Adrienne Harris, Director of Harvest Tourism takes a critical look at the National Heritage and Cultural Tourism Strategy 2012...
In my time at the Tourism Business Council of South Africa, I read a multitude of strategies from sundry government departments. Almost all of these were never followed through and most found useful service as doorstops or to enhance the appearance of already cluttered bookcases. The better ones were later quoted in other strategies, which then just repeated the cycle.
The truth of the matter is that too much time and money is spent on the peripheral information, and not enough on the heart of the matter. I would like to use the new National Heritage and Cultural Tourism strategy as an example. However, before I get into detail, I must stress that I have not seen the original terms of reference and I am assuming that the development was outsourced to a consulting firm. My comments are based purely on the main document as published.
Let me get to the heart of the matter immediately – this report is 60 pages long, including the abbreviations and the references. The strategic focus, as it is termed in the document (I assume the actually strategy as requested by NDT) runs to six pages, with a further page of recommendations. The other pages are taken up by:
Table of Contents (3)
Standard Definitions (4)
Executive Summary (4)
Introduction (10)
Situation and Comparative Studies (18)
References (2)
Of course, it is always important to place things in context, explain the methodology and process involved in compiling the strategy but this report provides little that wasn’t known already and certainly nothing ground-breaking to assist NDT in the vital task of developing our cultural and heritage assets.
The report relies heavily on a literature review that seems to focus on the 1996 White Paper, the NTSS and a few SAT Annual Reports. In fact, the consultant very kindly reprints Section 6 of the White Paper, just for good measure. THIS IS STUFF WE ALREADY KNOW – TELL US SOMETHING WE DON’T.
And then to add insult to injury, some information is patently incorrect. The list of abbreviations includes “DOP” for the Department of Sports and Recreation (SRSA) – whilst appropriate, probably not appreciated.
Four pages of “key stakeholders” include THETA, (which is, of course, CATHSSETA these days), an arbitrary selection of theatres like Artscape, the Playhouse and the State Theatre, as well as duplicating the THETA listing as “an entity responsible for supporting the development and growth of small, micro and medium enterprises”. I assume they mean TEP, as they do at least give the correct web address. The Tourism Business Council of South Africa doesn’t get a mention.
The primary research undertaken is extremely limited but, given that this is a costly and time-consuming undertaking, I am sure this was limited by the terms of reference and budget. In total, 39 cultural tourism products and 41 heritage tourism products were selected, with 271 and 305 respondents respectively. One of the more earth-shattering key findings was “Consumers of heritage and cultural tourism products are concentrated at the younger, middle and elderly adult ages”. Well, yes…
And while great pains were taken to segment the respondents into age, gender, race and education, there is no reference to national versus international visitors – something I would consider vital information. There is also “useful” information such as that most of the consumers knew about the products before their visit, and most recorded that the reasons for visiting cultural products were for a cultural experience and to learn more about the different cultures in South Africa. There are also direct contradictions – in one paragraph, the research refers to consumers suggesting prices be more affordable and in the very next paragraph, the report states “the cost to experience the products was seen as affordable”.
One section grandly entitled “Policy Analysis and Legal Implications” purely lists a number of Acts that potentially could impact tourism development but gives absolutely NO interpretation or discussion of any legal implications. Whilst I cannot claim to be a legal expert, I am fairly certain that there could be tensions between the likes of the Tourism White Paper and the National Heritage Resources Act of 1999. In the unlikely event that all of these acts do co-exist happily and peacefully, this should have been stated.
Section 2.8 takes on the topic of “Funding and Resource Mobilisation”. Here, the consultant attributes the lack of investment opportunities by business and the private sector (sic) to the seasonal nature of tourism. In addition, no reference is made to any funding initiatives, not even small ones like the R9 billion Jobs Fund.
In other sections, statistics (arrival, growth, value, etc.) were directly quoted from the NTSS under the heading “Statistics and Tourism Intelligence”. Statistics – yes, data – yes, but certainly no form of analytical thought or intelligence was presented.
When discussing the development of industry and entrepreneurship, only one paragraph exists. This paragraph makes absolutely no mention of any business development initiatives, not even the Tourism Enterprise Partnership.
