| Spring 2010
Sustainable tourism experts loathe St Maarten while cruise passengers love it. Who is right?
By Chris Ashcroft
There is clearly a
gulf between the views of cruise passengers and the experts sent
by National Geographic Traveler (NGT) magazine to rate tourist
destinations.
Last October’s
Florida–Caribbean Cruise Association survey compiled by
BREA, which monitored passenger experiences at 19 participating
Caribbean island destinations, ranked St Maarten between first
and fourth in categories measuring satisfaction of the overall
visit, whether experience met expectations, the variety of things
to see and do, friendliness of residents, and whether they would
return for a resort vacation.
Overall, they rated
St Maarten as their second favourite.
One month later NGT
published its sixth ‘Places Rated List’ and St Maarten
was placed in the ‘Worst’ category – rated 129
out of the 133 – based on its authenticity and stewardship.
NGT’s panel
of 437 judges mark down a place if they perceive it to be overcrowded.
Scores are also much lower where the destination is perceived
to have reckless development and commercialisation.
The panel were asked
to evaluate only the places with which they were familiar, using
six criteria weighted according to importance: environmental and
ecological quality, social and cultural integrity, condition of
historic buildings and archaeological sites, aesthetic appeal,
quality of tourism management and outlook for the future.
National Geographic’s
Director of the Center for Sustainable Destinations, Jonathan
Tourtellot, describes on NGT’s website the evaluation process:
“The panel began by posting points of view on each place
– anonymously, to ensure objectivity. After reading each
others’ remarks – a variation of a research tool called
the Delphi technique – the experts then filed their final
scores.
“The resulting
Stewardship Index rating represents the average of informed judgments
about each place in all its manifestations – as a whole.”
Their verdict on St
Maarten: “A typical mass-market disaster and one of the
best examples of what islands should avoid in tourism development.”
Comments like these
were written anonymously (to ensure objectivity) by experts in
the fields of historic preservation, site management, geography,
sustainable tourism, ecology, indigenous cultures, travel writing
and photography, and archaeology.
Tourism everywhere
brings stresses to destinations – to beaches and coastlines,
coral reefs and forests as well as ancient cities and marquee
attractions – and to the main streets of small Caribbean
capitals. Managing these stresses is of course a complex task
– especially when governments have to make fine judgments
in the name of generating revenues to support their growing populations.
In the Caribbean,
more often than not, governments are limited to raising significant
revenues from their only available income source – tourism.
Nothing is ever perfect.
But the language used by NGT experts appears to support the notion
that the past is always better, and that mass tourism is destroying
the past.
There is also an implication
that politicians totally disregard their role as guardians of
heritage for the next generation, and are unsympathetic to the
need for balance in developing their tourism strategies.
In the case of St
Maarten this survey also implies that its government has turned
its capital and coastline into the worst kinds of tourist development
– with total disregard for the historical, artistic and
culinary heritage of the Island.
Tim Smit, creator
of the Eden Project in the English county of Cornwall, recently
made a comment about the work of The National Trust in Britain.
Interviewed for its magazine, he said: “Institutions like
the Trust can appear to peddle comfy nostalgia, and nurture a
perception that the past was a better place.
“The point is
not that stately homes, gardens and industrial archaeology are
without merit or that we have nothing to learn from them, but
that their influence is almost always overrated.”
So what is St Maarten’s past? Its recent history is the
tale of an island community in an almost constant fight for self
preservation.
In the early 1990s
almost two-thirds of the economically active population earned
its salary in the tourism industry, while tourism also contributed
substantially to St Maarten’s GDP, to foreign exchange earnings
and government revenues. It was concluded that foreign exchange
earnings from tourism could pay for all of St Maarten’s
imports in terms of products and services.
Then, in 1995, hurricane
Luis hit; and ten days later hurricane Marilyn caused devastation.
The aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks further undermined
tourism in the region in general, and for St Maarten in particular.
The closure of various
hotels for an extended period resulted in a decrease in the room
capacity, with the corresponding loss of revenue for hotel owners.
Additional consequences were unemployment, a shift in the labour
market, a decrease in consumption, and a decline in economic activities.
This was the St Maarten
government’s tipping point, as it accepted that this series
of catastrophes exposed its economic vulnerability as a one-pillar
economy based on tourism. Its response was to commence the process
of economic diversification to acquire economic sustainability
through the rebuilding of the tourism industry and diversification
of the economy.
