Descripción detallada de los Casos de Uso

3.6. Tourism planning and policy

3.6.1. Sustainable tourism in Mauritius

There is a plethora of books and journal articles about sustainable tourism, however this Chapter seeks to present the existing literature on sustainable tourism in the light of community tourism issues and its implementation. We would need to look briefly at Mauritius as a Small Island Developing State (SIDS) and how tourism, in particular the definition of sustainable tourism has been applied to the country.

A Small Island Developing State features unique natural resources, economies and culture but is economically vulnerable due to its ‘small size, insularity, remoteness, proneness to natural disasters, social isolation and external dependency’ (Nunkoo et al. 2010, p.676).

‘Island destinations are characterised by small size and population, remote location, limited resource base, lack of revenue for imports, high transport costs, lack of local markets and lack of infrastructure’ (Wilkinson 1989 cited in Prayag et al. 2010, p. 687).

Small islands are also characterised by ecologically sensitive ecosystems and culturally unique features which means that environmental and socio-economic benefits for communities favour small-scale and limited tourism development (Prayag 2010, p.687). There are concerns on Small Island Developing States (SIDS) such as Mauritius being prone to environmental

73 problems and over-reliance on the tourism industry as its main economic revenue (Prayag 2010, p.697).

Many Small Island Developing States are undeveloped with few economic development options due to the declining value of traditional exports, declining domestic food production and increasing imports but they have cultural and natural resources which are valuable for tourism (WTO 2004, p.23). ‘Making tourism work for Small Island Developing States’ (WTO 2004) feels that the tourism industry is a less disruptive development option as it offers the opportunity for these countries to diversify and link to other sectors such as agriculture, fishing and transportation (WTO 2004, p.25).

A classic approach towards achieving sustainable development is placing limitations on carrying capacity, where exceeding a specific number will determine if the area has avoided mass tourism and become sustainable development (Butler 1996, p.15). However, it is recognised that tourism itself increases pressure on the environment and the local communities.

This poses challenges for islands to adapt their tourism policy. For example, the Seychelles and Mauritius revised their tourism policies to raise the quality of their tourism product by focusing on environmental carrying capacity and sustainable tourism. However, there was not a clear approach towards community capacity (WTO 2004, p.41).

The Bellagio Principles were set into place as a general set of guidelines to implement sustainable development strategies. Tourism was seen as a holistic, system-based approach using a smaller workable set of indicators, however there is the assumption that there will be openness and participation between the stakeholders and ‘appropriate ongoing monitoring procedures’ (Weaver 2006, p.32). A closer look at principles six to nine places emphasise on the accessibility of communication and data with participation at grass-root level and adaptive systems with ongoing assessments (Weaver 2006, p.32). Indeed, elements six to nine stress sociocultural aspects of tourism development in the sense that decision-making is made within the community.

74 The discussion on sociocultural aspects of sustainable tourism development also takes place within WTO’s conceptual definition, guidelines and practices of sustainable tourism development. Sociocultural carrying capacity ‘represents the maximum number of tourists that a community is capable/willing to accept without disturbing its (traditional) social habits and way of life.’ (WTO 2004, p. 62, 64). The fourth WTO core indicator for sustainable tourism, however, seeks to specifically measure social impacts defined by the ratio of tourists to locals (peak period and over time) and the tenth WTO indicator measures local satisfaction based on questionnaires. (Weaver 2006, p.31).

Denoi (1981) summarises alternative tourism as a community generating direct revenue, improved housing conditions and less environmental degradation. Alternative tourism would focus on a home industry or family business with the income going directly to the inhabitants and so there would be no alternation to the existing area. However, it is not clear how local people would be trained towards development of the accommodation Denoi is relating in his writing, such as a guest-house or hotel where the locals would require training and financial resources that are not always readily available in developing countries for poorer local communities. Denoi (1981) believed that housing issues and upgrades would be supported and financed by banks or the Government, charitable organisations and various UN branches such as UNESCO (Denoi 1981, p. 254, 257).

Graci and Dodds (2010) discuss the reality of community decision-making as an innovation of sustainable tourism stating that; ‘If communities are able to participate in decision-making about tourism development they need first to understand tourism development processes, tourist needs and wants and the variety of development options’ (Graci and Dodds 2010, p.173). They need to be educated on tourism rather than just entrepreneurship or livelihoods.

Choi and Sirakaya (2005) acknowledge the plethora of existing literature on community sustainable tourism and review them in their paper as community-driven development with resident benefits of recreational facilities, community reinvestment funds, promotion of local business and local participation Sustainable Community Tourism (SCT) would also minimise

75 negative social and cultural impacts, environmental concerns. In particular, SCT would ensure

‘full community participation’ which the authors define as ‘leadership roles, active participation in decision-making, collaboration, information and communication’ (Choi and Sirakaya 2005, p.228).

A definition of Sustainable Community Tourism (SCT) by Butler (1993) proposes the key components of ‘community-based tourism, long-term planning, management policy, natural and human resource protection, acceptable scale of development, limited or optimal economic benefits, and an ethical attitude towards overall environment’ (cited in Choi and Sirakaya 2005, p.227).

