MAINSTREAMING TOURISM FOR RURAL

1
MAINSTREAMING TOURISM FOR RURAL POVERTY
ALLEVIATION A CASE IN PENARIK, TERENGGANU,
MALAYSIA
World Ecotourism Conference 8 11 July
2010 Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre
By Norhazliza Abd Halim Phd candidate,
University of Tasmania, Australia Lecturer,
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
2
BACKGROUND

• Tourism can be used way of addressing
  poverty, not as a panacea but as a useful tool of
  development and poverty alleviation especially in
  developing countries
• (Christie, 2002 Jamieson, Goodwin, Edmunds,
  2004)
• Tourisms potential for being pro-poor lies in
  four main areas
• Tourism is a diverse industry - increases the
  scope for wide participation
• The customer comes to the product - provides
  considerable opportunities for linkages
• Tourism is highly dependent upon natural capital
  - assets of the poor
• Tourism can be more labour intensive - higher
  proportion of tourism benefits.
• (Ashley, Roe and Goodwin, 2001)

3
KEY CONCEPTS

• Who is most affected by Rural Poverty?
• Those who live in remote areas, have higher
  child/adult ratios, work in insecure and
  low-income jobs and belong to ethnic minorities.
• Most rural poor are smallholder farmers who live
  in low-fertility regions and are dependent on
  uncertain rainfall. Their survival depends on
  subsistence crops, and sometimes on livestock.
• (IFAD, 2001)
• Approach to link tourism with poverty alleviation
• Pro Poor Tourism lead by Overseas Development
  Institute in late 1990s
• tourism that results in increased net
  benefits for the poor
• (Ashley, Roe, Goodwin, 2001)
• Sustainable Tourism for Eliminating Poverty
  (STEP) lead by UNWTO, supported by UNCTAD in
  2002
• will help to promote socially, economically
  and ecologically sustainable tourism, aimed at
  alleviating poverty and bringing jobs to the
  people
• (UNWTO, 2002)

4
PPT / STEP
1999, Pro-poor tourism was put on the agenda
It is not a new kind of tourism product but an
approach to tourism which focuses on tilting
the cake at the micro, meso and macro levels
towards the poor rather than expanding the cake.
(Sofield, De Lacy, Lipman Daugherty, 2004) A
different way of doing business, not just
philanthropy. (Ashley, Nyathi,
Haysom, 2005)
(Source Ashley Harrison, 2006)
How tourism can alleviate the rural poverty?
(Especially in Malaysia context)
5
The Fact

• As many as 75 of the worlds poor live in rural
  areas (IFAD, 200115)
• Poverty rates remain the highest in the
  predominantly rural areas of Malaysia - 70.6 -
  based on Poverty Line Income (PLI) of RM657 per
  month (Government of Malaysia, 2006)
• Top tourism destinations, particularly in
  developing countries, include national parks,
  wilderness areas, mountains, lakes, and cultural
  sites, most of which are generally rural.
• As the 2nd largest economic contributor to the
  Malaysian economy, tourism has become the
  priority tool to energize the rural economy.
• Pro-poor tourism is still a relatively new
  phenomenon in Malaysia, although certain elements
  of pro-poor tourism may be observed in the
  tourism developments.

6
The Challenge

• Pro-poor tourism remains predominantly at the
  micro level current interventions cannot
  deliver impacts at a significant scale tourism
  for poverty alleviation should be expanded and
  applicable in mainstream (mass) tourism.
• The biggest challenge is to mainstream PPT so
  that it is a business approach across the
  industry, rather than a niche market.

How to mainstreaming poverty alleviation through
Tourism? (In the context of Rural Poverty)
7
Why Mainstreaming ?

• PPT will contribute little to poverty alleviation
  unless it is mainstreamed (Roe, 2006)
• Mainstreaming ensure that sustainable tourism
  development is included in wider poverty
  alleviation programmes.
• Include poverty alleviation measures within
  overall strategies for the sustainable
  development of tourism.
• PPT should be on a big scale rather than a
  piecemeal micro enterprise approach like the
  traditional CBT, where all forms of potential
  work should be considered in assessing value
  chain benefits to the poor.

8
Why VCA ?

• To identify
• Where the poor participate in the tourism
  economy and
• What opportunities exist for increasing the
  participation and
• earnings of the poor, in different parts of
  the tourism chain

• Value Chain Approach to Pro Poor Tourism
• - VCA focuses on the inter-linkages between
  elements of the value chain,
• and usually addresses both economic flows
  and governance issues
• between levels.
• Tourism and the local economy building
  linkages.
• Building linkages with the local economy is also
  known as PPT (www.propoortourism.org.uk), which
  is about doing business differently as well as
  communities can benefiting through tourism
  (Sofield, 2008).
• Industries related to tourism can grow, become
  more competitive and contribute to a more dynamic
  economy.