A Comprehensive Economic Development Plan was developed to provide
a road-map for the future, while acknowledging that tourism would
remain the main pillar of the local economy with a need to sustain
and improve the tourism infrastructure.
The government took
the decision to rebuild its tourism sector. Emphasis was placed
on increasing cruise tourism as a mechanism to jump-start the
economy – based on the realisation that, along with timeshare
owners, cruise visitors were the first to return to the island.
Also, the strategy to attract the cruise industry required relatively
small government resources, compared to the revenues required
to reconstruct the St Maarten stay-over tourist product and to
promote it in the target markets.
The result was that
the number of cruise passenger arrivals increased from less than
half a million in the beginning of the 1990s to one million in
2003.
In a presentation
in 2005 The Hon. F.E. Richards, Governor of St Maarten, raised
many of the challenges faced by St Maarten’s government.
“The concept
of sustainable development requires a general rethinking of economic
development. It raises questions about whether traditional economic
development brings greater prosperity and better living conditions
in the short term, while placing longer-term prosperity and the
quality of life of future generations at risk.
“There is a
close and dynamic relationship between infrastructure development
and sustainable tourism development, because inadequate infrastructure
is one of the most serious constraints on future tourism development.
“Many would
say that this economic development and accompanying population
growth has not been without some negative consequences, such as
the apparent large number of motor vehicles on our roads.
“What we now
need to keep in mind is the need to move tourism on to a path
of long-term sustainability. Our focus, therefore, needs to be
on ‘managed growth’, consistent with the theme of
the tourism master plan, by means of our starting to:
Promote the preservation and conservation of the St Maarten historical
and cultural heritage as well as resources for the appreciation
of our history and culture;
Develop tourism along the lines of conserving the socio-cultural
heritage, preserving the environment and sustaining development;
and
Contribute towards the enhancement of the quality of life of all
the inhabitants of St Maarten.
“We need to develop
tourism in such a way that it meets the needs of today’s
residents and guests, while protecting and improving the opportunities
of future generations to meet their needs.”
Richards acknowledged
the dangers of tourism growth: “Paradoxically, the industry
carries within itself the seeds of its own potential destruction.
“Extensive exploitation
of a resource, location, culture or amenity beyond its carrying
capacity can lead to the destruction of those very qualities that
attracted visitors to it in the first instance.
“This requires that all people involved in the tourism industry
have foresight. Sustainable tourism development involves almost
all aspects of life, and this means that the tourism industry
must be viewed as an integrated whole with an impact not just
on the economy, but also on society, culture and the physical
environment.”
Richards ended his
presentation by highlighting the need for the population to engage
in tourism and its future development: “Tourism can never
live up to its fullest potential if the people of St Maarten do
not take part in the ownership of the industry and if they do
not commit to providing a high quality visitor experience.
“We, the people
of St Maarten, are, after all, the hosts.”
Richards and the government
were conscious of the broader aspects of tourism when initiatives
and actions were taken to rebuild finances and employment and
to make a better life for tourists and the island’s citizens.
In 2007 the government
again committed itself to improvements in infrastructure, as it
considered this activity a precondition for economic development
and growth. It included projects that benefited the whole economy,
such as road network improvement, sewage, drainage and waste management
systems, and elements of the Development Vision for the Greater
Philipsburg Communication Network.
Other projects were
put in place to realise the further development of tourism industry
and economic diversification – such as restoration of monuments
and the establishment of nature parks.
The past has very
much shaped the future development of St Maarten, and the language
of the government is that that future must be one of sustainable
development. But that does not automatically mean that every development,
every project and every action will be perfectly executed according
to the tastes and opinions of lobbyists or academics or even the
local population. Does it ever? But the government’s language
does indicate an understanding of the dangers of careless overdevelopment.
Cruise passengers
arriving in St Maarten have an expectation that they will enjoy
their stay ashore.
Even the spokesperson
for The National Trust, in response to Smit’s critical comments,
admitted: “What we peddle is really good experiences. Some
happen to be in historic houses, although a great many are visiting
the countryside and coast.”
More than a million
cruise passengers now visit St Maarten every year. Every indication
suggests that they thoroughly enjoy the experience – many
claiming they will return for a land-based stay in future years.