So, for those of you who do not have my masochistic tendencies (and more sense than to wade through this document), here is the strategy:
5 Strategic Themes:
1. Research, Information and Knowledge Management
2. Sustainable Development and Management
3. Marketing, Promotion and Raising Awareness
4. Cooperation, Partnership, Institutional Arrangements and Policy
5. Resource Mobilisation
Each of these themes is broken down into strategic objectives and actions, which you are welcome to read at your leisure, should you wish. Here is a taster:
Strategic Theme – Research, Information and Knowledge Management
Strategic Objective – Audit of existing and potential heritage and cultural tourism products
Action – Conduct a comprehensive audit of heritage and cultural tourism products
I will say, however, that this section is well structured and could assist greatly in the fleshing out of the strategy. This section is pages 42-48.
In addition, the consultant recommends the following as priorities:
• Further development and active promotion of the World Heritage Sites in South Africa as well as a number of projects known for their global significance and demonstrated feasibility.
• Partnership between National, Provincial and Local Government
• Sufficient allocation of resources
• Implementation of monitoring and evaluation mechanisms
Now this is where I really have a problem. According to Business dictionary.com, the definition of a strategy is: “A method or plan chosen to bring about a desired future, such as achievement of a goal or solution to a problem”.
In South Africa, we seem to commission these documents called Strategies, but are actually worthless pieces of paper until they are broken down into proper business plans, work-plans or whatever you would like to call them. Unfortunately, many never seem to get that far. I would like to think that with the new, re-invigorated NDT this will not be the case, but I do have one suggestion. Would it not be possible for the Department to commission one comprehensive situational analysis of the tourism industry on an annual basis for use by all researchers? This would mean that the information would not need to be repeated for each and every document and could even possibly just be included as an annexure. This would force consultants to look at information more specific to their brief and thus contribute to the body of knowledge available. And probably save some trees!
In the words of a well-known advertisement, if we had less Yada Yada, we could certainly have more Ka-Ching Ka-Ching for the important things, like the actual implementation of these strategies.
Do you agree that SA tends to focus more on creating new strategies than implementing them? Let us know by adding your comment below...
In my time at the Tourism Business Council of South Africa, I read a multitude of strategies from sundry government departments. Almost all of these were never followed through and most found useful service as doorstops or to enhance the appearance of already cluttered bookcases. The better ones were later quoted in other strategies, which then just repeated the cycle.
The truth of the matter is that too much time and money is spent on the peripheral information, and not enough on the heart of the matter. I would like to use the new National Heritage and Cultural Tourism strategy as an example. However, before I get into detail, I must stress that I have not seen the original terms of reference and I am assuming that the development was outsourced to a consulting firm. My comments are based purely on the main document as published.
Let me get to the heart of the matter immediately – this report is 60 pages long, including the abbreviations and the references. The strategic focus, as it is termed in the document (I assume the actually strategy as requested by NDT) runs to six pages, with a further page of recommendations. The other pages are taken up by:
Table of Contents (3)
Standard Definitions (4)
Executive Summary (4)
Introduction (10)
Situation and Comparative Studies (18)
References (2)
Of course, it is always important to place things in context, explain the methodology and process involved in compiling the strategy but this report provides little that wasn’t known already and certainly nothing ground-breaking to assist NDT in the vital task of developing our cultural and heritage assets.
The report relies heavily on a literature review that seems to focus on the 1996 White Paper, the NTSS and a few SAT Annual Reports. In fact, the consultant very kindly reprints Section 6 of the White Paper, just for good measure. THIS IS STUFF WE ALREADY KNOW – TELL US SOMETHING WE DON’T.
And then to add insult to injury, some information is patently incorrect. The list of abbreviations includes “DOP” for the Department of Sports and Recreation (SRSA) – whilst appropriate, probably not appreciated.
Four pages of “key stakeholders” include THETA, (which is, of course, CATHSSETA these days), an arbitrary selection of theatres like Artscape, the Playhouse and the State Theatre, as well as duplicating the THETA listing as “an entity responsible for supporting the development and growth of small, micro and medium enterprises”. I assume they mean TEP, as they do at least give the correct web address. The Tourism Business Council of South Africa doesn’t get a mention.
