Tourism South South

8/3/2019 Tourism South South

1/13

Regional Tourism and South-South Economic CooperationAuthor(s): Krishna B GhimireReviewed work(s):Source: The Geographical Journal, Vol. 167, No. 2 (Jun., 2001), pp. 99-110Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of

British Geographers)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3060481 .

Accessed: 20/01/2012 01:05

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Blackwell Publishing and The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) are

collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Geographical Journal.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rgshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rgshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3060481?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3060481?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rgshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rgshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black


2/13

TheGeographical ournal,Vol. 167, No. 2, June 2001, pp. 99-1 l O

I ourism,


3/13

100 Regional ourism nd South-Southconomic cooperationIndeed, in the 1950s and 1960s, newly-independentcountries n Asia and Africa requentlyinferred tourism development to be a means ofXresourceransfer' rom the North to the South.As such, developing countries (usually withfinancial and technical assistance from bi- andmultilateral gencies) sought to promote tourismthrough identification and development of newsites, promotion and marketing of diversifiedtourism products, enactment of favourable abourlaws, provision of subsidized credits and taxexemptionsto foreign nvestors.Nationaland inter-national tourism business groups gladly collabo-ratedwith governmentswhen they saw possibilitiesfor profit.A thorny ssue, however, was that the privilegedtourist groups, coming mainlyfrom the industrial-ized countries in the North, tended to respondmore to the economic and political circum-stances in their respective countries than to needsin Southern countries. In particular,developingcountries possessed little capital, technology andknow-how to develop tourism. Instead, this situ-ation reinforced 'dependency' relationshipswithindustrialized ountries.There is a vast amount ofliterature hat indicates how this relationshiphasresulted in the repatriation f the bulk of tourismrevenues to industrialized ountries,while generat-ing many enduringexploitative conomic relations,human rightsviolations,and culturaland environ-mental problems n touristdestinations n develop-ing countries (de Kadt 1979; Butler 1991;Pleumarom1994).It has thus become clear that tourism,based onthe arrivalof international ourists from Northerncountries,was not such a reliable ector as initiallyperceived. At the same time, in several developingcountries, the accompanying modernization pro-cesses and development of Westernized leisureethic- in part stimulatedby the arrival f Northerntourists- have fostered increased domestic tour-ism. Not only the privileged,but increasingly hemiddle and lower strata of the population groupsare seeking to travel,and at times even abroad. Infact, in a number of developing countries whereone would usually magine nternationalourism obe providing a substantial ncome, deficits haveemerged between tourism receipts and expendi-ture by their nationals abroad. Recent examplesinclude Brazil and Thailand (Diegues 2001;Kaosa-ard t al. 2001).Increasingly, in several developing countries,national tourism has become more important nterms of the total numberof touristsand its contri-bution to national economy than internationaltourism (Ghimire2001). In general, it can be saidthat national ourism s less sensitive o international

political instabilityand economic stagnation, lessdetrimental o the country's balance of paymentsand should create substantial ncome and employ-ment. But despite this potential,very few develop-ing countries have a consistent policy on nationaltourism. When a significant number of touristsbegin to take holidays, hey demand facilitiesandservices. Governments have tended to cope withthis process in an ad hoc manner, with tourismpolicies being developed in a completelyunplanned ashion.Another characteristicof tourism is the rapiddevelopment of regional ourismwithindevelopingcountries, with certain emerging prospects foreconomic development in the South,but also manyimpending problems similar to those associatedwith international ourism. This aspect is so fartotally neglected in tourism literature,but a fewpolicy measures are being undertaken at thelevel of regional institutions. This paper willexplore this particular spect of Southern regionaltourism,especially ookingat it as a possible way ofstrengtheningSouth-South conomic cooperation.For several decades now, South-Southcollabor-ation has remained an important foreign policyagenda in developingcountries.This ssue has beenespecially articulated n the context of the work ofthe Non-AlignedMovement, Group of 15, Groupof 77 and many other forums. South-Southcooperation has been regarded as an essentialmechanismfor promotingeconomic developmentand self-reliance,ncreasingunderstanding nd soli-daritywithinthe South and being able to negotiateits demands in world forums.Trade, inance, indus-try and business, science and technology, transportand infrastructureave been considered as priorityareas for collaboration. However, there are fewtangibleachievements.Manyof the Southern nitia-tives are limited o designing appropriate trategiesand mechanismsrather han implementing hem. ASouth Centre reportadmitted n 1990 that

... it has generallyproved easier to co-operate n thepolitical phere,where importantoint initiatives ontin-ued to be mountedand sustained.On economic ssuestherehas been a wide gap between,on the one hand, herhetoricof solidarity,he ambitiousobjectives n inter-national esolutions, ndthe manyprogrammeset out inintergovernmentalgreements,and, on the other, theaction hat has ensued. SouthCommission 990, 149In recent years, the issue of South-Southcollabor-ation has been especially reiterated throughregionalorganizations uch as ASEAN Associationof South-EastAsian Nations),SAARC South AsianAssociationfor RegionalCooperation),and SADC


