Politics and sustainable tourism development – Can they co-exist? Voices from North Cyprus

Tourism Management 31 (2010) 345–356

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Politics and sustainable tourism development – Can they co-exist? Voices from North Cyprus Muhammet Yasarata a, Levent Altinay b, *, Peter Burns c, Fevzi Okumus d a

Cyprus Premier Holidays Ltd, UK Department of Hospitality, Leisure and Tourism Management, The Business School, Oxford Brookes University, Gipsy Lane Campus, Headington, Oxford OX3 OBP, UK c Centre for Tourism Policy Studies, University of Brighton, UK d Rosen College of Hospitality Management, The University of Central Florida, Universal Blvd Orlando, Florida 32819, US b

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 27 October 2008 Accepted 27 March 2009

This paper investigates ways in which political obstacles inhibit the formulation and implementation of sustainable tourism development in small-island developing states through the example of North Cyprus. The methodology draws on in-depth interviews and participant observation of significant actors in the tourism sector. The research findings suggest that understanding the intricate political system and power structure in a society is the key to understanding sustainable tourism policy development, planning and implementation. In the case of North Cyprus, policy development was found to be a product of political influence (referred to as ego-driven politics in the text), specifically the use of public resources as an instrument for political power, retention and that the politicisation of the public sector is the underlying cause of the weakened progress in sustainable tourism development. It is therefore essential to have a clear understanding of political issues, key political actors’ interests and how to mitigate personal interests to facilitate and maintain sustainable tourism development in such small states. Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Small island Sustainable tourism development Political issues Agency theory Qualitative research North Cyprus

1. Introduction Small-island developing states (SIDS in UN terminology) have certain shared socio-economic and political characteristics, which place them in a very low position within the international political economy. The particularities of North Cyprus and its problems associated with political and economic isolation, institutional governance, and personalised political structures (Alipour & Kilic, 2005) can be located in a broader SIDS analytical narrative. These include communication and trading structures (such as physical distance from markets) that inflate the price of imports and place exports at a competitive disadvantage; labour markets characterised by a limited skills base and reliance on expatriates; limited land area and non-existence of extractive minerals (with a very few exceptions such as bauxite in Jamaica, gold in Fiji, and oil in Trinidad) coupled with reliance on a limited range of primary commodity exports (typically tropical fruit and sugar cane); and finally small, fragmented domestic markets that lack critical mass (Milne, 1992). * Correspondence to. Tel.: þ44 1865 483832; fax: þ44 1865 483878. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Yasarata), laltinay@ brookes.ac.uk (L. Altinay), [email protected] (P. Burns), fokumus@mail. ucf.edu (F. Okumus). 0261-5177/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.03.016

The politics of tourism is a struggle for power and underpinned by the question cui bono (who benefits?) as Strange (1994), in discussing concepts of the international political economy, puts it. Power governs the interaction of those individuals, organisations, and agencies that influence or try to influence the formulation of tourism policy and also the manner in which it is implemented (Altinay & Bowen, 2006). In particular, in developing countries, formulation of sustainable tourism policies and plans and their implementation are impeded as a result of power struggles and political manoeuvring among key actor groups including government, private sector, political parties, local government and communities (Altinay, Var, Hines, & Hussain, 2007; Tosun, 2000). Central to planning for any sector, including tourism, is the measure of centralisation (and personalised politics) in any given country. While the nature of planning seems to be somewhat decentralized in advanced economies (the so-called ‘developed world’), the opposite prevails in many developing countries, where tourism planning is often centralized and most decisions are made through government intervention rather than pluralism (Choi & Sirakaya, 2006; Inskeep, 1991; Tosun & Timothy, 2001). For example, Tosun (2000) claims that political structures or systems determine pre-conditions for participation in the tourism developing process. That is to say, the ruling elites of developing countries rationalise

346

M. Yasarata et al. / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 345–356

their decisions under cover of bureaucratic traditions (ShamsulHaque, 2007): unwilling to give up the potential for personal gain for the sake of community benefits. In line with these arguments, an assumption underpinning the present paper is that governments must communicate with and involve the local population in planning and management decisions while offering a fair distribution of the benefits and costs among the full range of stakeholders (Tosun & Timothy, 2001). However, developing countries are oftentimes deficient in developing and implementing those policies and regulations as tourism is perceived as an isolated and superficial economic tool (Alipour & Kilic, 2005) concerned with satisfying the needs of rich foreigners rather than a strategic imperative for poverty alleviation and wealth creation. For example, while investigating and exploring the roots of unsustainable tourism development at local level in case of Urgup, Turkey, Tosun and Jenkins (1998) conclude that, shortsighted policies of political and economic expedience promoted the rapid emergence of mass tourism resulting in environmental degradation and weakened, fragmented social structures. This in turn resulted in the local community being disenfranchised and disconnected from the natural and economic resources upon which that type of tourism was built. The implicit (rather than explicit) intellectual framework for the paper is entrenched in a number of sub-disciplines and conceptual areas including structuration, international political economy, the politics of power, and the nuances of environmental sustainability. Drawing on a wide range of literature and an empirical case study undertaken in the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus (TRNC), this paper investigates how political obstacles inhibit formulation and implementation of sustainable tourism development in smallisland developing states. North Cyprus is a useful case for study because, apart from sharing many characteristics of small, stressed, post-conflict economies, it has suffered both from the well rehearsed political problems between Turkish and Greek Cypriots and decades of isolation. It is hoped that this paper will illuminate both external and internal political challenges faced by tourism and highlight the options that other destinations in a similar position may consider as part of their approach to sustainable tourism development becomes more complex in a rapidly changing political and financial world. 2. Literature review There have been a series of tourism planning paradigms that pertain to participation. Getz (1987) identified four broad approaches which can be thought of as a staged development of tourism planning philosophy: i) civic boosterism, ii) an economic or industry-oriented approach, iii) a physical/spatial approach, and iv) a community-oriented approach which emphasises the role that the destination community plays in the tourism experience. Each tradition has had a different stimulus and explanation placing varying emphases on technical, economic, social, environmental and political issues. As early as 1980 the UNWTO (1980) suggested that many tourism master plans were prepared but rarely implemented as intended (a point reiterated by Burns, 2004). The reasons, as Hall (2000) and others suggest, are that they are too complex, financially impractical, and somewhat disconnected from the institutional arrangements of particular destinations. Moreover, such plans are unrealistic with regard to the expectations of coordination, cooperation and participation and political management. The sophisticated master planning approach of Gunn (1977) and BaudBovy (1982) have proven unwieldy; the complexity of tourism multipliers is often misused or abused (see the discussion in Burns, 1999; de Kadt, 1979a, 1979b); and the energy required to effect

