Fiji tourism

Master plan for Fiji tourism

I This year’s Fiji Tourism Conven tion saw the unveiling of a master plan for developing the country’s dourist industry.

I The plan was the most important subject at the convention, but there >was an absence of burning debate ibecause most people were still in the (process of studying the 232-page tome. Another reason was that most people found it generally acceptable as a guideline for the next eight years.

A slowdown in the tourist growth rate and its causes—airline politics, domestic industrial strife and inflation among them—turned out to be a Ihotter topic.

The job of the four consultant firms who wrote the plan, formally entitled the Tourism Development Programme but christened the Master Plan by the Minister for Tourism, Ratu Penaia Ganilau, was not to consider whether or not Fiji should develop tourism.

They wrote their reports from the point of view that if Fiji wants tourism, this is the best way to do it.

Which was all right with convention delegates, who were after all there by virtue of the fact they were involved or interested in tourism development and growth. Except perhaps for the Deputy Prime Minister, Ratu Sir Edward Cakobau, who said in a pre pared speech read by another Govern ment representative—he was ill in hospital—that he welcomed the slow iown in the industry’s growth. He laid he felt tourism might have ilready sown the seeds of social un ■est in Fiji and stresses and strains vere beginning to appear in the social md economic structure of the lountry.

However, he saw the slackening as i period of consolidation which could esult in a more stable base to make i broader advance into the future, md criticised the prophets of doom vho moaned they did not know what he country was coming to.

A more agressive note was struck »y Ratu Penaia when he outlined the faster Plan’s recommendations for a •20 million investment programme or building 8,000 extra hotel rooms.

Te plan saw tourism as a $74 mil ion a year industry by 1981 and Iredicted it would have 38 per cent of he labour force within the next three ears. [ Other predictions included a visitor

(Continued on p 123)

total of 800,000 by 1981, plus 50,000 cruise ship passengers and 18,000 scheduled liner passengers. The plan warned that capital on the scale of $2OO million would not be attracted to Fiji unless financial and tax incen tives were made available for all types of tourism enterprises.

Recommended incentives included development of a mortgage insurance programme, 50 per cent Customs duty rebate on capital expenditure on im ports for tourist developments and tax credit of up to 10 per cent on capital expenditure on tourist development in remote areas.

The plan is not entirely on the side of the foreign capitalist.

It recommends at least 25 per cent of the equity for tourist developments should be locally owned and where local citizens could not take up this equity, the government had a case for doing so. In some instances land could be leased for hotel and other developments on a participation rent basis.

Where the plan saw the little local man fitting in to get his share of the golden tourist crop was through a

wide range of subsidiary services, ranging from growing food for hotels to boat building and repair, manu facture of fibreglass products, furni ture making and providing fresh flowers for tourist centres and hotels.

And side benefits included preser vation of culture through a national cultural institute, preservation of his toric buildings and development of parks and reserves for the interest and enjoyment of locals as well as visitors, and development of communications and travel facilities for use by every one.

The plan warned about the need to ease the impact of tourism on Fiji society. Tourism development should be integrated and balanced with the country’s overall social and economic development, the economic benefits needed to be spread, accommodation had to be limited where it could damage culture and environment and visitor attractions made available to residents.

As Ratu Penaia put it, Fiji had to guard against the exploitation of its people for commercial gain to the extent that it bred a new race of grinning and money-grabbing bell hops.

The plan divided Fiji into a series of development regions, which caused a little heartburning. Some people in

outer areas, where large-scale accom modation development was not recommended, felt Viti Levu and the Coral Coast were getting all the advantages as usual.

Reasons for not developing some areas were environmental. The plan warned that not only would Fiji traditional life suffer harm if change came too quickly, but the physical environment was particularly vul nerable to ecological disruption.

Carefully-sited development and the establishment of a parks and reserves programme was recom mended.

Some of this feeling was reflected in resolutions from the convention which urged protection from pollu tion, opposed establishing an oil re finery near Nadi, endorsed a move to preserve historic buildings and asked hotels and the government to help encourage and retain the cul tures of the South Pacific.

The delegates’ only worry seemed to be that the government might accept the plan as a bible instead of a guide. Although both the consul tants and Prime Minister Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara have stressed the plan must be flexible there are still fears this attitude may not filter through to the civil servants who will deal with development details.