4/13

Regionalourism nd South-Southconomiccooperation 101(Southern African Development Community).These organizationshave sought to intensifyregionalconomicandpoliticalooperation.n inewith hisrationaleorregionalooperation,ourismisoftenseenasan exceptionalmeansof revitalizinganddiversifyinghe regional conomicbase,gen-eratingnew employmentnd incomepossibilitiesfor ocalcommunitiesndstrengtheningeople-to-peoplecontacts.And a few specificpolicy nitia-tiveshavebeenstarted long hese ines ndifferentregions. hispaper ttemptso discussheprincipalfeatures,magnitudeand possibleoutcomes ofsome of these initiatives.n particular,he paperwill examinewhetherregional ourismdevelop-ment standsfor a new economic dynamoforthe region,especiallycompared o North-Southtourism.Understandinghe generalnatureand scaleofregionalourism'Regionalourism's identified ereas activities fleisureravel ypeoplewithinhe sameregion, utoutsidetheirusualcountryof residence, uchasSouthEastAsia,SouthernAfrica,CentralAmericaandSouthAmerica. esideshe closegeographicalproximity,ountriesn a givenregionmay sharemanysimilarhistorical evelopments, cologicalcharacteristics,tandardsf living,ocio-economicstructures,ulturaleaturesand populationom-position.Hence hereare ikelyo be manydistinctfeaturesn thecompositionf the principalouristgroups,heireisurenterestsndactivitiesnd heirinfluenceon the localeconomy,cultureand soforth scomparedo internationalouristsrom heindustrializedorth.But informationn manyofthesecrucial spects s totallyacking.Theres no coherentapproacho regionalour-ismdevelopment. or xample,heWorldTourismOrganizationW1O), a United Nationsagencywhichhas responsibilitiesor gathering ata andelaboratinglanson tourism,has primarilyeenconcernedwith the promotionof internationaltourism involving tourists from developedcountries.t haspaidtrivialttentiono the emer-gence of Southernregionaltourism.This isreflectedn the lackof its treatmentf core con-cepts, definitionsand classificationsf regionaltourism,as well as in understandinghe majortourist roups nvolved,heirbehaviournd inter-ests.Lookingt its pastprojects ndpublications'list, it becomes clear that the organization asundertakeno majorprojectsn this area(W1O2000).Thiss surprisingnowinghat n thepast heWTOhasremainedeento get involvedn techni-calandmanagerialssues,whilegenerallyvoidingpolitics, power relationsand socio-economicinequalities.

At the national level, there are only a smallnumber of developing countries that haveattemptedto assess the potentialgain (as well asharm) romregional ourismdevelopment.It is veryrecently-especially with the creation of regionalcooperation bodies- that regional tourism hasbeen considered as a phenomenon to be recog-nized and worth integratinginto the regionalplanningprocess.Regional ravelpatterns,based on the data pro-vided by W1O, for ASEAN,SADCand Mercosur,are presented in Figure 1. They suggest that asubstantial ourismflow occurs between develop-ing countries in the respective regions. In 1998about 55 per cent of tourists in the ASEANcountriescame fromAsianand Pacificdevelopingcountries.Some 73 per cent of the visitorsto theSADCregionoriginated romAfrica. n the case ofMercosur,visitorsfrom LatinAmericaconstitutedover 70 per cent of regionalarrivals. ndeed, notonly is the number of tourists from developingcountries in the region high, but W1O forecastssuggesta sustainedgrowthof intraregionalravel nmost regionswithindevelopingcountries n comingyears. Intraregionalourist arrivals n Africa, forexample,will constitute 64 per cent of all touristarrivalsn 2020 (comparedto 58%in 1995). Simi-larly,83 per cent of all the touristarrivalsn EastAsiaandthe Pacificare to be fromwithin he regionin 2020 (comparedto 79%in 1995). In contrast,the W1O suggests a decrease for intraregionaltouristarrivalso the Americas rom77 per cent in1995 to 62 per cent in 2020 (W1O 1997).Since national ourismauthorities,he W1O andtourismbusinessgroupsare keen to giveoptimisticfigureson the currentand futurepatternsof tour-ism expansion,they at times disregard he variouscomplexities involved in defining and countingdifferenttourist groups. In the case of regionaltourism, in particular, t is possible that peoplefrequently crossing borders to neighbouringcountriesfor all kinds of purposes may be regis-tered as touristseach time they pass the check-points (Pleumaron1997). Despite these difficultiesin the definitionand countingof regionaltourists,regional leisure travel today is undoubtedly asignificantphenomenon in many regions in theSouth.The importanceof regionalor Southerntourismappears especially evident when it is comparedwith the numberof touristscomingfromdevelopedcountries. For example, WTO data suggest thatin 1998 within ASEAN, SADC and Mercosurblocs Northern ouristscomprisedonly 39, 23 and24 per cent respectively (WTO 2000a). Futureexpansion n tourismwithindevelopingcountries smore thanlikely,givena changing eisureethic that


5/13

SAD4CNorthern

MERCOSUR

102 Regional ourism nd South-Southconomic cooperation

ASEANEurope Mddli0 Sst

28% 0.6% Not pec0ed_ / / 4.2%

AsialPac.Developedcountries

15 7fO_

Latin America0.3%

Northern< America

6+5%

AsialPac.Developedcountries

1.5%

Asia/Pac.Northern Deve}opingAmerica r countriess8.1% 0+6%Asia/Pacv> / Developed

= countries_ 0+7/0brope15*2%Mddle Ast

0.1%wNot specified4.8%

Figure 1 Touristarrivals n ASEAN,SADC and Mercosur regions in 1998 (in %)Source: WTO 2000a