cross-community involvement beyond public relations, rarely employed. However, although each tradition has proven essentially unworkable on its own, it has been argued that it is important to draw the best examples from them, to work towards an integrated planning structure (Burns & Holden, 1995; Getz, 1987; Hall, 2000) – in particular towards a sustainable approach to tourism planning. As Hall (2000:41) asserts: ‘.a sustainable tourism industry requires a commitment by all parties involved in the planning process to sustainable development principles. Only through such widespread commitment can the long-term integration of social, environmental and economic, as well as cultural and political goals be attained.’ (Hall, 2000:41) Aligning these goals is not easy: destinations must choose a strategy that not only reflects their political zeitgeist, but also one that will achieve both short and long-term stated aspirations. Underpinning such choices must be the capacity to foster and steward resources for the future. The private sector tends to use a market-oriented approach, while the public sector tends to take a supply oriented (resource-based) approach to tourism development (Altinay et al., 2007). There is a natural contradiction between the danger of destroying the environment (what the tourists come to see) and the commercial imperatives (both in terms of quick returns for investors and governments’ desire to generate tax revenues). This contradiction creates political complications for the development of sustainable tourism in any destination. Watters (1984) describes the shape of such economies with the acronym MIRAB, which comprises: outward migration (MI); a dependence on high levels of remittances resulting from the migration (R); overseas aid (A) receipts (often from former colonial/ administrative power) to cover trade deficits, and a reliance on the bureaucracy (i.e. the government) (B) for job creation. For many SIDS this situation is, along with fishing, tourism and perhaps offshore banking, the only option for legal economic stability although it should be noted that SIDS are vulnerable to influence by criminal activities such as money laundering through casino gambling (NCSR, 2000) and the inevitable social problems caused by the type of tourism associated with large casinos. These characteristics do allow for generalisations to be made. There is a firmly established trend for tourism destinations in a whole range of economic circumstances (advanced, restructuring, post-conflict, post-colonial and so on) to recognise that sustainable development, including tourism, should meet stakeholder needs far beyond the simplistic dualism of those involved in supply and demand. Increasingly, communities that have a direct geographical, locational, political, or economic interest in tourism’s development have been placed central in the needs-satisfaction equation (cf. Burns & Novelli, 2008). The roots to this trend lay in the Brundtland report (1987), from which emerged the triangle of sustainable development (economic responsibility, social inclusion, environmental stewardship) that has become the bedrock of 21st century politico-environmental thinking (Gossling, 2003). This holistic approach to development, based in part on the optimism of perestroikaand glasnost as they paved the way for the end of the Cold War and what promised, at the time, to be a concordance of stability and international cooperation lay the foundations of a new political concurrence on environmentalism (broadly summarised as the Kyoto Agreement) which remains somewhat fuzzy but the climate change arguments of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change appears to be forcing inevitable agreement towards environmental matters and sustainability taking centre stage. This trend applies to planning and implementation of sustainable tourism and the consideration of all socio-economic development as well as the interests of various stakeholder groups, or perhaps more

M. Yasarata et al. / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 345–356

accurately, actors. Effective planning and implementation for sustainable tourism then, is dependent on the cooperation of many players and framed by its global condition of being multi-sectoral and framed by socio-political complexities (Burns, 2008). Choi and Sirakaya (2006), in particular, claim that sustainable tourism development inevitably generates political and power struggles over the equitable use of requisite physical, cultural, and financial resources required. This lack of equitable access to the decisionmaking processes is, according to Liu and Wall (2006) and Tosun (2000) particularly affects participation of local communities in some developing countries where decisions are manipulated and dominated by political elites and centralist bureaucrats. Social structures, networks and interactions (cf. Giddens, 1984, theory of structuration) and the way the government and political structure is institutionalized in a country also have some bearing on the tourism development and implementation (Alipour & Kilic, 2005; Burns, 2004; Hall, 1994; Okumus & Karamustafa, 2005). The complex structure of society with its competing ‘actor totalities’ (Giddens, 1984), short-sighted political conflicts, frequent changes of governments all lead towards changes of plans and implementation barriers being thrown up (Hall & Jenkins, 1995). Contextualized in its social and political structures, tourism planning for SIDS can be seen as a relatively distinct subset in the debate surrounding tourism, its planning, and impacts. There are links to be drawn between corporate strategic thinking of multinational tourism companies (such as hotel groups, airlines and tour operators) and the ability (or lack thereof) of governments to plan and implement sustainable tourism policies. Government planning will often incorporate measures to diversify the economy, and typically have goals such as achieving fiscal stability by ensuring that an increasing proportion of the national budget comes from local sources (i.e. attempting to broaden the economy beyond MIRAB framed dependency) and to channel a greater measure of development assistance to the rural and outer regions. 3. Tourism development in North Cyprus Cyprus has a history of modern commercial tourism that dates back to the 1930s (Storrs, 1930), which peaked first in the 1960s. However, with the Turkish intervention in 1974 after a military coup in Cyprus, the subsequent political fracture of the island into a Turkish north and Greek south, tourism development was lopsided in favour of the south for almost four decades. While Greek Cypriots had the opportunity for some development of their socioeconomic structures (including links with the global economy) Turkish Cypriots had to focus on basic needs in order to sustain their physical conditions (EIU, 1995). Stephen (1997:32) captures the essence of the problem: ‘Economically isolated, the Turkish Cypriot community has found itself in a backwater as far as trade and industry and employment are concerned, and does not participate in the economic expansion of the country and the development of its resources. Many of the estimated 20,000 refugees and displaced persons in the Turkish Cypriot enclaves are unemployed, and their enforced idleness emphasises the isolation of the community, whose economy is sustained by financial assistance and relief supplies from Turkey. about one-third of the Turkish Cypriot population is estimated to need some form of welfare relief.’ The tourism industry has been one of the main sectors in Northern Cyprus economy. Key statistical data about the tourism industry in Northern Cyprus are presented in Table 1. There are over 850 tourism and hospitality businesses, most of which are small family run bars, cafes, restaurants and gift shops. The accommodation sub-sector is the main component of the tourism industry

347

Table 1 Key statistical figures about the tourism industry in Northern Cyprus. Years

Foreign tourism demand (except for Turkey)

Tourism demand from Turkey

Total demand

Tourism income

% of GDP

Occupancy rate of hotels

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

87,733 75,985 73,000 77,230 79,615 85,241 87,348 109,364 129,794 164,268 164,756 143,116 156,456

298,026 289,131 326,364 315,797 334,400 347,712 227,720 316,189 340,083 434,744 488,023 572,633 634,580

385,759 365,116 399,364 393,027 414,015 432,953 365,097 425,553 469,877 599,012 652,779 715,749 791,036

218.9 175.6 183.2 186.0 192.8 198.3 93.7 114.1 178.8 288.3 328.8 303.2 376.3

3.3 2.7 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.0 3.2 3.2 3.4 3.1 2.4 2.7

37.5 32.5 35.3 37.3 37.5 37.6 30.9 31.3 35.7 39.2 38.6 31.0 29.9

Compiled from Ministry of Economics and Tourism (2007, 2008, 2009) and SPO (2007).

and as of the end of 2008 there were 119 accommodation establishments (hotels, motels, holiday villages) with a bed capacity of 15,540 (Ministry of Economics and Tourism, 2009). The tourism industry contributed to the GDP of North Cyprus by $303.2 and $376.2 million in 2006 and 2007. The tourism industry created 8208 jobs in 2007 which is about 7% in the total employment (Ministry of Economics and Tourism, 2009). Main tourist markets have been Turkey, Britain and Germany. The annual occupancy rate for hospitality organisations was around 30% in 2007. A comparison of North and South Cyprus through a range of standard macro-economic indicators shows, in most cases, a considerable comparative advantage for South Cyprus over North Cyprus. For example, GNP is nearly 10 times higher and GNP 2.5 times higher in 2003. With regard to main tourism indicators North Cyprus attracted relatively few tourists compared to South Cyprus in 2007 – indeed South Cyprus attracted more than seven times as many tourists (EIU, 2007). This resulted in comparatively low tourism revenue for the North. The latter also has an under-capacity of beds compared to South Cyprus. While South Cyprus has turned into a well-established destination, North Cyprus has struggled to achieve economic growth and escape from its political and economic dependence on Turkey. Tourism has brought its share of negative effects. So, whilst South Cyprus has experienced a rapid, profitable growth since 1974 it has been largely unplanned. Consequently, the indigenous flora and fauna have been damaged and are endangered. Moreover, tourism development has created architectural (visual) pollution and an insufficient water resource (Ioannides, Apostolopoulos, & Sonmez, 2001). In North Cyprus, international sanctions have prevented overall economic growth and have also generated problems for the tourism sector. High dependence on Turkish tourists causes problems such as short average length of stay and a reduced flow of foreign currency. Turkish clientele constitute the majority of casino gamblers (Altinay, Altinay, & Bicak, 2002) especially since the Republic of Turkey banned casinos in 1998. Economic and political crises in and around Turkey have influenced the tourism industry in North Cyprus (Okumus, Altinay, & Roper, 2005). North Cyprus also lacks variation in its tourism offering, suffers from low occupancy rates, relatively poor service quality and lack of or insufficient infrastructure. However, contrary to South Cyprus, North Cyprus does not suffer from the same level of negative impacts resulting from mass tourism (Altinay, 2000). A consequence of the restricted tourism development in the north has been that the natural environment remained, for the most part, undisturbed (Altinay et al., 2002). However, the effects of