9
3 Pathways by which Tourism affects different
poor people
Direct income from employment, Small and informal
sector, non-labour income and non-economic
livelihood effects Indirect income from supply
chains, from tourism staff spending their wages
and other induced effects Dynamic effects on
the local and national economy (i.e. human
resource development, improved infrastructure
spill over, and tax)
(Source Mann and Mitchell, 2006)
10
A change in the operation of the value chain can
benefit poor people in 3 different ways

1. Increased access to the tourism value chain to
   more poor people, thus creating new entrants
2. Increased income of existing poor participants in
   tourism
3. Increased non-financial benefits to poor
   households

(Source After Ashley, Goodwin, McNab, Chaves,
Scott, 2006)
11
RESEARCH GOAL
Aimed to clarify how fostering linkages between
private sector in tourism and other community
activities as pro-poor tourism strategy through
tourism value chain analysis and recommend
directions to effectively apply tourism as a tool
for rural poverty alleviation with the focus on a
high-end resort and its linkages with the local
community in several traditional fishing villages
in Penarik, Terengganu, Malaysia.
12
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

• Understand the nature of the existing level of
  knowledge on tourism for poverty alleviation in
  rural area of Malaysia.
• Identify the existing linkages (potentials and
  constraints) between tourism and local economic
  in Penarik, Terengganu.
• Analyse the involvement of key stakeholder (roles
  and interactions) related factors enabling and
  constraining (potentials and constraints) in
  application of tourism as a tool for rural
  poverty alleviation in Penarik, Terengganu.

13
DATA COLLECTION
14
Case Study
TERENGGANU located at the East Coast of
Peninsular MALAYSIA
PENARIK located at the northern of TERENGGANU
15
MALAYSIA at a glance
The number of international tourists to Malaysia
in 2008 is 22.0 million, compare to 20.9 million
in 2007 - generating a revenue of RM 49 billion
(Tourism Malaysia, 2009) Poverty in Malaysia
3.6 in 2007 and 7.1 in rural area poverty
alleviation strategies include macro economic
strategies, capacity building, social equity.
16
TERENGGANUat a glimpse

• Rich and well-known with cultural, natural and
  heritage tourism products.
• Became tourism hub for east coast Malaysia -
  ECER Master Plan identified tourism development
  as one of economic drivers, which PPT is central
  to the role of tourism in revitalising the rural
  economy and poverty alleviation.
• Poverty in Terengganu 10.5 in 2005 (2nd
  highest in peninsular Malaysia) mostly in rural
  area.

17
PENARIK villages by the sea

• Has an area of 8,499.4 hectare traditional
  fishing villages.
• Highly sensitive coastline and wetland area
  encompasses Setiu lagoon preserves various
  aquaculture wildlife (turtle, river terrapin,
  fireflies) and mangrove.

18
PENARIK is poor
Lack of employment and other economic
opportunities is a serious problem
19
PENARIK is rich
It is blessed with tourist attractions
agricultural, natural, heritage, and cultural
resources that are largely untapped or neglected
20
Profile of the Poor

• Total population is 3,423 97 Malay, 0.26
  Chinese, and 0.02 India.
• No. of poor 350 (under RM657/ month)

Major economic activities 85 are fishermen Others farmers, and hawkers
Type of earning More than 75 are based on daily earnings Others are based on salary
Income 42 earn just above poverty line (RM657 RM1,000) 10 below poverty line (under RM657) 48 earn much above the poverty line (above RM1,000)
Education level 65 have formal school level (mostly until secondary school)
21
Pro Poor Tourism Product
22
Terrapuri Heritage Village
23
VCA of Terrapuri Heritage Village
The main chain will be assessed Terrapuri
Heritage Village (accomodation) Another 4
sub-chain will be look through, which link with
the resort food and beverage, agriculture,
excursions and handicrafts Poor defined as
unskilled and semi-skilled people
TOURIST
Terrapuri Heritage Village
Staff
Cultural Handicraft
Food
Entertainment Performance
Craft Shop
Restaurant
Stalls
SUPPLY CHAIN
Excursion Transport
Local Guide
Local Transport
Manufactured Goods
Agricultural
Fish Meat
24
Findings from Pilot Study

• Most of the resorts consumers are dominate by
  domestic tourist and high-end
• mainstream holiday package tourists
• Up to half of earnings of the poor come from
  food supply chain
• Most of the local products from the farmers and
  fishermen supply to the resort
• local linkages exist
• The resort as an example of mainstreaming
  provides x benefits versus
• comparison with home-stay (non-mainstreaming)
  provides y benefits how both
• of this can work together.
• Researcher identified 5 productive chains as
  holding competitive opportunities
• for the community to link with the resort
• Fruit and vegetable agriculture,
• Fishing
• Cultural activities
• Artisan products
• Local food

25
Pro Poor Tourism Issues

• Both tourism and development policy makers did
  not fully understand the role of tourism in rural
  poverty alleviation PPT not addressed in most
  formal development plan.
• Lack of infrastructure, of pro-poor value chains
  and of leadership (at regional and local level),
  ability to supply tourists with local products
  are small.
• Tourism only been introduced to this research
  area in late 2003 with the opening of homestay
  programme (Kg. Rhu10) a lot of tourism
  resources yet being neglected or untapped.
• Difficulty in getting funding at initial stage,
  lack of capacity building, training, and credit.

26
CONCLUSION

• Contribution to tourism - Pro-poor tourism has
  the potential of benefiting the poor, decreasing
  inequality and mainstream the linkage from a
  narrow focus on community to all kind of things
  where communities could benefit through tourism
  Need all possible poverty alleviation tools.
• Relevant to the Malaysian case Very recently,
  tourism started to adopt tourism as a tool for
  reducing poverty still need a thorough research
  as a model.
• Very recently the Malaysian Government has moved
  to adopt PPT in part for CBET in its eastern
  provinces of Sabah and Sarawak, and has joined
  with other BIMP countries to implement a five
  year strategy for that purpose.

27
THANK YOU