Discussion on the socio-economic benefits of SCT ‘aims to promote fair distribution of economic benefits among community residents’ through Government support on training programmes, low-interest loans, fostering local, regional and national Government agencies industries and NGOs and residents (Choi and Sirakaya 2005, p.229). However, SCT must protect and improve the community and environment regardless of how much money is being made through these endeavours:

‘For tourism to be truly sustainable, it needs to protect local and national culture, improve social and individual well-being, and conserve/preserve the surrounding environment.’ (Choi and Sirakaya 2005, p.230).

Berry and Ladkin (1997) argue that sustainable community tourism can be full of ambiguous goals and concepts which confuse and lack exact and precise. In particular, there needs to be clarity on how community residents would derive advantages from tourism development. The paradigm of community tourism should integrate policy and planning, monitoring progress social learning within the community. Active participation of the community would be viable if it involves well-developed communication channels with ‘receptive Governments’ (cited in Choi and Sirakaya 2005, p.227).

76 Redclift (2008) criticises the ideals of sustaining cultural systems and peoples as part of tourism development. It ignores the practical reality of implementing strategies which cannot sustain their livelihoods long-term. He argues that without involvement of the people in the design and implementation of sustainable development they would be unlikely to take responsibility or ownership for the project (Redclift 2008, p.122). Poorer communities may have no choice but to prefer immediate economic gains over insecure livelihoods which they cannot sustain without financial or vocational support. Therefore, the natural environment suffers conflict between the immediate needs and long-term interests of the developers. Redclift (2008) reminds us that in reality, trade-offs and difficult choices have to be made rather than ‘simply occupy the high, moral ground’ (Redclift 2008, p.122).

Research on resident identities and their support for tourism confirmed, that different facets of identity relevant to small island communities are likely to influence attitudes and support for tourism. The authors argue that most studies which examine tourism impacts and community attitudes have been carried from the perspective of industrialised economies and that the findings are less valid for small islands. There is the challenge of identifying the unique factors which are responsible for change in the local context and policies developed in one destination that should not be considered as applicable and relevant to other places (Nunkoo et al. 2010, p.675). The same could be said for ecotourism and community-based tourism destinations where a project may not be successful in one or the other.

However, it is argued that communities in SIDS should be empowered to ‘determine’ policy that safeguards their cultural and heritage resources (Nunkoo and Ramkissoon 2010b, p.39).

Snaith and Haley (1999) argue that there should be an emphasis on the ‘Mentifacts’ or atttitudes of the host community on their support for tourism (cited in Nunkoo and Ramkissoon 2010a, p.40). Choi and Sirakaya (2005) recommend that residents should be the focal point for development in terms of cultural and heritage tourism within Small Island Developing States (SIDS) (cited in Nunkoo and Ramkissoon 2010a, p.40).

77 The WTO (2004) believes that tourism in protected land areas such as Chamarel can help their sustainable development as local residents realise its value and want to preserve it (WTO 2004, p.33). Chamarel can be included under the broad definitions of WTO’s eleven indicators which cover specific environments and sites such as coastal zones, mountains, urban areas and small islands (Weaver 2006, p.31). Chamarel is located within a mountainous area as well as being accessible from the coast via Le Morne and the main ‘Royal Road’ {Route Royale}. Under the World Heritage Convention, World Heritage sites such as Chamarel have been deemed to be of ‘outstanding universal value’ and their natural and cultural properties would need to be protected. It is confirmed as an area of ecological sensitivity (WTO 2015).

Within this is the ideal that not only the natural heritage but also the cultural heritage of community traditions will be protected. The interests of the tourists would enhance economic opportunities by increasing local jobs while protecting the natural and cultural heritage (WTO 2004, p.33). Tourism would focus on community and local development needs for improved infrastructure, education and literacy, training such as vehicle maintenance, food hygiene, healthcare and medical services (WTO 2004, p.34). In short, tourism in protected areas should be a tool to help empower communities maintain, improve and raise their living standards and quality of life (WTO 2004, p.34). Krippendorf (2008) paper discusses a more balanced tourist development concept, where development policies pay special attention to tourism promotions that will economically benefit the host population without adversely affecting their quality of life. It should include a detailed report on the effects, such as a cost/benefit analysis, and social and environmental effects before implementation (Krippendorf 2008, p. 234).

The WTO state that sustainable tourism in Small Island Developing States (SIDS) therefore needs to adapt initiatives towards their stakeholders namely the local population through participatory action and sense of ownership (WTO 2004, p.43):

‘All stakeholders and, in particular, local communities and the local business sector should be involved in the definition, planning and implementation of the sustainable

78 tourism development policy and plan, including in the establishment of carrying capacities.’ (WTO 2004, p.64).