6/13

Regionalourism ndSouth-Southconomiccooperation 103attaches mportance o recreationalnd holidayactivities,rowingurbanizationndthe aspirationof citydwellers o escape to pleasure ndholidayspots,and ncreased isposablencomes or eisurepurposes mong he middle lassesas well as theaspiringlow-incomeclasses in many regions(Ghimire997).Given hisgrowth otential, nd nthecontextofseeking o foster ncreased olitical,conomicandculturalinks, t would seem naturalhatdifferentregionalorganizationswould considerregionaltravelpromotion o be an importantolicy ssue.Buthowareconcretepolicymeasures ndertakenindifferentegionalontexts?Whatare theirpoliti-cal and economicsettings?How consistentarethesemeasuresntermsof theirgeneral bjectivesandoutcomes n practice? heunderlyingssue isto whatextentregionalourisms integratedntheregional lanning rocessas a means o enhanceregional conomiccooperation n order to takeadvantagefhuman,materialndnaturalesourcesavailablen the region,or is it mainlynducedbypowerfulegional usiness s well as nationallitegroups hatarekeen to maintain closed,oppor-tunetourismmarketorthemselves?How aretherights f tourismworkers rotected? rucially,owwould heensuingncomeandbenefitsbe distrib-uted across differentpopulationgroups in thecountryor region?Arethere any regionalpolicyspecificitiesn these respectscompared o themanagementf internationalourismorexample?S,oecificxperiencesn regionalourismcooperationTheperceptions f collective egionalelf-relianceandeconomiccooperation re not new in devel-opingcountries.Nor is there any lack of formalregional roupings.ndeed,regional rganizationsofone typeoranother renowcommonlyound nallregions.Butmuchof theworkof theseregionalorganizationss limited o the level of politicalcooperationetweengovernmentsndparliamen-tarybodies.Although lose collaborationn tradeindustryndbusiness,ransportndinfrastructure,science, educationand technology, nformationandcommunication,nvironmentnd so forth scommonlycalledfor and some initiatives avebeen taken,n mostcontexts chievementsntheseareasaremeagre.Nevertheless,he establishmentof regional rganizationsas provided politicalspace to discusscollaborationnd to seek imple-mentationf a certainnumber f policies nthesebroadareas.

As far as the tourismsector goes, very fewregional roupshavepaidspecificattentiono thisareaofactivity.ourismsunderstoodoexpand n

parallelo growth n regional rade, ndustry ndbusiness, s wellasto thedevelopment ftransportand nfrastructure.nsomeways, hisapproach asmorerealistic hantrying o promote ravelandrelatedbusinesswithoutcooperationwithinthebroaderssues of economyandcommercialela-tions.With view oboosting ourismn theregion,people-to-peopleontactsare perceivedvital byremoving isaandcurrencyestrictions.n hecaseof certainregionalblocs, tourismdevelopmentcommittees ndstudygroupshavebeen created.In a very few cases, concreteregional ourismpolicymeasureshave also been undertaken. oelaborateon these developments nd draw rel-evantconclusionsn theroleofregionalourismopromoteSouth-Southooperation,he work ofthree regionalblocs in Asia, Africa and LatinAmericareassessed.ASEANAn examination f the Association f South-EastAsianNationsASEAN)sinstructiveoratleast woreasons.First, t is one of the leadingSouthernregionalblocs, with significantexperience inregionaleconomic cooperationextendingoverthreedecades.Second, ourism asreceived om-prehensiveonsiderationntheorganization'sorkandstrategic lanning,specially s the region sone of theworld'smajorourism estinations.heorganization ees tourism o be 'an importantindustryproviding ubstantialoreignexchangereceiptsand employmentopportunities'.Giventhis, tbelieves

. . . tourism asto keep pacewithglobalisationrendsandmarket iberalization,o enhance the opportunity ortravelbusiness o expandand competeacrossnationalborders ndattractnvestments ndtechnology o sustainthe long-termiability f the tourismndustry.ASEAN ndateda, 4Regionalisitors ncompass significantroupoftourists n most ASEAN ountries. n 1998, forexample,nThailandndSingapore,hesetouristscomprised1.3 and26.8percentoftotalncomingtourists. n Indonesiaand Malaysia,hey repre-sented hesubstantiallyigherproportionsf 45.2and 69.3 per cent respectivelyTable1). Amongthe originalmembers, nlythe Philippinesas arelativelyow numberof regionalourists isitingthe country, eflecting he lackof tourist ecurityandinfrastructures.ewlyemergingourism esti-nations,notablyLaos and Cambodia, ave alsobegun o attract considerableumber f regionaltourists,especiallysince access by cars andcoaches has become possiblefromThailand.Acheapercost of livingand relativelyunspoiled


7/13

Table 1 Touristarrivalsat frontiersof the ASEANcountries by countries of origin in 1998 (in %)Tourists'origins

Asia/Pacificdeveloping countriesCountries Latin North Asia/Pacific Middle Notvisited Africa America America All ASEAN developed countries2 Europe East specified

Brunei 1.1 91.6 (89.6) 2.2 4.2 0.9Cambodia 0.3 11.4 46.1 (20.4) 11.6 24.8 5.9Indonesia 0.5 0.6 4.3 59.0 (45.2) 19.4 15.2 1.0Laos 0.1 5.0 79.3 ( 73 0) 4.9 10.6 0.2Malaysia 0.46 0.15 2.04 78.1 (69.3) 7.5 6.6 0.4 4.8Myanmar 0.3 6.5 49.4 (9.6) 17.4 26.4Philippines 0.1 0.2 24.9 29.1 (6.4) 21.3 14.5 0.8 9.2Singapore 1.2 0.4 7.4 49.8 (26.8) 22.2 18.6 0.3 0.1Thailand 1.0 0.4 6.5 45.5 (21 3) 16.9 27.6 1.2 1.0Vietnam 2.6 38.4 (1.1)3 6.3 7.1 45.6Total for ASEAN 0.69 0.32 6.47 55.11 (36.00) 15.71 16.83 0.65 4.23Source:WTO 2000, 11 803Notes. 1 US, Canada