348

M. Yasarata et al. / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 345–356

political and economic semi-isolation as well as problems such as a lack of marketing in the past, shortage of qualified staff, erratic patterns of tourist arrivals and indirect flights (Altinay et al., 2002), have limited the development of tourism. As a result, unintentionally North Cyprus has avoided the heavy concentrations of resorts that characterise many Mediterranean coastlines. Only the coastal area of Kyrenia – where new hotels and villas are under construction – shows signs of transformation. But there is little doubt that North Cyprus is now at the threshold of rapid tourism development and in a sense this reinforces the environment at centre stage in the local tourism debate. The environmental phenomenon, which arose as an international issue in the 1970s and which has been considered on different scales and in different arrangements has, since the late 1980s, assumed a position on the political agenda of the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus (TRNC). The environment was first studied as a distinct subject in the TRNC as part of the Third FiveYear Development Plan (TFYDP) (SPO, 1996), and as a result, various public organisations have begun to develop and implement environmental policies. The accident of history and politics that left North Cyprus out of the tourism development scramble that afflicted the rest of the Mediterranean may be an environmental silver lining to what seemed to be a development cloud. Consumer patterns and trends seem to indicate growing concern about the environment and the emergence of a rejection of spoilt, overdeveloped environments (Scottish Enterprise, 2003). This evidence clearly points towards the obvious developmental conclusion: if tourism is to be successful and sustained then North Cyprus’ natural and built environments must be conserved. The government has a major mediating role to play given the likely conflict between different actors that is bound to surround much tourism development in North Cyprus. The experience in South Cyprus of the late 1960s and early 1970s was an environmental catastrophe and amounted to the construction of a high buildings and concrete hotels along the length of sandy beaches in the whole of Cyprus (Andronikou, 1979). Though on a different scale, from the point of view of environmental destruction, the same mistakes were committed by the Greek Cypriots in Limassol, Larnaca and, to a certain extent, in Ayia Napa and Phapos (Andronikou, 1987; Ioannides, 1992; Lockhart, 1994, 1997; Lockhart, Drakakis-Smith, & Schembri, 1993; Witt, 1991). From the tourism point of view, the North Cyprus Third Five-Year Development Plan (TFYDP) was important in that it emphasised the main objectives and identified the main problems encountered by the Turkish Cypriot tourism industry (SPO, 1996:230–254). Overall, the TFYDP drew attention to the environmental dimension within its introductory paragraph: The recent economic, social and political developments in the world have increased the relationships and connections of countries with one and another, thus making the foundation of new economic policies inevitable. The concept of development has been changing, and the environmental dimension, along with social and economic dimensions, has been reflected on development strategies. The processes of integration, taking place on a global scale, are intensifying the international tourism movements, thus raising the competition among tourism-based economies, and the rising environmental consciousness in our world makes up the main theme of this competition (SPO, 1996:230). But the development and implementation of environmental planning and a sustainable approach to tourism development was until that time especially constrained by political realities resulting from its isolation.

4. Methods The approach to data collection was framed by the ethnographic tradition of participant observation as it is particularly suited to observing interpersonal group processes. It focuses on the emic perspective in generating the kind of thick description needed in ‘writing culture’ (Van Maanen, 1988). One of the study participation organisations – the North Cyprus Tourism Office (NCTO) and its UK-based directors – acted as gatekeepers and provided ready access (Okumus, Altinay, & Roper, 2007) to a network of Tourism Ministry and other government departments, tour operators, travel agents, hoteliers and airlines. Specifically, the principal investigator attended 3 tourism advisory meetings and 16 sub-advisory committee meetings of the then nascent NCTO. The meetings provided a major opportunity to gather rich, qualitative data during the tourism policy and planning process. These meetings also provided an opportunity for the principal investigator to select and interview the full range of participants and so build up a clear picture of the past as well as the present. Ninety two interviews were also conducted to support the data generated from the observation of meetings and increase the richness and enhance the validity of the findings. Interviews were conducted with different stakeholder groups including central government officials (ministers, members of parliament, mayors), hoteliers, travel agents, operators, airline company representatives, NGO representatives (Civil Community [society] Associations, as they are known in North Cyprus) over a four year period Table 2. Purposive sampling technique was utilized to select the informants for the investigation. Purposive sampling enables researchers to use their judgement to select people that will best enable them to answer their research questions and to meet their objectives (Hemmington, 1999; Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2003). Informants were chosen based on their experience, role and influence in policymaking and implementation of policies in the tourism industry. The purposely chosen sample included representatives of different views and thus enlarged the perspective, and added richness to the research. Some of the informants were personally known and some other informants were approached through close friends and colleagues so that research access (Okumus et al., 2007) to them could be achieved. The interviews included a consistent set of open-ended and unstructured questions that were designed to elicit discussions about tourism development and the tourism policy and planning process, past and present allowing their voices to flow through. For example, the lead field researcher asked government officials about tourism plans, the degree of existing local participation in decisionmaking and cooperation and the nature of interrelations between agencies and government departments in the tourism planning process, as well as about specific examples where this might have taken place. They were also questioned about their understanding of community-based and sustainable tourism development, what these terms meant to them, and whether or not they felt that each approach was important (Appendix I shows main interview questions). Acknowledging the close social proximity between some of the actors and the principal investigator, the acquaintances and conversations were varied: headmen, local taxi drivers, shop keepers, tour guides, street vendors, academics, officials working in government offices, families and so forth all adding to the rich data being gathered. The meetings with local people usually took the form of ‘friendly conversations’ (Spradley, 1979:58) in traditional Mediterranean cafe´s (social spaces) where local people gathered to drink coffee, play board or card games, and talk about issues in their village, town or country.

M. Yasarata et al. / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 345–356

349

Table 2 Interviews with key stakeholders. Central and Local Government Status/Occupation of Interviewees

Organisation

Statistics and Research Director Former State Minister and Deputy Prime Minister And Tourism Minister Former Tourism Undersecretary Former State Minister and Deputy Prime Minister And Tourism Minister Former Deputy Prime Minister and Tourism Ministry Former Tourism Undersecretary State Minister and Deputy Prime Minister And Tourism Minister Tourism Undersecretary Former Tourism Master Plan Coordinator, Now Tourism Research and Development Unit Coordinator Tourism Education and Training Coordinator Tourism Education and Training Officer Public Relations, Department of Marketing and Promotion Director of Marketing and Promotion Department Director of Tourism Planning Department Tourism Marketing and Promotion Officer Research and Development Unit Officer Tourism Planning Officer, Department of Tourism Planning Tourism Planning Officer, Department of Tourism Planning Tourism Planning Officer, Department of Tourism Planning Executive Coordinator For Europe, North Cyprus Tourism Centre in London Former Tourism Representative For North Cyprus Tourism Office in London Chief Town Planner, Department of Town Planning Town Planner, Department of Town Planning Director of Town Planning Office, Department of Town Planning Transport Minister Director of Department of Civil Aviation Director of Department of Road Transport Former Director of Interior and Housing Ministry Environment Conservation Officer, Department of Environment Protection Environment Conservation Officer, Department of Environment Protection Environment Conservation Officer, Department of Environment Protection Environment Conservation Officer, Department of Environment Protection Environment Conservation Officer, Department of Environment Protection, TRNC Representative in London, Interior and Rural Minister Private Secretary to Interior and Rural Minister, also former Mayor of Kyrenia Finance Attach to TRNC London Office Director of Budget Credit Officer, Development Bank Culture Attach, TRNC London Office Chief Officer, Department of Antiquities and Museums Research Unit Officer Director of Evkaf Foundation Board of Director Evkaf Foundation Director of Communication and Architecture Department Cultural Activity Organiser Mayor of Alsancak, Kyrenia Member of Municipal Council Chief Worker Mayor of Lapta Hoteliers Owner and Director Owner and Director Managing Director Manager Owner and Director Assistant Manager Owner and Director Owner and Director Owner and Director Owner and Director Owner and director Managing Director Managing Director Owner and Director Owner and Director Owner and Director Travel Agents Owner and Director, North Cyprus, Nicosia Owner and Director North Cyprus, Kyrenia Owner and Director North Cyprus, Kyrenia Owner and Director North Cyprus, Kyrenia.

