Linking Culture and the Environment

Dr A. Spenceley 209
Tourism Benefits for the Poor in Southern Africa
The literature has many examples of case study research undertaken in
southern Africa, where the impacts of tourism on poverty, livelihoods and
local economic development have been assessed in particular destinations.
The impacts of particular programmes by government institutions, donor
agencies and private sector companies have also been reviewed, and they
predominately consider local ownership, employment and procurement of
products and services. Five examples from southern Africa are provided
below to illustrate the range of work.
As a first example, an initiative that actively promoted a pro-poor
approach to tourism by government was the commercialization of national
parks in South Africa. The process allowed a conservation parastatal, South
African National Parks (SANParks), to grant the private sector rights to lease
defined areas within national parks. Concessionaries were then permitted to
build and operate tourism facilities in those areas (SANParks, 2001). Although
the primary aim of SANParks commercialization was to provide revenue to
finance nature conservation (Spenceley et al., 2002a), the process included
stringent environmental criteria for development plans, and gave preference
to tenders that promoted the economic empowerment of formerly disadvantaged
people and provided business opportunities for emerging entrepreneurs
adjacent to national parks (SANParks, 2000a,b).
Seven accommodation concession contracts in the Kruger National Park
(KNP) were agreed in December 2000, which guaranteed SANParks a minimum
income of R202 million 1 over a 20-year period. Three of the concessionaires
were black-controlled consortia; and all of the others had significant
percentages of shareholding by Historically Disadvantaged Individuals
(HDIs; who were disadvantaged by the apartheid regime). The average percentage
of HDI shareholding in the seven concessionaires, either immediately
or contractually bound to be in place within 3 years, was 53% (SANParks,
2001). Bidders had to commit to progress in local and HDI shareholding,
affirmative action and training and creation of economic opportunities for
local communities. These commitments were quantifiable in terms of extent,
value and time, and form part of the ultimate concession contract. For example,
Table 12.5 summarizes the annual revenue for local community empowerment
that was anticipated by concessionaires in their bids. Concessionaires
were then obliged to report on progress made on achieving these obligations
every 6 months. Failure to realize the objectives results in financial penalties
of up to R1 million and persistent failure could even result in contracts being
terminated (van Jaarsveld, 2004). The SANParks example illustrates the use
of ‘planning gain’, and public–private partnerships to promote beneficial
economic impacts on people who are poor or marginalized in destinations.
The importance of community involvement in tourism is emphasized
from a moral point of view, an equity perspective, a developmental perspective
and from a business management view (Wilkinson, 1989; de Kadt, 1990;
Brohman, 1996; Cater, 1996). Community ownership provides livelihood
security, minimal leakage, efficient conflict resolution, increases in the local