Pro-poor tourism: failed promises?

To what extent do agri-tourism Spatial Development Initiatives (SDIs) in South Africa enhance rural livelihoods? What problems have arisen for SDIs and what impacts on their ability to attract investors? What needs to be done for pro-poor tourism to be achieved?

Research by the University of the Western Cape suggests that by equating growth with development, the SDI model has very little merit and that it could make the poor even more vulnerable than they are at present. The challenge of addressing rural poverty in post-apartheid South Africa is enormous. Over two thirds of the country’s poor live in rural areas. Agri-tourism SDIs pursue growth by promoting investment through public-private partnerships as a forerunner to large-scale private investment. SDIs aim to attract eco-tourism projects into these ‘anchor’ areas, with the hope that investment and subsequent infrastructure improvements will encourage a range of ‘spin-off’ initiatives in the surrounding areas.

An analysis of agri-tourism on the Wild Coast of the Eastern Cape Province shows that the programme faces two major challenges. Firstly there are factors inherent to the area, its people, politics and history. The second set of challenges draws from the restrictions imposed by national economic policies, which are a part of the SDI process itself. While an agri-tourism SDI on the Wild Coast was seen as providing the potential solution to employment problems, the study findings reveal that the programme also brought complex dimensions and that the supposed benefits have failed to materialise.

Findings include:

• Delays in the implementation of land reform have been extremely problematic for the SDI.
• The absence of tenure security for developments has impacted on the capacity of the SDI to attract investors.
• The opportunities promised through the SDI also led to nepotism and elite control over access to training or jobs.
• Communities face many obstacles to their effective participation in tourism, which are not being addressed by the programme.
• Local people making their own investments in anticipation of a tourism boom have been affected by the slow pace of the programme.

The report makes the following policy recommendations:

• There is little chance of attracting investment, nor of enhancing the livelihoods of impoverished rural communities, without the resolution of land tenure issues and land restitution. Land rights need to be clarified ahead of any investment.
• Programme design must be adapted to local conditions.
• If community empowerment is to occur, growth policies need to go hand-in-hand with the provision of basic services and development of human resources.
• Radical shifts in the patterns of ownership and benefits are required if pro-poor tourism is to be achieved.

Source(s):
‘Agri-Tourism Spatial Development Initiatives in South Africa: Are they Enhancing Rural Livelihoods?’ Natural Resource Perspectives #65 by T Kepe et al, March 2001 Full document.

Funded by: IDRC and Swiss Agency for Development and Co-operation

id21 Research Highlight: 8 November 2002

Further Information:
Thembela Kepe
Programme for Land Reform and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS)
School of Government
University of the Western Cape
Private Bag X17
Bellville 7535
South Africa

Tel: +27 (0)21 959 3731
Fax: +27 (0)21 959 3732
Contact the contributor: tkepe@uwc.ac.za

PLAAS, University of Westeran Cape, South Africa

Other related links:
'Pro-poor tourism: opportunities for the poor?'

'Pro-poor tourism: putting poverty at the heart of mass tourism'

Pro-poor Tourism strategies aim to unlock opportunities for the poor

'Tourism in Namibia: enhancing livelihood impacts'

The World Tourism Organisation focuses on tourism policy issues

IES works to promote sustainable ecotourism