The primary research undertaken is extremely limited but, given that this is a costly and time-consuming undertaking, I am sure this was limited by the terms of reference and budget. In total, 39 cultural tourism products and 41 heritage tourism products were selected, with 271 and 305 respondents respectively. One of the more earth-shattering key findings was “Consumers of heritage and cultural tourism products are concentrated at the younger, middle and elderly adult ages”. Well, yes…
And while great pains were taken to segment the respondents into age, gender, race and education, there is no reference to national versus international visitors – something I would consider vital information. There is also “useful” information such as that most of the consumers knew about the products before their visit, and most recorded that the reasons for visiting cultural products were for a cultural experience and to learn more about the different cultures in South Africa. There are also direct contradictions – in one paragraph, the research refers to consumers suggesting prices be more affordable and in the very next paragraph, the report states “the cost to experience the products was seen as affordable”.
One section grandly entitled “Policy Analysis and Legal Implications” purely lists a number of Acts that potentially could impact tourism development but gives absolutely NO interpretation or discussion of any legal implications. Whilst I cannot claim to be a legal expert, I am fairly certain that there could be tensions between the likes of the Tourism White Paper and the National Heritage Resources Act of 1999. In the unlikely event that all of these acts do co-exist happily and peacefully, this should have been stated.
Section 2.8 takes on the topic of “Funding and Resource Mobilisation”. Here, the consultant attributes the lack of investment opportunities by business and the private sector (sic) to the seasonal nature of tourism. In addition, no reference is made to any funding initiatives, not even small ones like the R9 billion Jobs Fund.
In other sections, statistics (arrival, growth, value, etc.) were directly quoted from the NTSS under the heading “Statistics and Tourism Intelligence”. Statistics – yes, data – yes, but certainly no form of analytical thought or intelligence was presented.
When discussing the development of industry and entrepreneurship, only one paragraph exists. This paragraph makes absolutely no mention of any business development initiatives, not even the Tourism Enterprise Partnership.
So, for those of you who do not have my masochistic tendencies (and more sense than to wade through this document), here is the strategy:
5 Strategic Themes:
1. Research, Information and Knowledge Management
2. Sustainable Development and Management
3. Marketing, Promotion and Raising Awareness
4. Cooperation, Partnership, Institutional Arrangements and Policy
5. Resource Mobilisation
Each of these themes is broken down into strategic objectives and actions, which you are welcome to read at your leisure, should you wish. Here is a taster:
Strategic Theme – Research, Information and Knowledge Management
Strategic Objective – Audit of existing and potential heritage and cultural tourism products
Action – Conduct a comprehensive audit of heritage and cultural tourism products
I will say, however, that this section is well structured and could assist greatly in the fleshing out of the strategy. This section is pages 42-48.
In addition, the consultant recommends the following as priorities:
• Further development and active promotion of the World Heritage Sites in South Africa as well as a number of projects known for their global significance and demonstrated feasibility.
• Partnership between National, Provincial and Local Government
• Sufficient allocation of resources
• Implementation of monitoring and evaluation mechanisms
Now this is where I really have a problem. According to Business dictionary.com, the definition of a strategy is: “A method or plan chosen to bring about a desired future, such as achievement of a goal or solution to a problem”.
In South Africa, we seem to commission these documents called Strategies, but are actually worthless pieces of paper until they are broken down into proper business plans, work-plans or whatever you would like to call them. Unfortunately, many never seem to get that far. I would like to think that with the new, re-invigorated NDT this will not be the case, but I do have one suggestion. Would it not be possible for the Department to commission one comprehensive situational analysis of the tourism industry on an annual basis for use by all researchers? This would mean that the information would not need to be repeated for each and every document and could even possibly just be included as an annexure. This would force consultants to look at information more specific to their brief and thus contribute to the body of knowledge available. And probably save some trees!
In the words of a well-known advertisement, if we had less Yada Yada, we could certainly have more Ka-Ching Ka-Ching for the important things, like the actual implementation of these strategies.
Do you agree that SA tends to focus more on creating new strategies than implementing them? Let us know by adding your comment below...
