Dear Editor,
The Stabroek News Editorial of Tuesday May 21 invites the question of whether Guyana’s tourism is a glass half full or half empty. While the negative cast of the Editorial leaves the reader in no doubt as to where it stands, the opinions expressed do stimulate reflection on the march of tourism over the years, on the role of government and private sector; the image of Guyana as a destination; the impact of policy and the place of marketing in the crafting of that destination image. For stimulating such reflection and debate, the Editorial is recommended reading. However, as an informed and informative discussion of recent trends and developments in the tourism sector, the Editorial is abundantly deficient.
According to the Editorial the performance of tourism over the years offers nothing to talk about. It consists of ‘promises…that have fallen flat on their faces,’ ‘official indifference ’ and ‘no real evidence of effort to build a meaningful tourism sector’ and that for all the ‘noises… about our tourism potential’ there has been ‘no meaningful action to sell Guyana’ and ‘no serious strategy’ for ‘investment in infrastructure and marketing.’ Other afflictions abound – ‘lack of will’ and an ‘indifference to how we are perceived as a country’ resulting in our ‘inability to meaningfully tap into the global tourism market’ or attract ‘meaningful numbers of visitors from abroad.’ Continuing to scorch the earth the Editorial asserts that while THAG and other NGOs have been struggling ‘to sustain some measure of profile and momentum in the sector’ support from ‘official’ quarters has been disappointing.
From my vantage point of being an observer/stakeholder/researcher/ author/director/consultant in the field of tourism in Guyana and elsewhere for more than thirty-five years, I am able to discern trends and trajectories, and even report developments that would inspire a narrative very different from the one afforded us by the Stabroek News Editorial. For example the ‘one plan after another’ rhythm (by no means an anomaly in development contexts) was rationalised in 2017 with the production of a heavily consulted Draft National Tourism Policy which was used as the basis for the current Living Strategic Tourism Action Plan, in implementation even as the Editorial was being penned.
It is not clear to me what the Editorial expects ‘meaningful numbers’ to look like but data collected from the Guyana Tourism Authority point to a steady increase in the numbers of visitors coming to Guyana since those numbers were collected. The Guyana Tourism Authority will surely be happy to shed light on this matter, as well as on the matter of the annual increase in the allocation for tourism in the national budget over the past decade. An increased allocation that has enabled significantly larger sums to be spent on marketing, product development, capacity building etc. The readers will judge whether this is more clear evidence of the ‘official indifference’ alluded to.
Very troubling is the absence in the editorial of any reference to some widely publicised plaudits and recognition that Guyana has received in recent years. Beginning in 2011 Guyana was named by World Nomads as No. 8 in the top 10 Emerging Green destinations. In 2014 Guyana was named by the BBC as one of the 5 places travellers should learn more about. In 2014 also Guyana made National Geographic Traveller’s list of must see places on the planet. Fast forward to 2019 and read National Geo-graphic Traveller’s Cool List 2019. What do we see? Surprise! Surprise! Guyana is listed No. 10 on that list. Then, accolade of accolades, in March 2019 Guyana was named the No. 1 Ecotourism destination in the world. It is a mystery that none of these globally resonating tourism occurrences earned any space in the Editorial’s gloomy vistas. These prestigious acknowledgements are no mere capricious judgements, not feathers whimsically placed in the national cap, but they are the result of slow, plodding but steady effort over the years made at Trade Fairs, Industry Expos by government officials, private sector representatives of every stripe. Again, there is no ‘official indifference’ here; no ‘lack of will;’ no ‘inability to tap into the global tourism market.’ Instead we see the fruits of seed planted over the years.
The whole new complex, but well-oiled machinery of the re-structured Guyana Tourism Authority and re-launched Department of Tourism as a Policy, Strategic Direction and Research entity is a phenomenon that thoroughly rebuts and refutes any imputation of official lack of will.
Finally it must have escaped the author of the Editorial that an infrastructure for tourism action is in the process of creation in the 10 Administrative Regions through the formation of Regional Tourism Committees and Tourism Working Groups. The purpose of this mechanism is to create a more bottom up approach to tourism planning and to increase Regional involvement and extend Regional governance over tourism development. In the Editorial the author, justifiably, bemoans the lack of appreciation of environmental cleanliness as a basic requisite for tourism. Initiatives led by the Tourism Committees of Regions 2 and 7, involving riverfront clean-ups, should therefore be sweet music to the ears of the author.
I am confident that the Editorial will excite responses from other Tourism agencies and even stakeholders. I therefore rest my case.
Yours faithfully,
Donald Sinclair
Director General
Department of Tourism
Ministry of Business