2 Japan,Australia,New Zealand3 Data only specified for Thailand

104 Regionalourism nd South-Southconomiccooperation

3 tourismmanpowerdevelopment;4 environmentally-sustainableourism,and5 facilitationof intra-ASEANravel (ASEANun-dated b, 1).In recent years, the ASEAN National TourismOrganizations(NTOs) have remained especiallyactive in formulatingnationaland regionaltourismstrategiesand plansof action.Theyhave servedasa useful institutionalmechanismfor the exchangeof vital information nd experience,harmonizationof tourism policies and programmes,marketing,training,research and informationdissemination.Indeed, most of these activitieshave consistentlybeen identifiedas core issues of regionaltourismdevelopment since major collaboration effortsbegan to take place in the 1970s.The NTOs have also sought to tackle problemssuch as epidemics(e.g. cholera), he haze originat-ing fromfires in Indonesia,negativemediareportsand other problemswhich affect touristarrivalsnthe region.Theythus attemptedto reassure ouristsas well as businesspartnershatASEANNTOsweredoing their best to address these issues jointly(Hamdi 1997). These organizations were alsomotivatedto promote tourismmore energeticallyin order to help to overcome the financialandcurrencycrisis that the region faced in 1997. Inorder to improve the region's image and boosttourism,ASEANdesignated2002 the 'VisitASEAN

naturalndculturalraits rovideurtherncentivesto visit these countries.Furthermore,n recentyears, he Mekongregionhasprovedalluringoreconomic investment and tourism develop-mentprojects,hereby ttractingarious roups fbusinesspeople,governmentfficials ndtourismpromoters.Regionalourism ollaborationas seen as animportantpheresoon after he establishmentfASEANin 1967. Inthelate 1960s andearly1970s,when tradeand economicinvestmentwere theprincipalreasof regional ooperation, evelop-ment n tourismwasalready ecognizedo be animportantlement n fosteringhese activities.n1976, the organizationreateda Sub-Committeeon Tourismor the development f coordinatedtourism rojects nd theirenhancedmarketing.n1981,the ASEAN Tourism orumwas establishedas an annualevent.Variousaspectsrelatingotourism romotion,marketing,esearch ndtrain-ing are discussedandplansof actionelaboratedthrough his Forum. t designated1992 a 'VisitASEAN Year'with variousmeasureso promotetourismnthe region. n 1998,ASEANproposedofocus its tourismactivities n the following ivestrategichemes:1 marketingheASEAN regionas a single ourismdestination;2 encouragingourismnvestments;


8/13

Regionalourism nd South-Southconomiccooperation 105MillenniumYear'underthe leadershipof the NTOsas well as the privatesector (ASEAN ndatedb, 1).Clearly,ourism s recognizedas a vitalelementinregionaleconomic developmentand cooperation.But most of the efforts have been put into thedevelopment of internationaltourism. Regionaltourism development has tended to receive in-significantattention,despite the fact that regionaltouristsare clearly he largest ouristgroupsin mostSouthEastAsiancountries.Indeed, he recentfinan-cial and economic instabilitieshave encouragedmanySouthEastAsiantouristspreviously ravellingto NorthAmericaand Europe o take theirholidaysin theirown countriesor the region, herebyprovid-ing further impulse to regional tourism develop-ment.Amongthe strategiesdeveloped to enhanceregional tourism are improved transport links,steadyremovalof visarestrictions nd the provisionof easier currencyexchange. Economiclinks havecontinued to flourish among South East Asiancountries in spite of nationalpoliticalinstabilitiesor the establishmentof authoritarianegimes (e.g.Myanmar).But the economic competition amongcountries and concern about rapid immigrationfrom poorer neighbouringcountriesat times alsotended to hold back developmentin regional raveland tourism.In addition,a marked difference instandards of living between the poorer countries(Cambodia,Laos, Myanmarand Vietnam)and therelativelybetter-offones (Malaysia,SingaporeandThailand)meansthatnot all SouthEastAsians havean equal capacityfor leisure travel,althoughupperand upper-middleclasses even in the poorercountries have always had sufficient economicmeansto travel n the region.Attentive NGOs and academics have tendedto point out how this divisionin the standardoflivingand nationaleconomic strengthare allowingrichercountriesto takemore advantageof regionaleconomic and tourismcollaboration.Businessandtourismgroupsfromthe latter ountriesare encour-aged to makeinvestments n new destinationsandproducts,with littlecontrol over their activities.Onthe whole, in promoting his new or regional-leveltourisminitiative ittleattentionis given to the un-desirablesocialand economic hardships aused bytourism,humanrightsviolationsand environmentaldegradation.The TourismInvestigation nd Moni-toringteam, an NGO designed to foster populardebate and action on tourism,development andenvironmentalssues in the Mekongsub-region, orexample,states that:

Instead,people are seduced to increasinglyonsumeglorifiednddistortedmagesof reality ndspend moneyto enjoythe sightsandpleasures n offer.New Frontiers99 7, 3

Increasingly,he rise nWestern-styleeisureravelin the region s thought o triggermanynegativeconsequenceson traditional ractices,customs,and familyand communityvalues (Pleumarom1 999).