State Planning Organisation, Prime Ministry Ministry of Tourism Ministry of Tourism Ministry of Tourism Ministry of Tourism Ministry of Tourism Ministry of Tourism Ministry of Tourism Ministry of Tourism Ministry of Tourism Ministry of Tourism Ministry of Tourism Ministry of Tourism Ministry of Tourism Ministry of Tourism Ministry of Tourism Ministry of Tourism Ministry of Tourism Ministry of Tourism Ministry of Tourism Ministry of Tourism Deputy Prime Ministry and Tourism Ministry Deputy Prime Ministry and Tourism Ministry Deputy Prime Ministry and Tourism Ministry Ministry of Transport Ministry of Transport Ministry of Transport Ministry of Interior and Housing Ministry of Health and Environment Ministry of Health and Environment Ministry of Health and Environment Ministry of Health and Environment Ministry of Health and Environment Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Defence Ministry of Interior and Housing Ministry of Interior and Housing Ministry of Economy and Finance Ministry of Economy and Finance Ministry of Economy and Finance Ministry of Education and Culture Ministry of Education and Culture Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Prime Ministry Prime Ministry Kyrenia Municipality Kyrenia Municipality Alsancak Municipality Alsancak Municipality Alsancak Municipality Lapta Municipality Acapulco Holiday Village (., 562 beds) Celebrity & Chateau Lambusa (., 288 beds) Club Lapethos (., 230 Beds) Golden Bay Hotel (., 72) Kyrenia Oscar Hotel (., 250 beds) Mare Monte Hotel (., 188 beds) Pia Bella Hotel (., 72 Beds) Top Set (., 54 beds) Altinkaya Armoni (., 88 beds) Ballapais Garden (., 34 beds) River Side Holiday Village (., 194 beds) Riviera Mokamp (., 68 beds) Green Coast Bungalows (., 74 beds) Espiri Hotel Apartment (., 86 beds) Club Simena (., 52 beds) King’s Court (., 56 Beds) Tursan Tourism Ornek Tourism Apple Tour Biral Tourism (continued on next page)

350

M. Yasarata et al. / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 345–356

Table 2 (continued ) Central and Local Government Status/Occupation of Interviewees Airlines Cyprus Turkish Airline Cyprus Turkish Airline Istanbul Airline Cyprus Turkish Airlines Tour Operators CTA Holidays CTA Holidays Cyprus Paradise Celebrity Holidays President Holidays Anatolian Sky Interest and Activity Holidays Non-Governmental Organisations Lecturer, Head of Tourism School Lecturer Lecturer Secretary For Society of International Development Member of North Cyprus Construction and Architecture Chamber Association President of Green Peace Action Group President of North Cyprus Hoteliers Association President of North Cyprus Travel Agents Association President of North Cyprus Restaurant Owners Association Member of the Association President of the Society For Protection of Turtles in North Cyprus, also restaurant owner General Secretary of Turkish Municipality Association

There is no one ‘right’ way to analyze such voluminous qualitative data (Miles & Huberman, 1994). They can be interpretative and eclectic in nature and researchers can employ a ‘tight’, more theoretically driven approach, or a ‘loose’, inductively oriented approach (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Yin, 2003). For the present study, both inductive and deductive data analysis modes were employed. A broad coding scheme was derived from the literature review. Much of the data analysis consisted of breaking down the interview transcripts, observation notes as well as documents into manageable blocks in order to classify them under each code/ grouping. Fieldnotes were regrouped after further analysis according to the coding scheme. The original text was cross-referenced so that the source could be traced and the process of abstraction could be examined and replicated. This was carried out first by the principal investigator and then by the other researchers. Alongside the theory driven approach, the inductive mode of analysis was also employed which helped the researchers analyze the data freely without following a framework or where the coding schema was inappropriate. This was undertaken by rereading transcripts, fieldnotes and collected documents, identifying emerging themes and incorporated them into the research findings. Overall, employing these two approaches helped to draw meaning from the data and suggested ways of obtaining deeper insights into the formulation and implementation of tourism development in North Cyprus. As the data were collected over a long period of time, the majority of respondents were approached and met again for further questions about the first interview. They were also updated about the progress of the project. Additional feedback gained from this second round was also incorporated into the findings. Through these iterative data analysis processes a case study report (Yin, 2003) was developed and refined. Providing a ‘thick’ (Geertz, 1973) or ‘rich’ (Eisenhardt, 1989) description of the formulation and implementation of tourism development in North Cyprus assisted in identifying key themes, issues and patterns. The

Organisation Director of UK Office, In London Company Secretary in UK, London Marketing Manager, UK, London Assistance Finance Manager, North Cyprus Head Office Director of UK Office, In London Company Secretary in UK, London Owner and Managing Director, UK, London Manager UK, London Marketing Manager, UK, London Owner and Managing Director, UK, Birmingham Owner and Managing Director, UK London Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta Department of Business and Economics, Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta Tourism and Hospitality, American University Active member of North Cyprus Society For Protection of Birds and Nature and Pro-Action for A Sustainable Development, North Cyprus, Kyrenia North Cyprus Construction and Architecture Chamber Association Green Peace Action Group North Cyprus Hoteliers Association North Cyprus Travel Agents Association North Cyprus Restaurant Owners Association The Society For Protection of Turtles in North Cyprus Turkish Municipality Association

research findings presented below represent and highlight key issues related to the tourism development in North Cyprus. 5. Findings There are several approaches that could have been used to present and discuss the data. However, there is an advantage in grouping together sets of informants (rather than say, by emergent/ topic theme or by frame analysis) in that a more holistic view is seen thus avoiding data fragmentation that could arise from these other means of presentation (useful as they are for the analysis stage). In this case, the groups are divided into two logical categories: core and peripheral influencers. 5.1. Core influencers (the political power base) 5.1.1. Government officials At the outset, perhaps not surprisingly, Government departments seemed unprepared for effective environmental planning. Indeed, one informant, recalled: ‘We established a department and then we added the word ‘environment’ to the existing Ministry of Health. Thus, having established the Ministry of Health and Environment, we, as a department, began functioning under that institute. Our authority was limited to controlling environmental pollution and to the inspection of littering. Unlike other Environmental Conservation Departments in the world, we were not given the authority of Environment Impact Assessment (EIA), nor were we authorised to choose environmental protection areas. Moreover, we did not consider how to overcome the shortage of qualified personnel. Since we did not have environmental planners, we hired personnel from different branches, such as architects and civil engineers. We acquired trained environmental engineers later on..’

