Look at almost any agenda for a meeting involving Caribbean governments, EU member states and the European Commission and the probability is that there is no mention of the tourism industry. Instead the likelihood is that the future of older industries such as sugar and bananas will dominate any discussion whether it be in relation to security, trade liberalisation or other issues.

In London on November 6 and 7 a policy workshop took place to begin to remedy this deficit. Convened by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, it sought to move tourism up the European policy agenda so that the industry’s now pivotal economic role might become a central component in the official EU/Caribbean relationship.

The meeting was attended by tourism ministers from the region along with representatives from the WTO, the European Commission, a range of regional institutions and the private sector.

In his opening remarks, the British Minister responsible for relations with the Caribbean, Bill Rammell, set out the background. He noted that at the time of the last UK/Caribbean inter-governmental Forum held in May 2001 in Georgetown, Guyana, Britain and the Caribbean had considered jointly how to ensure that tourism was better incorporated into their policy dialogue. The workshop was, he said, the fruit of that discussion.

He emphasised that the event - which he co-chaired with Caribbean Ministers - was not an end in itself, but the start of a process in which the UK Government would seek to engage the region in regular dialogue about its largest industry in order to see where it may be able to help. He recognised that there was a direct link between the creation of a successful sustainable tourism sector and the transition out of preferential arrangements for commodities such as bananas and sugar.

Although the workshop was at times hedged with uncertainties, a number of interesting ideas and action points emerged.

Tourism was acknowledged by all as being of central importance to the region. There was increasing competition from many other tourism destinations. The Caribbean would be increasingly challenged to maintain its position. Cruise ships were having a negative effect on land-based tourism. Governments and the industry needed to think clearly about the ways in which they positioned their product if tourism was to be able to contribute significantly to national economies in a sustainable way.

This most participants agreed, involved creating genuine partnerships that truly involved government and the private sector. Government needed tax revenues from the industry and from visitors but how best should this be managed if the industry was be globally competitive. Perhaps, one participant suggested, there should be a new approach. Governments might use tax reforms to discriminate in favour of one type of tourism over another. If a nation wanted up scale tourism and to marginalise calls by cruise ships they might establish a tax regime that facilitated such a development.

There was much discussion about who would pay for future tourism development. Not unexpectedly, many governments argued it should be the international donor community. In response the EC argued there was no shortage of funds but government needed to prioritise tourism development in their national plans. Other participants noted that a better way might be to establish a tourism development fund to support the industry’s needs.

There was an interesting discussion on the WTO and the potential advantage so far unrealised that the region might obtain if it developed a clear services negotiating strategy on tourism. This might involve broadening the WTO’s presently narrow definition of tourism. This would, in part, enable the anti-competitive practices of cruise ship operators to be dealt with away from the WTO chapters relating to shipping.

It was noted that one of the oddities of the WTO system was the absence of a ‘friends of tourism’ group given that the tourism has become one of the world’s largest industries. This idea interested the UK greatly so much so that it seems that if the Caribbean seeks to pursue this at the highest levels there is the real possibility of a new UK/Caribbean initiative in this area.

Security issues were also considered. The discussion ranged from crime, disaster preparedness and public health concerns through terrorism to the need for more consistency in the travel advisory notices that Britain and others issue. There was a consensus that the Caribbean needed to do more to develop crisis management strategies in case a serious event in one Caribbean nation were to affect the whole tourism climate in the region.

During the meeting the point was made tourism is a unique cross-cutting activity involving every aspect of every Caribbean concern from security to agriculture. Although the implications of this were scarcely discussed, this suggests that if the issues addressed at the London tourism workshop are to move forward a more holistic approach is required on the part of Caribbean governments. It argues at a national level for all ministers and officials to understand the challenges facing tourism and to be able to argue for its interests with as much force as they presently do on sugar and bananas.

The British Government is often criticised for not doing enough for the Caribbean. The tourism workshop suggested that Britain, in the absence of a significant financial resource for Caribbean programmes, has begun to identify specific areas in which it can use its influence in ways that support the region. Hopefully, this genuine political interest in the future development of the region’s tourism industry will be actively pursued by Caribbean governments and turned to action at the next UK/Caribbean Forum in May 2004. (Back to top)

(Editor’s note: David Jessop is the Director of the Caribbean Council and can be contacted at david.jessop@caribbean-council.com