What is important is the sense of ownership over the tourism development process for the community stakeholders. Local villagers should be able to tailor-make a development proposal towards their needs. Hall and Jenkins (1995) recommend adapting the ‘right’ policies, to achieve ‘right goals’ – but what is defined as ‘right’ and for whom or by whom? Tourism policy is influenced by several factors; the stakeholders, socio-economic or environmental forces and the political system of the country. ‘Public policy cannot remain independent of the political process and cannot be value free’ (Hall and Jenkins 1995, p.2). Tourism is a ‘chosen’ policy, it is not created in a political vacuum and is maneuvered by political pressures where a select elite take the decisions (Richter 1982, p.108)

A study of Mauritian tourism policy therefore needs be sensitive to the political characteristics and understand the consequences of public policy decisions (Dye 1992, p.2). Hall and Jenkins (1995) recommend that a study of tourism policy should examine various topics; public participation in the tourism planning process, the sources of power in tourism policymaking, and the perceptions, values and ideologies of participants and distributions of power (Hall and Jenkins 1995, p.5).

Lorenzi (2006) reviews ‘Power: a radical view’ by Lukes (1974) and its re-issue (2005). He states that we need to understand the constraints on power such as when a minority adapts to the power held by a dominant group either by coercive or non-coercive action according to their interests. Therefore the ‘conception of interests’, the values and views of power, can be pluralist and multidimensional interests (Lorenzi 2006, p.88, 89).

Public policies on tourism can represent value choices in the sense it is assumed that there is a collective core of shared values, norms which would automatically regulate tourism policy. An

79 analysis of policy would therefore need to be aware of these institutions as they can influence decision-making and constrain the outcomes (Simeon 1976, p.574).

According to Hall and Jenkins (1995), an institution can be defined as the following:

‘…an established law, custom, usage, practice, organisation, or other element, in the political or social life of a people; a regulative principle or convention subservient to the needs of an organized community or the general needs of civilization…’or ‘as an intricate web of rules, procedures and roles, require that people think about who they are, and what is appropriate for them to do in terms of a given situation’ (Hall and Jenkins 1995, p.21, 25).

A ‘two-dimensional view’ of power according to Lukes (1974) acknowledges power in overt and covert conflicts within decision-making (cited in Lorenzi 2006, p.89). On the other hand, an analysis of policy is largely prescriptive, demonstrating how policymaking should occur according to normative models, pre-established standards or an ideal situation. It lacks empirico-inductive research on the values of the participants (Mitchell 1989). Therefore, an analysis of tourism planning would need to be descriptive in its construction, documenting the way in which public policy actually occurs and explaining what happened during the decision-making and policydecision-making process using inductive techniques (Mitchell 1989).

A flexible framework for the study of tourism policy should incorporate a multidimensional focus in its methodology. The first stage is to understand the historical background and evaluate macro and micro levels. The next step is to link the theory to the ideology and values of the participants (Hall and Jenkins 1995, p.95).

It is argued that what is really needed is an assessment of the lines of responsibility, roles and functions of various individuals, bodies and institutions within a tourism plan or policy rather than just an economic impact study on its effectiveness (Hall and Jenkins 1995, p.27). It is

80 believed that a clear analysis should take into account the individual interests, beliefs, ethnics, biases, attitudes, traditions, morals and objectives. These factors can change with time and can influence power conflicts (Henning 1974, p.515). Plural society theory can also be assessed in the sense of how that power can be dispersed where institutions are open to a wide range of interest groups. Decisions are made through a process of bargaining, negotiation and compromise. Different or ‘multiple’ centres of power negotiate and minorities can choose to either veto or vote a decision (Dahl 1967: 24).

An application of plural society would also raise notions of representation and community participation in tourism planning and policymaking at a grass-root level, and highlight inequality of access, control of resources, and how these affect opportunities and ability to exert pressure towards grass-root decision-making (Moodie and Studdert-Kennedy 1970, p.71)

‘The application of models of community participation in tourism planning, which assume the pluralistic allocation of power within a community may unwittingly serve to reinforce existing power structures to the exclusion of oppositional and contrary perspectives’ (Hall 2003:111).

Richter (1982; 1993) analyses land, tourism development and policymaking in the Philippines assesses the changes and continuities in policymaking in the context historical analysis of land reform, and evaluates how historical structures are reaffirmed by tourism policy, such as the Feudal agrarian structure, unequal division of wealth and citizens divided by their ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity within the participation process (Richter 1982, p.6).

Richter (1982) analyses historic land reform – discussing ‘landlordism’ in the form of chiefs and ‘sirdars’ (Muslim local headmen / Creole headmen). They owned territory and allotments of land and their holdings remained intact post-British colonisation (Richter 1982).

81 This resulted in ad-hoc, haphazard tourism policy in certain areas as it was difficult to determine who had a legal right to the land. Most tenants fear the costly fees for land conversion, solicitors, surveyors and licensing. They also may need to pay land tax, resume responsibility for any cooperative membership fees and may not have access to credit facilities and the landlord services (Richter 1982: 54, 111). Far too often tourism is analysed from economic or marketing perspectives when what is need is a socio-economic view on the distribution of wealth. The historical factors still influence the ownership of land and distribution of wealth in tourism enclaves.

A closer look at the concepts and debates surrounding community tourism are presented in the following section.