M. Yasarata et al. / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 345–356

Later, up to June 1999, documentation shows that 37 EIA reports had been dealt within accordance with EIA regulations. Of those 37 reports, 35 were approved and two were not approved. 23 of the discussed reports concerned tourism investments, twelve concerned industrial investments and two concerned rock mining (EPP&SCR, 1999:45). However, further interviews with the environmental planners of what was then called the Department of Environmental Conservation emphasised that a number of problems existed in the implementation of EIA reports in the TRNC. For example, according to informants, EIA reports lacked a sufficient and reliable database and did not have technical tools and equipment. So, the EIA procedure could not be used effectively. Furthermore, developers who saw the EIA report as a bureaucratic hindrance asked politicians to pressurise the then Department of Environmental Conservation to evaluate their EIA report quickly. As one of the informants stated: ‘Our department has over 30 reports to work on. We are evaluating these in order, one by one. But to do this we need time. In some cases, we are pressurised by political bodies to speed up the evaluations, and we are left in a situation where we have to do the evaluation in a hurry. Therefore, how well the evaluation has been done is questionable. A parliamentarian (in the government) called me the other day. Someone he knew was waiting for his report. We were asked to complete this immediately, so we had to work on that one, leaving aside the others’. So, it seems that there is a great pressure on the officials as a result of the demands of the developers. In addition, politicians could easily change and even abolish some of the protective rules. The majority of informants claimed that the government policy was not always clear and could be contradictory. Political considerations, as Hall (1994) and Hall and Jenkins (1995) also argue could take precedence over rational policy and consistency. Informants sometimes put it more strongly – in the public sector, political values over-rode managerial values; and so long-term management objectives were displaced for short-term political advantage. Political leaders pushed ahead with projects and investments without an efficient appraisal of the economic, environmental and social benefits to the local community. Within this pressurised political context, it is clear that the implementation of sustainable development policies in the environmental and physical plans was liable to change depending on the politicians’ attitudes and their values. In the TRNC, in general, there has been a top-to-bottom development administrative system. The Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers are responsible for the preparation and implementation of National Development Plans. Hall and Jenkins (1995) argue that the sources of power in tourism policy, planning and promotion affect the location, structure and behaviour of agencies responsible for tourism policy formulation and implementation. Indeed, the position of tourism in the bureaucratic structure of the TRNC political system has shifted in relation to the relative priorities of the government. But in recognition of the significance of the tourism industry to the TRNC economy and the impact of tourism on the wealth of Turkish Cypriots the new government in 1993 created a separate ministry, the ‘Ministry of Tourism’ (MoT) and tied it with the State Ministry and Deputy Prime Ministry. Integrating the Ministry of Tourism with the State Ministry and Deputy Prime Ministry was seen as an important initiative. As a senior official within the Ministry of Tourism put it: ‘There is never an ideal way of organising government to balance the interests of various people. Now, I am satisfied that we, within the Ministry of Tourism, have the mechanism to influence other ministries and various departments within other ministries,

351

because we have a tourism minister who also at the same time is the State Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of the country.’ However, all new Ministers and Undersecretaries have tended to apply their own policies. The officials say, among themselves, that ‘every political party attempts to follow its own course’. Indeed, as one of the officials stated: ‘It is very important to have ‘sustainability’ in tourism planning and policies, but the sustainability of these is not enough. The sustainability in the posts of those who plan, formulate and carry out policies is also highly important. As governments change, undersecretaries and even bureaucrats change, too. As a result of the planning and application differences between the new and the previous team, the required ‘national tourism policy’ is replaced by ‘trial and error’ type tourism policies.’ However, matters are not as clear as the informant suggests. Between 2001 and 1993, three ministers variously supported and tried to implement the preparation of a Tourism Master Plan for inclusion in the Third Five-Year Development Plan (SPO, 2007). The first ruling coalition drew up the draft of the plan, and the following ruling party completed the plan. The third ruling party began work on its implementation. However, problems are occasionally recognised, as seen by the words of the Minister of Tourism regarding the implementation process in tourism planning – the Third Five-Year Development Plan. ‘Some of our problems have become chronic. However, there is no problem that cannot be solved through collaborative planning. The ministry and committee members have different duties, but we will overcome the problems collaboratively and we will manage to solve them. We cannot say that tourism is in a very good situation. The important thing is to identify the situation we are in, to determine the problems together with the sector, and to plan what must be done to be able to achieve our goals.’ Thus, it is accepted that the Tourism Development Plans was merely a product and that planning was a continuous process. We should also mention here that most of ministry of tourism (state minister and deputy prime ministers) have no or limited background and understanding of tourism development and sustainability. Plus bureaucrats and undersecretaries are also similar who are appointed based on friendship and links with the ruling party rather than their credentials. Given this it can be difficult to claim that the tourism plans, policies and their implementation will bring benefits and achieve some desirable outcomes. 5.1.2. Private sector The private sector is represented by professional associations directly involved in tourism – for example, the Turkish Cypriot Hoteliers Association (KITOB), representing hotel employers and investors, and the Turkish Cypriot Travel Agencies Association (KITSAB), representing the travel agencies in the country. Both KITOB and KITSAB were actively consulted for the development and planning of tourism in the Tourism Advisory and Sub-Advisory Committees. For years, the two associations had lobbied the Ministry of Tourism to prepare a tourism master plan and create a platform on which they themselves could stand. With the successful acceptance of their demands, it was apparent that they began to play a more active role in the tourism planning and development of the country. However, during the Advisory Committee Meetings they particularly drew attention to tourism promotion and marketing, so focusing on their own problems and marketing – while discussing environmental plans and other specific areas of interest in tourism. The priority to maintain the North Cyprus’s unspoiled nature and its historical and cultural beauty, which both associations included in

352

M. Yasarata et al. / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 345–356

their publications, was not observed to go beyond rhetoric. Their emphasis was on how much money was required to attract a certain number of tourists – with a central market-led approach rather than an approach that sought a sustainable optimum number of tourists. On one hand, it can be stated that the formation of the Tourism Advisory Committee and its Sub-Advisory Committee, as observed in action, represented a watershed in the planning process in North Cyprus. On the other hand, one informant from a major hotel association commented that: ‘For years, tourism has been made into a patchwork and neglected ministry. Following this negligence, it was affiliated under the Ministry of State and the Deputy Prime Ministry. Subsequently, the situation deteriorated even more due to economic disorder. In spite of its importance, tourism was dealt with only at ‘undersecretary’ level, and also became the victim of political instability in the coalition government period, reflecting the economy in general. Tourism was almost on the verge of disappearing. Looking at the available data, the inescapable conclusion is that tourism (became) a tool for politicians’ benefits.’ The political culture does not change quickly, but at least the committees involved the various stakeholders. The collaborative planning process described by Getz (1987) and others, that aims for the participation of key stakeholders in tourism planning, began to be applied in pre and post-planning, as well as during the planning process itself. The most important purpose, within the meetings, was to inform all people living in the island about the decisions taken and to obtain opinions and ideas, thus initiating a collaborative, participative process in implementing the policies in the ongoing tourism plan. In initiating the Tourism Advisory Committee and Sub-Advisory Committees, participation and consensus were initiated in order to implement the policies in the Tourism Development Plan (TRNC SM & DPM, 1998, 1999, 2000). In general, the practices of these committees received a positive response from all stakeholders, including hotel owners, agencies, restaurant owners, associations related to those, government officials and NGOs. The decisions taken based on participation and consensus principles were transferred to ‘action plan programmes.’ As a result, a tourism policy, within the TDP and Strategic Plan, was aimed at promoting the preservation of the natural environment and human heritage of the country and development of cultural activities. It was agreed that sustainable tourism principles would be used to guide all types of tourism development, and would be aimed at producing sustainable tourism policies. These would depend upon collaborative planning among participants that integrated heritage-based tourism, cultural tourism and agro tourism alongside the sun, sea and sand tourism (TRNC SM & DPM, 1998, 1999, 2000). ‘We have an advantage of not being overdeveloped, and our natural resources have not been spoiled like other small islands in the Mediterranean; especially we have learned from the mistakes of our neighbour [South Cyprus], our endeavours [in Tourism Development Plan, Advisory Committees] have been directed towards producing policies based on plans and programmes with a participatory understanding. Our North Cyprus tourism vision, in a general description, is ‘sustainable and quality tourism’ and for this prevailing understanding is conserve rather than exhaust, total quality rather than shoddy products.’ This provides a positive final picture despite the political power struggle behind planning that also emerges from a more historic consideration of the North Cyprus case.