SADCOriginallynownas the SouthernAfricanDevel-opmentCoordination onference SADCC) ndestablishedn 1980, the SouthernAfricanDevel-opmentCommunitySADC)ims o bring cceler-ated economicgrowth,creatingmorejobs andreducingpoverty n the region, n line with theachievementsmade by ASEAN ountries.How-ever, therehave been few tangibleaccomplish-ments.One problemwas thatuntil1994 SouthAfrica,he largest egional conomicpower,wasnot the key player.Followinghe end of theapartheidegime, he countryhas swiftlymovedto hold 'centrestage'withinthe functioning fthe organization.s the organizationees brightprospectsfor expansion n regional rade andinvestment,arious nstitutionsave beencreatedandnew protocols igned n theseareas n recentyears.Tourisms importantn mostSouthernAfricancountries,especially nternationalafaritourism.Regionalourismhasalso remainedignificant.nthe past, regional ourismwas gearedtowardsmeetinghe leisure ravel ndvacationneeds of aprivilegedroupof white peopleanda few blackelitesand businessmen. ut in recentyears,sec-tionsof the middle ndlower-middletrata f thepopulation ave showninterest n leisure ravel,frequently ombinedwith other activities e.g.shopping, ealthreatment,usiness).As shown nTable2, mostof the touristsn the regioncomefrom he SADC ountries.In he contextof regionalooperation,he devel-opmentof tourismsconsideredo be a key policyobjective.This s guidedby the idea thattourismwouldbe one of the main ectorsbenefitingromcloser regional ntegration. he specificgoal oftourism asbeen to

maximizeourism'sontributiono regional evelopmentthroughhegenerationnd retention f foreign xchangeearnings, mployment reation,humanresourcesdevel-opmentandrural evelopment. SADCundated,A five-year ourismdevelopmentstrategywaselaboratedn 1994 which examined nvestmentneeds,development f visitor acilities nd infra-structure,uman esources evelopment,esearchand data collection. t specificallydentifiedheneed to promotetourismon a regionalscale


9/13

Table 2 Tourist arrivalsat frontiers of the SADC countries by countries of origin in 1998 (in %)Tourists'origins

Africa Asia/Pacific Asia/PacificCountries Latin North developing developed Middle Notvisited All SADC America America' countries countries2 Europe East specified

Angola 141 (8.0) 6.8 7.7 3.8 0.9 66.2 0.5Botswana3 89.8 (88.2) 0.03 1.3 o.64 0.65 7.7Congo DR 41.9 (?) 2.3 2.5 15.0 38.4Lesotho 98.6 (98.4) 0.02 0.3 0.3 0.8Malawi 79.8 (64.1 ) 2.9 12.8 4.5Mauritius 29.2 (11.6) 0.2 0.9 4.4 2.1 63.2 0.09 0.01MozambiqueNamibia 76.7 (75.7) 1.8 19.9 1.6Seychelles 9.9 (4.2) 1.1 4.2 2.7 0.9 80.1 1.1South Africa 72.9 (71.0) 0.8 3.4 2.0 1.6 16.9 0.3 2.1Swaziland 83.9 (78.0) 2.1 0.3 1 12.1 0.7TanzaniaZambia 71.9 (53.7) 0.1 4.0 1.4 4.1 18.5Zimbabwe 75.7 (71.7) 1.1 4.7 3.9 14.6Total for SADC 73.00 (68.67) 0.68 3.17 1.72 1.49 18.36 0.17 1.42Source: WTO 2000a, 11-803Notes: ' US, Canada

2 Japan, Australia,New Zealand3 Based on 1997 statistics4 Data includingvisitors from Japan5 Data excluding visitors from Japan6 In 1996

106 Regional ourism nd South-South conomiccooperation

bearingn mindmanyunique ourist ttractionsnthe Southern fricanegion.A primaryutcomeofthis strategywas the establishmentf a RegionalTourism rganizationf Southern fricaRETOSA),in 1996, withtheview of coordinatingnd imple-menting ome of the above activities.But as theorganization acked both human and financialresources, ts workbecame limitedmainlyo thepromotion f tourismn the region. nparticular,the organizationassought o increasehe volumeof tourismbusinessby welcoming nternationaltouristsand by identifying nd developingnewmarket iches orthe region Retosa 000;de Beeret al. 1 999).Besides he creationof RETOSA,everal nitia-tives have been taken to attract ncreasednter-national ourism.Some of the recent projectsundertakenwith the specific goal of expandingtourism-relatedhysicaland social infrastructureand facilitiesncludehe:* TransAfricaCoast2CoastpatialDevelopment;* MaputoDevelopmentCorridor;

* LubombopatialDevelopment;nd* OkavangoUpperZambezinternationalourismzone (de Beer t al. 1999).Anotherproject ncludesthe creationof trans-frontier arksbetweenSouthAfrica,Mozambiqueand Zimbabwe,hereby acilitatingasy travel ndimprovedaccommodationacilities or tourists(Koch 994).Butprogressnthe execution f manyof theseprojects asbeen slowdue primarilyo thelackofnecessaryunds, speciallys the implemen-tationof most projects s left to the individualcountrieswhichhave o dealwithmany ompetingneeds(cf.de Beer t al. 1999).Theabove nitiativesavenevertheless rovidedincreasednstitutionalpacefor tourism fficialsnthe region o exchange heirpointsof view andorganizeprotocolmeetings.One such meeting,in September1998, proposed he creationof asingletouristvisa for the entire region to easeborder estrictionsnd formalitiesor internationaltourists,ndthe issuehas sincebeen discussedby


10/13

Regional ourism nd South-Southconomic cooperation 107immigrationuthoritiesn the differentmembercountries SADC ndated).As far as regional ourism nvolving ravelbycitizensof SADC ountriess concerned, ew-ifany- concretemeasures ave o date been under-taken,althougha numberof countries, uch asSouth Africa,have noted the importance f thissector (DEAT 996). Despite the overwhelmingnumber f regional ourists,most tourismpromo-tion activitiesare targeted owards nternationaltourists romthe North.Tourist roducts oo areheavilybiasedto servicinghis groupof tourists,focusingmainly n nature ourism.Regionalour-ists, on the other hand,are mainly nterestednholiday recreation nvolvingvisits to cities andhistorical onuments,hopping ndentertainment.On the whole governmentnvestmentsn accom-modation nd othervisitor acilities o not reflectthe interests ndmotivationsf the bulk f regionalvisitors.The participationf the privatesector,which s seen as crucialo tourism evelopmentnthe region,has also tendedto concentrate n theinternationalourism ichemarket, s muchof theinvestmentn tourismhas tended to come fromforeigngroups.In manycountries,nationalandlocal nvestors emainmerelyas subordinate art-nersof foreign nvestmentroupsand the limitedgovernment ttempts o encouragedomesticorcommunity ntrepreneurshipas producedfewtangible esults;hishasbeen, orexample,he casein SouthAfrica.Visaand currency egulationsorregionalvisitorsare frequently ntractable.Andthere is stilla widespread ultural reconceptionwhichconsiders tourismo be an exclusiveprivi-lege of whites', herebymakingmanyblacks eeluneasyaboutvisitingWesternizedourism estina-tions. Littleattentions given to many of thesecriticalssuesat the SADCevel.