It has always been
the experience that counts. Whether it is visiting an ancient
tea plantation building, learning how to paint, standing on the
edge of a volcano or simply having a coffee on the sea-front alongside
the redeveloped Philipsburg Main Street.
Even the enjoyment
of shopping counts. This may not appeal to all of us while on
vacation, but it happens to be part of the North American mass-market
psyche.
Tourism is a complex
subject, made more so by the current fad for innovation. Eco-tourism,
green tourism, sustainable tourism, responsible tourism, geo tourism
– all find a place in the sector’s new language, even
though populations the world over seem not to understand what
they mean.
For most tourists,
the evaluation of their vacation is based on a few simple uncluttered
criteria: Did I have a good time? Did I enjoy the place(s) I visited?
Of course, everyone
would like to visit places which are uncrowded. The plain truth
is that most of us cannot. We want to visit places we have heard
of, or that have been recommended.
Many choose a cruise to deliver those choices. Does the fact that
there are several thousand people enjoying a destination at the
same time destroy their experience? In the vast majority of cases
the answer is simply no.
Governments of Caribbean
islands develop their infrastructure and their tourism products
bit by bit, as they can afford to, and often take a great deal
longer than originally stated – that is simply the nature
of government. They do so generally with the best intentions to
deliver something that meets the criteria of sustainability. But
it may be that their interpretations don’t meet those of
their critics, because it is always a matter of taste. They are,
though, usually intended to appeal not just to tourists but also
to the local community.
This does not mean
that governments should be immune from criticism of their tourism
policy or its delivery. But when Tourtellot says: “The condition
of any destination is a mix of what local governments, residents
and business can control – pollution, cultural quality and
authenticity, tourism management – and what they can’t,
such as natural disasters and global economic meltdowns”
it is surely fair to expect all these conditions to be considered.
NGT claims that, in
essence, when people care about the condition of a place, the
scores go up. But when people see a place as a tourism cash cow
scores tend to slip, as they do for reckless development and commercialisation.
It is stating the
obvious that, if the pool of judges used for this survey includes
nine archaeologists, eight conservation architects, 13 environmental
engineers and planners and special analysts, 19 geographers, 11
heritage experts, 46 sustainable tourism consultants and 42 tourism
consultants and developers, their opinions are going to be vastly
different from those of people who simply arrive wishing to enjoy
a holiday and experience a destination.
Presumably these experts
go to vastly different places for their own holidays from the
destinations chosen by the mass market, with the main criterion
being whether the overall experience is good.
NGT takes the view
that its survey is not a popularity contest. This is clearly the
case, but it does not excuse the use of brutal language to dismiss
the work of so very many people, in and out of government, to
develop a tourism product that works and enhances the lives of
the population. “More and more hotel rooms and bigger and
bigger ships lead to less and less enjoyment and a diminished
destination” is how one NGT expert described St Maarten.
Those who arrive on
cruise ships to experience the destination take a very different
view: they enjoy the destination – more today than ever
before. It is their second favourite island in the Caribbean.
Who is right?
The BREA survey reveals
another important statistic: those visiting islands which attract
over 1 million passengers each year leave feeling far more satisfied
with their experience than those who visited islands which attract
less than 300,000 passengers a year.
In many cases it does
not seem that the NGT experts care about anything except their
interpretation of sustainability etc. There is no recognition
of the burdens faced by governments which, in many cases, rely
so heavily on tourism. Nor does there seem to be an appreciation
of what mass tourists enjoy.
No one at NGT was
prepared to speak about this survey in any detail. Nor was NGT
Editor Keith Bellows prepared to explain why individual assessments
of a destination exclude the obvious matter of self-preservation.
There is, though,
a much wider point. A place that relies on tourism completely
for its self-preservation has a greater challenge than any European
capital or tourist city, and greater than any North American place.
It appears as if efforts
to accommodate mass tourism are disliked, as NGT’s judges
seem to dismiss genuine efforts by tourism authorities and governments
to improve the infrastructure, environment and attractiveness
of their destinations. All of these good intentions would be reversed,
at a stroke, if NGT’s recipe for sustainable tourism were
to be enacted.
The consequences of
reducing tourism, by say a half, would see unemployment rise and
consumption and economic activity decrease. Infrastructure projects
would be halted and the island would again move into decline.
And tourists – of all kinds – would start choosing
somewhere else to visit
|