5.2. Peripheral influencers 5.2.1. Publicly owned business This section considers just one public organisation that was actively involved in the tourism sector in the TRNC: the Vakif Trust KTTI Ltd. – a company established in November 1974 to reactivate tourism facilities in North Cyprus, and to run and maintain the existing hotels. In 1974, 43% of the total bed capacity (1492 beds out of 3488 total bed capacity) in North Cyprus was under the control of this company (SPO, 1996). For many years, the hotels belonging to the company were either rented or sold to the private sector as part of the private sector encouragement and the government’s privatisation policy. This was not the case, though, for the Mare Monte Hotel, with 188 beds. There were two reasons for such non-privatisation: first, a high number of local workers were employed there, and second, two ministers from the governing party possessed a large vote potential in the region where it was located. Local organisations told the government that the people working in the hotel, local inhabitants of the area would not vote for them at the coming elections. Consequently, the privatisation of the hotel was prevented through pressure on the central political power. Local people said that the reason for the demand to stay in the public sector was that workers of government-owned hotels were paid more and had better social security compared with those employed in private sector hotels. Indeed, with regard to the Mare Monte Hotel and other cases, it became clear from listening to informants and from participant observation within the community that the political culture of North Cyprus had allowed politicians to make rules and regulations in such a way as to be to their own benefit. As stated by an informant: ‘politicians in this country want the public to appeal to them for support even for the smallest things just because they like local people to say that ‘I was not able to do it without that minister’s or that parliamentarian’s help.’ Politicians think that in this way they can increase the number of their votes. This is true; I myself saw citizens voting by getting little help from a politician.’ In relation to this problem, another informant stated that: ‘This country is governed by the philosophy of the job for the man, not the man for the job.’ The officials, NGOs, hotel owners (and travel agencies and other tourism organisations) and citizens blame this political system for the difficulty in applying policies based on sustainable development principles, and for not solving many problems, including the lack of political recognition of the country. As one official stated: ‘We are asked to formulate and implement policy and planning by politicians. This includes the sustainable development policies that we have formed in the development plans. However, we do not make the final decision. In reality, the final decision making is political and the implementation of the policies and plans are done by politicians and not by us.’ Many of the problems in carrying out the plans and the delays in their implementation stem from political disputes and political benefits – and from political pressure on the people in charge, According to an informant who specifically indicated that it was difficult to apply the concept of sustainability within the North Cyprus political context: ‘I was appointed in 1989 and have remained in office for 10 years without being changed, the only director in this country not to be so. I do not get involved in party politics much; I am a technical man, only working in planning and implementation. If the new government replaces me, a new person will be appointed. Naturally he will not know much about planning, and so there

M. Yasarata et al. / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 345–356

will be problems. When I look at the other departments, I can see that the longest serving directors have been in service for 2 years at the most. You cannot come across anyone who has worked there for 4 years. It is it not easy to get trained and experienced as a director. If such a director is changed, there will be problems, not only in implementation of plans or policies but also in the whole department, and in all the other ministry departments involved in coordination and cooperation.’ It is obvious that the preparation and implementation of tourism plans and policies must be freed from the influence of politicians. If a generalisation is made at this point, in order to implement and to apply sustainable tourism policies in any small-island state, it is necessary to consider and question the relationship between policies and politics. 5.2.2. Non-governmental organizations Interviews with a selection of NGO leaders revealed that NGOs were also confronted with limitations of technical and financial resources. In addition, it was observed that the NGOs in the TRNC were restricted in their participation in the decision-making and implementation process of government planning practices. EPP&SCR (1999:43) reported that only 3% of the 897 organisations, associations and foundations in the TRNC were involved with the environment: The North Cyprus Society for Turtle Protection (NCSTP), the Society for International Development (SID), the Green Peace Movement (GPM), the Lefke Society of Environment and Publicity, the Society of Environmental Conservation, the Society of Pro-Action, the Chamber of Turkish-Cypriot Engineers and Architects, the National Preservation Trust, the Chamber of Town Planners and the North Cyprus Society for Bird Protection (KUSKOR). In general, the environmental NGOs may be said to be successful in raising issues related to pollution, the use of the coasts, birds, turtles, metal waste, and the use of agricultural chemicals. Unfortunately, however, their contribution and influence could only be verbal and they had no active role in the decision-making process. As one informant stated ‘.we are seen as a threat for politicians to their ruling power.’ Therefore, NGOs’ achievements were restricted – for example, they reacted to external decisions. It was evident that both the publicly owned businesses and the NGOs lacked political clout to have any major influence on sustainable planning and development, their concerns being on far more local issues of employment at individual establishments or concern over a particular issue. In a sense, the attitude emanating from can be characterised as fatalistic and powerlessness.

353

6. Discussion The findings suggest that in order to understand the tourism policy and planning processes (especially in the present case, environmental and sustainability aspects), it is necessary to contextualise and problematize them in the political system and power structure of society as a whole. Policy and planning in practice is the product of political influence. Hence, it is claimed that politicians adopt a system of management based on their own values and on a policy that makes it possible for their party to survive or to stay in power. As soon as the ruling political party changes, the new party gives priority to its own ideals, ignoring the policy of the preceding one. What is more, it changes not only the Undersecretary, which is merely a political position, but also all the officials at the top and lower level management, thus replacing them (to quote the officials themselves) with ‘people supporting their own party’. This, of course, creates doubt concerning how tourism plans and policies can be developed and implemented in SIDS that have such a kind of political culture. Fig. 1 illustrates the inverse relationship between the planning process and the pressures that shape it. Also seen in Fig. 1 is the idea of the peripheral actors, NGOs, citizens, consumer groups and so on as ‘the missing elements.’ Fig. 1, provides a general schema for the ways in which there is almost a hierarchy of decisions characterised by a range of influences. In the case of TRNC, it can be seen that personal interests (especially in the form of ego-politics) have shaped development to a greater extent than public debates about sustainability and its virtues in tourism development in North Cyprus. Fig. 2 shows how the range of peripheral potential influencers ends up in a melting pot of ideas that is, in the case of TRNC, inevitably mediated by politicians pursuing their own interests. For example, in the case of the Alagadi special protected area, plans to restrict development in the area provoked considerable local protest. People affected included those who had sought and in some cases gained permission to build in the area and who then found themselves unable to do so. Popular attitudes emerged which seemed to run counter to the doctrines of sustainable tourism development theory. Here again is an example of private interests challenging public orthodoxies about sustainability. It is perhaps not enough for policy makers to follow the ideas of scholars in the field and expect these to be put into practice in some quasi-magical way. The academic debates need to be placed within the day-to-day realities of, in this case, North Cyprus politics, economics and society. Therefore, the chances of sustainable tourism development principles holding sway in North Cyprus will only

Fig. 1. Tourism planning inter-relationships: the vicious spiral.