MercosurMercosur meaning southernmarket'n Spanish;and in Portugueset is called Mercosul)s com-prisedof Argentina,razil, araguaynd Uruguay,with Chile being an associatedmember.Bolivia,PeruandotherAndean ountries avealsoenteredinto various cooperationagreementswith thegroup. Establishedn 1991, Mercosurhas twoobjectives:1 free tradebetweenmember ountries; nd2 a commonexternalradepolicy.It aimsat full iberalizationnd expansion f tradewithinwro regulations,ts targetbeing o achievea free single market n four membercountriesby January 002. However,progress s limited.

Althoughvarious strategieshave been elaborated,their implementation has been extremely slowowing to the lack of coordination n monetaryandfiscal policies,financialand political nstabilities ndthe dominance of Braziliannational interests topromote its automobile,manufacturing nd agricul-tural ectors (Grandi nd Schutt 1999; Bucar1997).Unlike ASEANand SADC, tourism has receivedlittleattentionwithinthe institutional tructureandworking of Mercosur.Most of its decisions aretaken under 11 working subgroups that extendfrom tax and customs mattersto transport, ndus-trial and agriculturalpolicies. Tourism is notincluded in these subgroups,although harmoniz-ation of customs, commontaxationand investmentpolicies and developmentof transportwould havean indirect nfluencein the expansion of tourism nthe region.This is not to suggest that the tourism sector istotally disregarded by the Mercosur group ofcountries.At the national evel Brazil nd Argentina,in particular, ave active tourism policies. Thishassomewhat influenced the Mercosur secretariat orecognize the economic potentialof regional our-ism. It has looked at ways of facilitating egionaltourism by easing border restrictions.Also, thedevelopment and improvement in cross-borderinfrastructurehas remained a constant concern(The Economist 12 October 1996; The FinancialTimes 1 September2000). These issues were con-sidered by the SpecialistMeeting on Tourismandthe TechnicalCommitteeNo. 2 on Custom Affairs(OAS 1995). The organizationhas also sought tolaunch a more coordinatedmarketing trategyonthe Internetby seekingto promote leadingtourismsites and facilities in the region (see Mercosur2000).Regional tourism is a well-establishedphenom-enon in South Americaand recent policy measuresto improve nfrastructurend visitor acilitiesas wellas to reduce frontierformalities have producedseveral positive results in terms of increasing thenumber of tourists in various countries. In Brazil,for example, regional tourists came mainly fromArgentinaand Uruguaybefore the 1970s, but inrecent decades the number of incoming touristsfrom other neighbouringcountries has increasedsignificantly s a resultof the improvement n roadsand communicationsystems (Diegues 2001), withregional ouristscomprisingnearlyhalf of the totalincomingtourists Table3). In Chile, 54 per cent ofthe tourists come from neighbouringcountries.InArgentina, Paraguay and Uruguay, this groupcomprises between two-thirdsand three-quartersof total tourists.Visa and custom restrictionstillremaincomplex,especially for touristsfrom poorer countries. No


11/13

Table 3 Tourist arrivalsat frontiers of the Mercosur countries by countries of origin in 1998 (in %)Tourists'origins

LatinAmerica Asia/Pacific Asia/PacificCountries North developing developed Middle Notvisited Africa All Mercosur America] countries countries2 Europe East specified

Argentina 77.13 (67.9) 8 94 1 1.5 2.6Brazil 0.9 59.7 (47.3) 11.9 1.2 1.3 24.1 0.3 0.7Chile 0.1 76.5 (53.8) 8.3 0.6 1.5 12.9 0.03 0.04Paraguay 0.2 76.5 (70.2) 4.4 0.7 0.4 9.5 8.3Uruguay 77.9 (76.2) 4.1 18*0Total for Mercosur 0.36 70.29 (59.36) 8.16 0.58 0.75 15.21 0.12 4.79Source: WTO 2000ar 11-803Notes: ' US, Canada2 Japan, Australiaand New Zealand3 ExcludingMexico

4 Including Mexico

108 Regional ourism ndSouth-South conomiccooperation

specific policy measures have been adoptedtowardscreatinga single currency r facilitatingcurrency xchangefor regional ourists.Despitemuch discussion,here has been no noteworthyinvestmentn majornfrastructurerojects nd thecosts involvedare gigantic.Also, the lack of acoherent regionaltourism developmentpolicyresults n investments aking place in a highlyhaphazardmanner.Research, ata collectionandanalysis n tourismpotential, s well as its unin-tendednegativempacts n the environment,ocaleconomiesandlivelihood ystemsare completelyabsent.Assessment ndconclusionWhat s evident rom he above discussions thatregional ourism s significantn all three regionalblocs. InASEAN countries egional ourists om-prised36 per centof the total.The percentage fregional ouristsnASEANountries tands ome-what low, partlybecause there is a substantialinternationalransit f tourists hroughSingaporeand Thailand.lso, the largenumber f Japanesetouristswho come to the region essenthe figurefor regionaltourists. In SADC and Mercosur,regionalouristsddedup to 59 and69 percent oftotal ouristsespectivelysee Tables , 2 and3). Inactualnumbers,nthe mid-1990sASEAN regionaltourists omprisednnually 0.7 million;ndSADCand Mercosurespectively ad 7.9 and 7.2 millionregional isitorsWrO2000a).Given his,regionaltourism eldacertain egreeof economicpotentialfor increased nvestmentand entrepreneurship,

