|
|||||||||
|
Tourism, Security and Development Tourism brings benefits for some people in a host country but
for many, many others it brings no benefits and, can even be detrimental.
Particia Barnett looks at why tourism can be bad for the poor, and
goes on to look at how Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) Travel
advice is often more about politics than security. Tourism is an export industry, a business transaction and a commodity for sale which is consumed at the point of production. As a global industry, tourism is growing fast. International tourism receipts more than tripled in the decade up to 1995. It is often imposed on heavily indebted countries by the World Bank and the IMF as part of Structural Adjustment and Poverty Reduction Strategies because it offers a good, relatively cheap way of bringing in the dollars and pounds to pay off debt. Tourism is the leading source of foreign exchange in at least one out of every three developing countries. As a consequence many poorer countries spend less of their resources on other essentials such as basic infrastructural resources and agricultural production and pour much of it into this new dynamic industry. The result is horribly skewed and distorted development with most hotels owned by foreign investors, which were encouraged by open markets - even before free market access in services was enshrined with the GATS. It is now accepted that very little of the money paid for the holidays in the tourism sending country actually arrives at the destination. It is at its most extreme where all-inclusive hotels dominate. In such cases it is normal for as much as 89 per cent of what is paid to remain in the originating country. Of the 11 per cent that arrives in the destination, the majority pays for goods to be imported that will satisfy the guests. Three per cent is likely to arrive at the hotel. How much then goes through to the workers? There are an estimated 200 million people worldwide working in this industry, equivalent to eight per cent of global employment. Those working in hotels are primarily dependent on tips and service charges: in some countries establishments are legally obliged to share them with employees - wages are often the smallest part of a hotel worker's income. When tourism becomes the principal cash crop, it becomes very vulnerable. The consequences of events such as attacks on tourists, health scares ie. the outbreak of SARS, wars, civil unrest, crime and natural disasters are in their own right considerable but when the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office then issues advice warning visitors to stay away, the situation can become one of on-going crisis. After advisories are issued, insurers withdraw their indemnity, and tour operators often withdraw their holidays. The media take over and the traffic dies. The Kenyan Minister for Foreign and International Affairs has written how the damage from the British ban is of almost inestimable scale. “Unlike the highly diversified economies of the West”, he says, “tourism is a critical industry for Kenya. It represents 15 per cent of our crucial foreign-exchange earnings and an astonishing 12 per cent of national GDP - an eighth of our entire economy”. Thousands were laid off. Losses were reported of at least $1 million a day. Kenya's experience is not unique. This story is repeated every time a country is on the Foreign Office hot list. A recent report by Tourism Concern looking at how FCO decisions are made, and whether they are practical, objective and up to date, found that representatives of developing countries affected by the advisories are unhappy with what they see as ‘double standards', and it is hardly surprising that some detect political rather than solely security motives behind decisions to impose or lift travel warnings. The US has escaped travel warnings and we are positively encouraged to visit to show solidarity, and Spain has escaped even though ETA (1) has threatened tourists. The head of Bali's Tourism Authority, I Gede Pitana, is quoted as saying the belief “that the travel advisories are not about security but politics” is shared by a number of officials of various countries. The FCO's web site contains no information about the process of how advisories are devised, no information about the extent to which the host countries are consulted, and no information about how travel warnings are issued or lifted. In addition, by not taking into account the implications of its advice on tourist destinations, the FCO undermines the development work carried out by DFID and is also harmful to other government departments. Legitimate concern for the safety of travellers must be balanced with the proper interests of tourist destinations. Patricia Barnett is Director of Tourism Concern. For further information on Tourism Concern, or to receive a copy
of the report, ‘FCO travel advisories: the case for transparency and
balance.’ contact: Reference:
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|