354

M. Yasarata et al. / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 345–356

agents and tour operators) and the planners who are necessarily an arm of the political establishment. Moreover, it is increasingly difficult for the planners to adopt a non-partisan approach to tourism. The nature of tourism development in a microstate such as North Cyprus is that it engenders political conflict and debate between different interest groups, one of these being the state itself. Sustainable tourism development is an approach that is considerably easier to describe in the coolness of academic debate than in the heat of the day-to-day demands of the political economy of a small-island state. 7. Conclusions

Fig. 2. Sublimation of wider needs under political ambitions.

improve with three conditions. First, tourism development should to be beneficial to a wide spectrum of actors – particularly those with urgent and immediate needs, and especially as regards to employment opportunities for local people. Secondly, there should be a thriving and independent set of civil institutions, able and willing to provide a platform for voices in favour of conservation and long-term protection of the environment. Finally, there should be a long-term and thoroughgoing programme of public education in sustainable tourism development. All of this is underpinned by one theme that is insistent (even if sometimes implied) throughout the study: tourism development in North Cyprus is highly political. There is, of course, no surprise here. In many respects North Cyprus shares with other Mediterranean island destinations and SIDS more widely the idea that tourism development is a factor of considerable political importance. All political parties in North Cyprus are (necessarily) linked to the politics of tourism development and that support groups are ‘rewarded’ with planning permissions, rezoning, and other freedoms to develop tourism without a careful eye on long-term sustainability. The political nature of tourism planning clearly emerges in the emphasis placed in recent Master Plans to ’special interest’ tourism – as opposed to ’mass’ tourism. The issue has several interlocking dimensions to it and derives in part from the relationship between North Cyprus and South Cyprus. Since 1974 there has been gradual development in North Cyprus – including tourism development. South Cyprus, by contrast, has experienced wave upon wave of development throughout the 1970s, 80s, 90s and into the 21st century such that practically the entire coastline has become one continuous line of development – a ribbon of concrete one might say. Faced with the mass tourism of South Cyprus, tourism specialists (including those who contributed to the Tourism Master Plan) and tourism authorities in North Cyprus are strongly disposed to adopt plans for ’special interest’ tourism. Such tourism would be accommodated within relatively low intensity, environmentally sensitive urban and rural landscapes. It would be distinguished sharply in tourist minds with the type of tourism in South Cyprus. This would give North Cyprus a market advantage in the sense that competition between the two parts of the island would not be based on price alone. But it is hardly surprising that this issue polarises elements of the private sector (especially hoteliers, travel

This paper has demonstrated how political obstacles (including ego-driven politics) can inhibit both the formulation and implementation of sustainable tourism development in SIDS. There are a number of overarching conclusions to be drawn from the case of TRNC that have wider implications for planning and implementation of tourism planning and implementation in similar destinations. First, much of the literature on sustainable tourism and sustainable tourism planning suffers from being too removed from the real world of local concerns – especially those of ordinary citizens who are not part of a political elite or with the oftentimes middle class agenda expressed through NGO activity. The research findings and their discussions provide additional insights into the importance of how political obstacles can inhibit and shape tourism development in SIDs. Second, as illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2, the whole notion of sustainable tourism (with all the economic and financial implications) is a political football involving groups with divergent economic interests – and state authorities that are associated, however discretely, with particular political interests. Third (linked very strongly to the first), the use in the tourism planning literature of the term ‘community’ is often misleading and naı¨ve. This is not the only work that has looked at tourism planning processes and concluded that the term community is a weak one. But, the often-smooth connection made in the literature between something described as ’community involvement’ and sustainable tourism is too simple. As mentioned earlier, peasant farmers and villagers in the Alagadi special protected area were ill disposed to ideas of sustainable tourism – largely because protective status made it impossible for people to build and develop property and, by so doing, to make money. The view, sometimes implied in the literature, is that issues of sustainability revolve around conflicts of interest between rich investors and developers wanting to get richer – and poor locals wishing to develop agriculture and alternative styles of development – is shown to be somewhat simplistic. Fourth, planners cannot really do without a thoroughgoing study of, and involvement with, the social, economic and political context in which planning is carried out. In ways outlined earlier in the article planners need to engage with a wide spectrum of fields. These include the social and educational as well as the political. Planning for sustainable tourism is not merely a technical matter. Planners, policy makers and academics first need to understand past and current issues and developments, power structure and culture in the governance of a destination in order to develop and implement plans and policies successfully. By doing this, they may be able to find ways and means to change and manipulate the power structure, culture and key actors so that sustainable tourism development and implementation can be viable. The focus of this article has been on the practices and principles of sustainable tourism development in North Cyprus although it is axiomatic that the study contains general lessons on sustainable tourism development in other SIDS with MIRAB economies. But the specific focus of the paper is with the relationship between the concepts and ideas of sustainable tourism development and the

M. Yasarata et al. / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 345–356

ways in which these are put into practice in North Cyprus – so involving a political dimension. But much of the literature has been found to be prescriptive theories about tourism development suffer from a tendency to be removed from the day-to-day realities and contexts in which planning and policy are made and implemented on the ground. The ‘intervention of politics’ and the ‘politicisation of the public sector’ at all levels were the main reasons given by many informants for unresolved issues – the reason why many policy and planning practices could not be implemented in North Cyprus. For the majority of informants, elected politicians (who are fundamentally concerned with remaining in power) are interested in capturing favoured status in the distribution of resources in society. In order to do so they consciously seek to provide benefits to a range of interests they believe will help them retain office. They systematically favour certain interests over others – and they maximise their returns from the allocation of public expenditure, goods and services as a way of attracting and rewarding supporters. In short, elected politicians (as well as appointed officials) seek to use public resources to stay in power, where the resources of the state become an instrument for survival. Evidence presented above clearly suggests that people have built up views/attitudes in which tourism investments and environmental conservation are contrary to each other. They do not have a clear understanding that planning, environmental conservation, economic growth, and social development can concurrently be achieved. So, what is the response to the evidence from the findings? Three things are suggested. The first is that tourism development needs demonstrably, and at every stage of the process, to bring benefits not only to the investors but the widest possible range of actors whose lives are touched by it. The second is the need to encourage and promote a lively, critical, powerful and independent set of civil institutions (some of them dedicated to planning and conservation issues) whose function it is to provide a voice for those concerned with conservation. The third is that there should be a thorough programme of public awareness – at all levels from formal primary education through to tertiary education and beyond – on the benefits of sustainable tourism planning. Each of the above suggested strategies is equally important. If one of them does not exist, the implementation of sustainable tourism development in SIDs may not be possible. It can be argued that this case study reveals a number of features that does not only lend empirical support but also provides additional insights into the body of work (Hall, 1994, 2000; Hall & Jenkins, 1995) that highlights the inter-connectedness of politics and tourism. It became apparent that the development and implementation of sustainable tourism requires new ways of thinking; an approach which incorporates political processes, ideologies and cultures underpinning and central to tourism planning and development. Understanding the political ideologies, cultures and practices helps to determine the prominence given to tourism in planning, resource allocation, decision-making and implementation. It is hoped that this study illuminates both external and internal political challenges which could be faced by SIDs and highlight the options that other destinations in a similar position may consider as part of their approach to sustainable tourism development. Appendix I. Interview Questions  What is the role of tourism planning in sustainable tourism development on the island?  Who is involved in tourism planning? What are their roles?  How do they develop plans to support sustainable tourism policies?  Who and which aspects promote the development of plans?  Who and which aspects present obstacles?

355

 How were the obstacles in planning overcome?  What are the barriers in front of the implementation of sustainable tourism policies/plans once they are developed?  What are the implications of politics and power struggle among different stakeholder groups for tourism planning and development?