thereby creatingnew employmentand incomeprospects or various ections of the population.Clearly,t was importanto give mpetus o regionaltourismdevelopment, speciallyas most of theearnings romregional ourism hould n principleremain n the region tself.Howevermuchof thishas remained urelyhypothetical.The ASEAN loc has extendedexperience nregional ourism ooperation.The centralsecre-tariatbodies and national ourismorganizationsare mobilized o foster tourism n the region.InSADC, regionalourism rganizationasbeen setup to coordinate ourismdevelopment ctivities.In Mercosur, oo, attemptshave been made topromote tourism n the region,althoughon aconsiderablyesserscale. However,most of theseinstitutionaltructures nd activitiesconcerningtourismwere geared owardsmarketinghe regionmore effectivelyn orderto attractan increasednumber of tourists from developed countries;regional tourism development involving thenationals f member ountrieseceived ittleor noattention.Fewconcretepolicymeasures avebeen under-taken avouringegionalourists. nthe firstplace,there is littleunderstandingf who the regionaltouristsare, their aspirations nd interests,andthe economic potentialas well as the socio-environmental roblems hey represent.Tourismresearch, ata collectionand analysis re heavilybiased towards nternationalourism.The econ-omic capacityand specificrecreation nd enter-tainmentnterests f regional ourists re scarcelytaken nto accountwith regard o funding ourism


12/13

Regional ourism nd South-South conomic cooperation 109projects, nd there are no particularttempts obroaden those targetingregional ourists.Also,since the latterremainmore or less invisible n

. .. . . . .tourism policles, no tourism-awarenessalsingmeasuresare developed argeting hese regionalgroupsof tourists.A simplerecognition f the potential f regionaltourism s hardly ufficient o produce tangibleeconomic results.Also, the lack of governmentinvestmentn regionalourism nd ourism olicies,mean that in the majority f cases they are notintegratedn national r regional conomicpolicies.Therehasbeen little ssessment f the specific oleof regional ourismn regional conomicdevelop-ment,as well as in rural nd urban evelopmentnspecificnational ontexts.As such, t is not surpris-ing hat hereareno concretemeasureso promotecommunity entrepreneurship nd shareholdingin tourism, nd employment nd income-sharingpolicies.The crucialquestion s whetherregionaltourism s likely o help to changeexisting con-omic relationsmore n favour f pooreror weakergroupsand areas,and what supplementaryolicymeasures ould be envisagedwhen this was notthe case?This equires continual rocessof policymonitoring nd critical valuation,which remaintotally bsent n present egionalourismtrategies.One major roblemn regional conomiccoop-eration s the handling f existing entre-peripheryrelations.n any attempt o fosterregional oliticalintegration,reate ree trading ones, simplifyus-tomsand axregulationsnd ncrease ublic inanc-ing of common ndustrial rogrammes,ransport,energy and telecommunicationhere is actuallylittle guarantee hat accruedbenefits as well asassociated osts willbe equally haredby membercountries. ourisms likelyo reinforcehe situationsince the countrieswhich have politicalweight,relativelyargeGDPand dominance ver regionaltradeare most likely o take the lead in tourisminvestmentn the region.Thishasbeen the case, orexample,with Thailandwithin the Mekong-belt,where powerfulThaipoliticians, usinessgroups,the army,and the like, often team up with thegovernmentn regional fforts o boost tourism.Some of these groups are involved in shadyprojects nvolvinghe creation f environmentally-damaging olf coursesand casinos,and the rapidexploitationf unspoiled istoricalnd ecotourismsites. In any event, as these groups commonlycontrol the entire chain of tourism develop-ment, includinghe formulationf tourismplans,promotion,raining,evelopment f road inks ndinvestmentn other tourism ctivities,heirdomi-nant role is guaranteed see for example NewFrontiers,November-December 999 and July-August 000). Insome ways, hisregional omina-

tion of Thailand s quite expected as in 1999 itseconomy accounted for over 72 per cent of theMekong region's (Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar,Thailandand Vietnam) GDP (World Bank 2000;UNDP 2000).Braziland South Africaare equally striking asesin their respective regions. In 1999, Brazilretainednearly60 per cent of Mercosur'sGDP (50 per centif Chile s included); he SouthAfrican conomy hada lion's share of 69 per cent of the total GDP of 13SADC countries (WorldBank2000; UNDP 2000).Given their overwhelmingpoliticaland economiccommand, national economic interests (i.e. theinterests of national business groups) tend to bereflected in the makingand functioningof regionalblocs in generaland tourism nvestment,promotionand marketing,as well as the benefits derived

