Tourism Week When Tourism's Weak

The coming week marks Tourism Week, hosted by the Ministry of Tourism (see Government Information Service). Under the theme: "Achieving Success through Service Excellence", the public are invited to participate in a range of events between December 6-12, ending with a Christmas concert in Independence Square featuring a number of local performers. Among the events that struck my eye was a public lecture on December 7 entitled "A Vision For Tourism in the Future", which will be held in Lecture Theatre 2 of the University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus, from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. The lecture will be delivered by Professor John Tribe from the University of Surrey in the United Kingdom.

Many people seem confused about what is happening to this sector, which is a main earner of foreign exchange and provider of jobs in the economy.

The latest and most comparable data (through November 24) are those provided by the Caribbean Tourism Organization (CTO), see http://www.onecaribbean.org/content/files/dec4Lattab09.pdf. These show a clear 10+% decline in stop over visitors during January-October (over the same period in 2008). Virtually every reporting country or destination recorded a decline, and Barbados looks to be about in the middle of the region for performance; but the data are not all for the same period, so I wont go into that more. A notable bucking of the trend was seen in increased visitor arrivals to Guyana (+6%), Cuba (+3%) [both January-September] and Jamaica (January-August), which increased by 4%, boosted by a 28% increase in visitors from Canada. This reportedly reflects 'new accommodation', increased airline seats, and 'aggressive marketing', especially to western Canadian provinces (see comments by Tourism Minister Bartlett).

For Barbados, only visitors from Canada registered an increase (+10%). Visitors from every other region (US, Europe, other [mainly Caricom]) showed substantial declines (-12/13%). The Canadian story seems to reflect a lot of hard work on the ground to boost travel, and some real knock-down fares. Similarly moves (prompted by the start up of JetBlue's service from New York on October 1) to lower fares from the US north eastern corridor were probably too new to have yet had an impact on arrivals from there. We know that North America and Europe have been mired in a deep recession since 2007, so the fall off in travel should be no surprise.

CTO's data show cruise passengers to Barbados were up 5% over the same period. Many specific conditions affect cruise travel. However, the data show some huge variations by destinations, eg Dominica + 52%, St Vincent +51%, Antigua/Barbuda +26%; with notable declines for US territories and Martinique, and Cozumel (presumably H1N1 related).

Government ministers have tried to put the most positive spin possible on the clear downward trend in tourism this year, and naturally have started to move to the prospect of a more positive outcome in 2010.

One area where the spin is positive but hard to fathom concerns what tourists spend. What I know of travel statistics makes me have little faith in any data on spending, as they are really good guesses at best. Some countries have well developed systems for data collection, for instance, Canada has a very sophisticated way of measuring such spending, in part in calculating GDP, see http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/13-009-x/2009002/meth-eng.htm. But good statistics for tourism spending has many implications, including how they would affect any re-estimated GDP.

Whatever ministers say about tourism spending showing signs of increase I would take this to be pie in the sky. One thing that has been noticeable to me when travelling to/from the US the past few months (to Miami, New York and Washington DC) is how many of the passengers from the US had Bajan accents, rather than American-accented people. In terms of spending, ‘US’ visitors who are really returning nationals usually means less spending. Indications of how tight times are in the developed countries include signs that a reverse remittances story is developing, with residents in the Caribbean sending support to their relatives in North America and elsewhere, not the usual direction of 'from foreign, back home'.

But, I sense that some people are really lost about what tourism means for the country. Tourism does not matter much to a country merely because tourists have a good time; if the good time is at national expense, then you better look out. People may not know that much of the past tourism business was based on heavy discounting by Barbados' government. That means Bajans were paying tourists to come and have a good time. That went a step further this year with refunds for bad weather. Note that we who live here do not get any financial breaks 365 days a year.

Many positive comments have come about the past weekend's 'Tennis pon de Rock' event, featuring Serena Williams and Caroline Wozniacki as the main attractions. Most people had a good time and the tennis stars loved being here and want to come back. As Ms. Wozniacki noted in her blog, she loved her suite at Sandy Lane. But, who would not? Some would feel that prices for tickets and the billing should have given them more than one set of tennis over 20 minutes from these super stars. Others might say that, as it was a charity event, it was a great achievement to get them to come to Barbados, which has no really high standing in world tennis.

But the benefit of events has to be demonstrated in terms of income it generates, new business it generates or may generate, and new income it may create, less all the expenses that have to be paid to help generate that income. That’s as true of your corner shop as for any major event. If you want to look at it at an extreme look at how putting on Olympic Games have cost the cities that host them. Forecasts of profits turn out to be losses. Look at Cricket World Cup as a regional example. Everyone loved the events, but now the citizens have debt round their necks and some white elephant structures on the landscape.

Some people seem reluctant to want to do the accounting for what took place. Yet, if you don't do that then you should not be surprised with the burden that you may be carrying in the future.

What is interesting is that rather than know any answers people seem ready to enjoy the party and not worry about who may have to pay the bills. I guess where ignorance is bliss, who wants to be wise?

Some see posing questions as 'beating the drum of gloom and doom'. Yet the doom and gloom, if any, only comes if the answers are not favourable. The questions themselves show that you have an interest in going beyond what you see on the surface. They seek to go in the direction of investigation–asking for information–rather than assuming anything (good or bad). Maybe this is uncomfortable to do. Like not visiting the doctor because one fears what he or she may say?

People seem afraid to ask what tourism is really doing for the economy or what any event has really done to boost tourism (sport or otherwise) this year or in the future. How is it supposed to help? If the product is so good, why does it need to be subsidised? How does positive comments go to offset the critical views recently aired of those who come from overseas to try to arrange sporting events in Barbados? Is the event a one-off or is it sustainable? And so on.

The question has been asked many times, "What is the net benefit of tourism for Barbados?" The answer remains elusive.