References Alipour, H., & Kilic, H. (2005). An institutional appraisal of tourism development and planning: the case of the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus (TRNC). Tourism Management, 26(1), 79–94. Altinay, L. (2000). Possible impacts of a federal solution to the Cyprus problem on the tourism industry of North Cyprus. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 19, 295–309. Altinay, L., Altinay, M., & Bicak, H. A. (2002). Political scenarios: the future of the North Cyprus tourism industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 14, 176–182. Altinay, L., & Bowen, D. (2006). Politics and tourism interface: the case of Cyprus. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(4), 939–956. Altinay, L., Var, T., Hines, S., & Hussain, K. (2007). Barriers to sustainable tourism development in Jamaica. Tourism Analysis, 12(3), 1–13. Andronikou, A. (1979). Tourism in Cyprus. In de Kadt. (Ed.), Tourism: Passport to development ? (pp. 237–263). New York: Oxford University Press. Andronikou, A. (1987). Development of tourism in Cyprus: Harmonization of tourism with the environment. Nicosia: Cosmos. Baud-Bovy, M. (1982). New concepts in planning for tourism and recreation. Tourism Management, 3, 308–313. Brundtland, G. (1987). Our common future [‘The Brundtland report’]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burns, P. (1999). Paradoxes in planning: tourism elitism or brutalism? Annals of Tourism Research, 26(2), 329–349. Burns, P. (2004). Tourism planning: a third way. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(1), 24–43. Burns, P. (2008). Tourism, political discourse and post-colonialism. Tourism and Hospitality: Panning & Development, 6(1), 61–73. Burns, P., & Holden, A. (1995). Tourism: A new perspective. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice. Burns, P., & Novelli, M. (2008). Tourism development: Growth, myths and inequalities. Wallingford: CAB. Choi, H. C., & Sirakaya, E. (2006). Sustainable indicators for managing community tourism. Tourism Management, 27, 1274–1289. Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. EIU (Economic Intelligence Unit). (1995). Country profile: Cyprus and Malta. London: The Economic Intelligence Unit. EIU (Economic Intelligence Unit). (2007, March). The political scene: Greek Cypriots under pressure over north Cyprus. Country Report Cyprus. EPP&SCR (Environment, Physical Planning and Settlement Commission Report). _ _ ¨ zel Ihtisas ¨rdu ¨ ncu ¨ Bes¸ Yıllık (1999). Çevre, Fizik Planlama ve Iskan O Raporu: Do Kalkınma Çalıs¸ maları (2000–2004). [Environment, physical planning and special settlement commission report: Fourth year development plan (2000–2004)]. Nicosia: The Department of Town Planning. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books. Getz, D.. (1987). Tourism planning and research: traditions, models and futures. In Proceedings of the Australian travel Workshop, pp. 4077–448, Bunbury, Western Australia: Australian Travel Workshop. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity. Gossling, S. (Ed.). (2003). Tourism and development in Tropical Islands. Political ecology perspectives. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Gunn, C. (1977). Industry pragmatism vs tourism planning. Leisure Sciences, 1(1), 85–94. Hall, C. M. (1994). Tourism and politics: Policy, power and place. London: Belhaven Press. Hall, C. M. (2000). Tourism planning: Policies, processes and relationships. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd. Hall, C. M., & Jenkins, J. M. (1995). Tourism and public policy. London: Routledge. Hemmington, N. (1999). Sampling. In B. Brotherton (Ed.), The handbook of contemporary hospitality management research. New York, NY: Wiley. Inskeep, E. (1991). Tourism planning. New York: Wiley. Ioannides, D. (1992). Tourism development agents: the Cypriot resort cycle. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(4), 711–731. Ioannides, D., Apostolopoulos, Y., & Sonmez, S. (2001). Mediterranean Islands and sustainable tourism development: Practices, management and policies. London/ New York: Continuum. de Kadt, E. (Ed.). (1979a). Tourism: Passport to development? New York: OUP. de Kadt, E. (1979b). Social planning for tourism in the development countries. Annals of Tourism Research, 6, 36–48. Liu, A., & Wall, G. (2006). Planning tourism employment: a developing country perspective. Tourism Management, 27, 159–170.

356

M. Yasarata et al. / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 345–356

Lockhart, D. (1994). Tourism in Northern Cyprus: patterns, policies and prospects. Tourism Management, 15(5), 370–400. Lockhart, D. (1997). Tourism to Malta and Cyprus, Island tourism: trends and prospects. In D. G. Lockhart, & Drakakis-Smith. (Eds.), Island tourism: Trends and prospects (pp. 152–178). London: Routledge. Lockhart, D., Drakakis-Smith, D., & Schembri, J. (1993). The development process in small Island states. London: Routlege. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage. Milne, S. (1992). Tourism and development in South Pacific island microstates. Annals of Tourism Research, 19(2), 191–212. Ministry of Economics and Tourism. (2007). Statistical Yearbook of tourism 2005. Tourism Planning Office, TRNC. Ministry of Economics and Tourism. (2008). Statistical Yearbook of tourism 2007. Tourism Planning Office, TRNC. Ministry of Economics and Tourism. (2009). Statistical yearbook of tourism 2008. Tourism Planning Office, TRNC. NCSR. (2000). Money laundering and financial crimes. International Narcotics control strategy report. Washington, DC: US Department of State. Okumus, F., Altinay, M., & Arasli, H. (2005). The impact of Turkey’s economic crisis of February 2001 on the tourism industry in Northern Cyprus. Tourism Management, 26(1), 95–104. Okumus, F., Altinay, L., & Roper, A. (2007). Gaining access into organizations for qualitative research. Annals of Tourism Research, 34(1), 4–26. Okumus, F., & Karamustafa, K. (2005). Impact of an economic crisis: evidence from Turkey. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), 942–961. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2003). Research methods for business studies (3rd ed.). Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall. Scottish Enterprise. (2003). Snapshots from the Future. A look at current trends that are shaping the future of tourism. Report by the Henley Centre for Scottish Enterprise. Shamsul-Haque, M. (2007). Theory and practice of public administration in Southeast Asia: traditions, directions, and impacts. International Journal of Public Administration, 30, 1297–1326. SPO (STATE PLANNING ORGANISATION). (1996). Third year development plan (1993–1997) and 1996 year transition programme. The TRNC. Nicosia: The Government Printing Office.

SPO (STATE PLANNING ORGANISATION). (2007). Third year development plan (2003–2006). The TRNC. Nicosia: The Government Printing Office. Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Stephen, M. (1997). The Cyprus question. London: The British-Northern Cyprus Parliamentary Group (of Members of both Houses of the United Kingdom Parliament of All Political Parties). Storrs, R. (1930). A Chronology of Cyprus. Nicosia: Government Printing Office. Strange, S. (1994). States and markets (2nd ed.). London: Pinter. Tosun, C. (2000). Limits to community participation in the tourism development process in developing countries. Tourism Management, 21, 613–633. Tosun, C., & Jenkins, C. L. (1998). The evolution of tourism planning in third-world countries: a critique. Progress in Tourism and Hospitality Research, 4, 101–114. Tosun, C., & Timothy, J. D. (2001). Shortcomings to planning approaches to tourism development in developing countries: the case of Turkey. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13(7), 352–359. TRNC SM&DPM (TRNC STATE MINISTRY and Deputy PRIME MINISTRY). (1998). ¨ niversitesitesi’nin KKTC Devlet ve Bas¸ bakan Yardımcılıg˘ı için Hazırladıg˘ı Bog˘aziçi U KKTC Turizm Gelis¸ im Planı (Turizm master Planı)(TRNC tourism development plan (Tourism master plan) report to SM&DPM prepared by Bog˘aziçi University). Lefkos¸a: Tourism Ministry. TRNC SM&DPM. (1999). KKTC Turizm Gelis¸ im Planı. [The TRNC tourism development plan]. Nicosia: The State Ministry, Tourism Ministry and Deputy Prime Ministry. TRNC SM&DPM. (2000). 2000 Yılı Turizm Stratejik Planlaması. [The Year 2000 tourism strategic planning]. Nicosia: The State Ministry, Tourism Ministry and Deputy Prime Ministry. UNWTO (World Tourism Organisation). (1980). Physical planning and area development for tourism in the six WTO region. Madrid: WTO. Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Watters, R. (1984). The village mode of production in MIRAB economies. Pacific Viewpoint, 25(2), 218–223. Witt, F. S. (1991). Tourism in Cyprus: balancing the benefits and costs. Tourism Management, 3(2), 37–46. Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage.