydney.
Sawailau, S.T (1989) Secondary Tourism in Fiji: The Indigenous Participation. Townsville: SPFP Research Paper,
James Cook University.
Schipani, S. and Marris, G. (2002) Linking Conservation and Ecotourism Development: Lessons from the UNESCO-
National Tourism Authority of Lao PDR NAM Ha Ecotourism Project. Bangkok: UNESCO
Shah, K. (2000) ‘Tourism, the poor and other stakeholders: Asian experience.’ ODI Fair-Trade in Tourism Paper.
London: ODI.
Simmons, C. and Parsons, R. (1983) Empowerment for Role Alternatives in Adolescence. Adolescence, 18(69):193-
200.
Smandych, R., Lincoln, R. and Wilson, P. (1995) Towards a Cross-cultural Theory of Aboriginal Criminality. In
Perceptions of Justice. Issues in Indigenous and Community Empowerment. K.M. Hazlehurst, ed., pp.245-274.
Sydney: Avebury.
Sofield, T.H.B. (1992) Mana Island Resort, Fiji: A Social Impact Survey. 80pp. Suva: Native Land Trust Board, Fiji,
and Pacific Design Group, Fiji.
Sofield, T.H.B. (1998) Sustainable Tourism in Islands and Small States. Annals of Tourism Research, 25(1), pp.250-
254.
Sofield, T.H.B. (2003) Empowerment and Sustainable Tourism Development. London: Elsevier Science & Pergamon
Press.
Sofield, T.H.B. and Bhandari, S. (1998) An Independent Evaluation of the Partnership for Quality Tourism
Programme, UNDP, Nepal. Kathmandu: UNDP.
Sofield, T.H.B. and Daugherty, S. (2002) Poverty Alleviation through Tourism. Asia Pacific Tourism Association
Conference Paper, Dalian, China; July 10 –13, 2002.
Sofield, T.H.B., Gurung, C., Hummel, J., Dhamala, B., and Shrestha, N. (1999) Tourism for Rural Alleviation of
Poverty Project. UNDP Project Document. 121pp. United Nations Development Programme, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Spenceley, A., and Seif, J. (2002) Strategies, Impacts and Costs of Pro-Poor Tourism Approaches in South Africa.
London:ODI.
South Pacific Bureau for Economic Cooperation (1974) Agreement Establishing the South Pacific Bureau for Economic
Cooperation. Suva: SPEC.
South Pacific Forum (1971) Communique. Wellington.
South Pacific Forum (1971-2002) Records of Discussions and Communiques [of annual Heads of Government
Meetings]. Suva: SPEC.
Stymeist, D. (1996) Transformation of the Vilavilairevo (Fijian fire walking ceremony) in Tourism. Annals of Tourism
Research, 32(1), pp.1-18.
Sykey, J.B. (1987) The Australian Concise Oxford English Dictionary (7 th ed.). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Tisdell, C. and McKee, D. (1988) Tourism as an Industry for the Economic Expansion of Archipelagos and Small
Island States. In: Economics of Tourism: Case Study and Analysis, C. Tisdell, C.J. Aislabie and P.J. Stanton, eds.,
pp.181-204. Newcastle: University of Newcastle, Australia.
Tisdell, C., Aislabie, C.J. and Stanton, P.J., eds (1988) Economics of Tourism: Case Study and Analysis. Newcastle:
University of Newcastle, Australia.
Tourism Council of the South Pacific (1990) Guidelines for the Integration of Tourism Development and Environmental
Protection in the South Pacific. Suva: TCSP.
Wall, G. (1993) Towards a Tourism Typology. In Tourism and Sustainable Development: Monitoring, Planning,
Managing, J.G. Nelson, R.W. Butler and G. Wall, eds., Ontario: University of Waterloo, Department of Geography
Publications Series.
Wllerstein, N. and Bernstein, E. (1988) Empowerment Education: Freire’s Ideas Adapted to Health Education. Health
Education Quarterly, 15(4):379-394.
Wheeler, C. and Chinn, P. (1989) Peace and Power: A Handbook for Feminist Process (2 nd ed.). New York: National
League for Nursing.
UNCTAD (2001) Tourism and Development in the Least Developed Countries. Series LDC/Misc.Paper 64. Third
United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries, Las Palmas, Canary Islands, Spain, 26-29 March
2001.
UNED-UK (1999) Gender & Tourism: Women’s Employment and Participation in Tourism. Summary of UNED-UK’s
Projects Report. Hemmati, Minu (ed.).
68

UNESCO (2002). Linking Conservation and Ecotourism Development: Lessons from the UNESCO-National Tourism
Authority of Lao PDR Nam Ha Ecotourism Project, and Equator Initiative: The Innovative Partnership Awards for
Sustainable Development in Tropical Ecosystems. Bangkok.
World Bank (1998) Enhancing the Role of Government in Pacific Island Economies. Washington: World Bank.
World Bank (2001) World Development Report 2000/2001. Washington: World Bank.
World Tourism Organization (2002) World Tourism: Annual Statistical Report. Madrid: WTO.
World Travel and Tourism Council, World Tourism Organization and Earth Council (1995) Agenda 21 for the Travel
and Tourism Industry: Towards Environmentally Sustainable Development. Madrid: WTO.
World Ecotourism Summit (2002) Quebec Declaration on Ecotourism Quebec City, Canada, May 22, 2002.
69

DARWIN
NT Node Coordinator
Ms Alicia Boyle
Ph: + 61 8 8946 6084
alicia.boyle@ntu.edu.au
PERTH
WA Node Coordinator
Dr Diane Lee
Ph: + 61 8 9360 7018
d.lee@murdoch.edu.au
CANBERRA
ACT Node Coordinator
Prof Trevor Mules
Ph: +61 2 6201 5016
tjm@comedu.canberra.edu.au
International
APEC Centre for Sustainable Tourism (AICST)
A multilateral sustainable tourism research consortium established to
facilitate new levels of cooperation between APEC member economies.
International Centre of Excellence for Sustainable Tourism Education (ICE-STE)
Established by the Australian Government to increase Australia’s
international involvement in travel, tourism, hospitality and related
educational services.
Decipher Technologies Pty Ltd
Delivering information and
knowledge products on demand to
travel and tourism enterprises and
business information professionals.
EarthCheck Pty Ltd
Develops benchmarking and
sustainability improvement systems
for commercial application.
CAIRNS
Node Coordinator
Prof Bruce Prideaux
Ph: +61 7 4042 1111
bruce.prideaux@jcu.edu.au
NATIONAL NODE NETWORK
ADELAIDE
SA Node Coordinator
Prof Graham Brown
Ph: +61 8 8302 0313
graham.brown@unisa.edu.au
MELBOURNE
VIC Node Coordinator
Dr Marg Deery
Ph: +61 3 9688 4626
margaret.deery@vu.edu.au
CRC for Sustainable Tourism Group of Companies and Associated Centres
Green Globe Asia Pacific Pty Ltd
A joint venture company providing
global certification and
sustainability services for
enterprises and destinations.
Sustainable Tourism Holdings Pty Ltd
Dedicated to commercialising
innovations developed from CRCST IP.
BRISBANE
Education Coordinator
Prof John Fien
Ph: +61 7 3875 6716
j.fien@griffith.edu.au
GOLD COAST
National Node Coordinator
Mr Brad Cox
Ph: +61 7 5552 8116
brad@crctourism.com.au
LISMORE
Regional Tourism Research
Mr Dean Carson
Ph: +61 2 6620 3785
dcarson@scu.edu.au
SYDNEY
NSW Node Coordinator
Dr Tony Griffin
Ph: +61 2 9514 5103
tony.griffin@uts.edu.au
LAUNCESTON
TAS Node Coordinator
Prof Trevor Sofield
Ph: + 61 3 6324 3578
trevor.sofield@utas.edu.au
International Consulting
CRCST provides teams of researchers and consultants to bid for public and
private sector sustainable tourism consulting projects throughout Asia Pacific
as well as other regions of the globe.
Sustainable Tourism Services Pty Ltd
Provides extension and commercial
research capabilities for the
international and domestic market.
Centre for Regional Tourism
Research
Southern Cross University
Centre for Tourism & Risk
Management
University of Queensland
Qantas Chair in Tourism Economics
University of New South Wales
website: www.crctourism.com.au bookshop: www.crctourism.com.au/bookshop email: info@crctourism.com.au
*7138 - 06/10/03