from it, in particular.Travel formalities,currencyexchange, immigration, efugee issues and so forth,which frequently remain key barriers o regionalintegration, heavily reflect the interests of thesecountries. In short, in the absence of any institu-tionalarrangements o share the costs and benefitsof tourism in a more egalitarianmanner amongmember countries, present tourism cooperationpolicies in these three regional blocs are simplylikely to reinforce the prevailingcentre-peripheryrelations.Another dilemma is that since these regionalblocs state theirglobal policy framework o includefirm adherence to economic liberalization oliciesand strong private sector involvement within thepolicies established by the World Trade Organiz-ation, it becomes very difficult to differentiateregional tourism investment groups from multi-national corporations. In any event, there is noguarantee that regional business groups would bemore concerned with promoting regional econ-omic development, improving community liveli-hood systems, protecting workers' rights andconserving the environment (see for example,Pleumarom 1999a; Pluss 1996). The trend istowardsa rather lose collaborationbetween multi-national corporations and regional tourism con-glomerates to exploit readily marketableregionalfeatures,products, ax incentivesand cheap labourfor generating hefty, short-term profits. Indeed,most of the tourismpromotionactivities ponsoredby regional blocs facilitated his alliance and pro-duced many unintended socio-economic and eco-logical impacts at the local level. But researchand debate are lacking on many of these criticalissues.In conclusion, it can be said that, although inprinciple regional tourism represents a usefulinstrument n regional economic self-relianceandprogress, ncludinga level of communitywelfare at


13/13

1 1 0Regionalourism ndSouth-Southconomiccooperation

the local level, this needs carefulplanning, akinginto account politicaland economic realitiesandconstraints.Although he establishmentof regionalblocs has helped to bringto the fore some of therationale ndimportanceof regionalcooperation ntourism, so far there have been few sustainedoutcomes. Most activitiesremainedlimitedat thelevelof a declarationof good intentionsand elabo-ration of policy strategies, while the measuresimplementedthus far have tended to encourageunequal relationsamong member countries andsupport the interests of business groups. Theseresultsarenot uniqueto the tourism ector,butarecommonto manyother sectors,such as tradeandinvestment;hey reflect a structuralweakness inSouth-Southollaboration.AcknowledgementsTheauthorwould liketo thankHellaDietz for herassistance n the search for literatureas well ascontactingregional groups for information.Theauthors also grateful o two anonymousrefereeswhocarefullyread the earlierdraftand providedmewith manyhelpfulcomments.ReferencesASEANIndateda Plan of action on ASEANcooperation intourism,http://www.asean.or.id/economic/poa_tour.htmundated b Tourism http://www.asean.or.id/economic/ov_tur.htmde eer G R M, Mahlalela S G, Mahumane A, Mmatli R Aand Maseko A T 1999 A regionalapproach o tourismmarketing,managementand developmentunpublishedmlmeoBucarB 1997 Mercosur an evaluation:a Brazilian oint ofview http://www.hfni.gsehd.gwu.edu/ibi/minerva/Falil97/Eliane.Bucar.htmlButler 1991 Tourism,nvironmentndsustainable evel-opmentEnvironmentalConservation18 210-1 9DEATDepartment f Environmentalffairs nd Tourism)1996 Development and promotion of tourism in SouthAfricaDEAT, retoriaDieguesA 2001 Regionaland domestic mass tourismin Brazil:an overview in Ghimire K ed The nativetourist: ourism development within developing countriesEarthscan,ondonorthcomingGhimire B 1997 Emergingmass tourism in the SouthDiscussionaper85 UNRISD, enevaed 2001 The native tourist:tourism development withindeveloping ountries Earthscan,ondonGrandiand Schutt D 1999 Bilande sept annees deMercosurroblemes d'Amerique Latine3 January-March95-8

Hamdi R 1997 ASEANcrisis team takes haze action http://www.travel.asia.com/10_10_9 7/stories/asian.htmKaosa-ardM, Bezic D and White S 2001 Domestic tourisminThailand: upplyand demand in Ghimire Ked Thenativetourist: tourism development within developing countriesEarthscan,London forthcomingde KadtE 1979 Tourism passport to development? OxfordUniversityPress, New YorkKoch E 1994 Peace parks in Southern Africa UNRISD,GenevaMercosur 2000 http://www.sindicato.org.br/mercosul/index_frame_principal.htmlNewFrontiers 997 Vol 3 no 12 December 31999 Vol 5 no 6 November-December 22000 Vol 6 no 4 July-August1Organization of American States 1995 An analyticalcom-pendium of western hemisphere tradearrangementshttp://

www.sice.oas.org/cpO6 109 6/Engl sh/toc.aspPleumaromA 1994 The political economy of tourism TheEcologist24 142-71997 Politicaleconomy of regionaltourism developmentand environmental change in the Mekong sub-regionunpublished draftreport UNRISD,Geneva1999 The rise and fall of South-EastAsian tourism ThirdWorldResurgence 103 13-161999a Tourism, globalization and sustainable develop-ment ThirdWorldResurgence 103 4-8Pluss 1996 Liberalizationn tourism Discussion paper onthe GATSimplications for tourism Arbeitskreis ourismusund entwicklung, BaselRETOSARegionalTourismOrganizationof SouthernAfrica)2000 Theessence of AfricaHalfwayHouse (South Africa),RETOSASADCndated Sectorialresponsibilitieschart:tourismhttp://www.sadc.int/sadcmain/docs6_4sector.htmSouthommission 1990 Thechallenge to the South OxfordUniversityPress, OxfordTheconomist 996 12 October 19-22TheinancialTimes 000 1 SeptemberUNIDPUnited Nations Development Programme) 2000Human development report published for UNDP byOxfordlJniversityPress, New YorkWorldank 2000 World development report 2000/2001publishedfor the World Bankby Oxford UniversityPress,WashingtonDCWTOWorld Tourism Organization) 1997 Tourism2020 vision: executive summary Madrid http://www.sadcreview.com/Sectoral%2 Reports%22000/tou ism.htm2000 http://www.world-tourism.org2000a Yearbookof tourism statistics vols 1 and 2 52ndeditionWTO, Madrid

Tourism South South

Documents

Transcript of Tourism South South