Tourism dilemmas for aboriginal Australians

ofTourism Research, Vol. Printed

in the USA.

16, pp 456-476, All rights reserved.

1989 Copyright

0160.73&89 $3.00 + .OO @ 1989 Pergamon Press plc ayd J. Jafari

TOURISM DILEMMAS FOR ABORIGINAL AUSTRALIANS Australian

National

Jon Altman University, Australia

Abstract: Tourism is regarded by policymakers as a leading sector for the economic development of north Australia. Several key destinations in the Northern Territory are located on Aboriginal land and the culture is used to market the region. Tourism is frequently presented as the only option available to remote Aboriginal communities to both improve their marginal economic status and to reduce their high dependence on the welfare state. This paper, based on data collected at four locations, argues that while recent ownership of important destinations gives Aboriginal interests increased economic leverage, tourism will not provide an instant panacea. Economic, political, and sociocultural reasons for tourism’s limited development potential are discussed. Keywords: Australian Aborigines, tourist trade, development dilemmas, tourism policy, land rights. RCsumC: Les dilemmes du tourisme pour les Aborig&nes australiens. Le tourisme est considCrC par les politiciens comme un des secteurs de plus grand potentiel pour le dtveloppement &onomique de 1’Australie du nord. Plusieurs destinations importantes sont situkes dans le territoire Aborigkne, et la culture Aborigine est utiliste pour la promotion de cette rCgion. Le tourisme est souvent pr&ent& comme la seule possibilit5 qui soit h la disposition de ces communaut& Aborig&nes pour amCliorer leur situation &onomique marginale et pour rkduire leur dkpendance de l’Etat-providence. Le p&sent article, bask sur des donnkes obtenues dans quatre localit&, soutient que le tourisme ne reprksente pas un rem&de instantant, bien que les droits de possession de destinations importantes r&emment reconnus donnent des possibilit& &onomiques aux interets des Aborigknes. Les raisons &zonomiques, politiques et socio-culturelles pour le potentiel limit6 du tourisme sont discutCes. Mots cl&: Aborig&nes australiens, affaires de tourisme, dillemmes de d&eloppement, politique de tourisme, titres de possession de terrain.

INTRODUCTION Aborigines in north Australia are experiencing increasing pressures from government and business interests to participate in the tourism industry. Tourism is seen by policy makers as a likely leading sector of northern regional development. The private sector regards Aboriginal involvement in tourism as an important component of the industry. Jon Altman is senior research fellow (Department of Political and Social Change, Australian National University, GPO Box 4, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia). His academic background is in economics and anthropology. He has undertaken extensive research on contemporary hunter-gatherer economies and on the effects of mining and tourism on Aboriginal communities in north Australia. 456

,

457

JON ALTMAN

Even Aboriginal leaders, having watched while profitable commercial enterprises have been established in the north, are keen to utilize the growing tourism sector to improve the economic status and political power of their people. Many Aboriginal people wish to gain financial benefit from tourism; and like indigenous minorities in other parts of the world, they would like to minimize associated social and cultural costs. The focus here is on the interaction between Aboriginal people and tourism in four locations in the Northern Territory (NT) of Australia. The case studies vary from the high visitor destinations of Kakadu and Uluru National Parks to the low visitor destinations of Melville and Bathurst Islands and Gurig National Park (Figure 1). Fieldwork on which this research is based was conducted primarily during the period April to September 1986. Three specific questions are raised. Will involvement in the tourism industry result in improved Aboriginal economic status? Will such involvement allow Aboriginal interests to minimize the social, cultural, and economic costs of tourism? Finally, can Aboriginal interests use their property rights on Aboriginal land to totally insulate themselves from tourism? It must be stated at the outset that there are no straightforward answers to these questions. This paper provides empirical data to facilitate informed debate. Its emphasis is on a comparative perspective rather than an in-depth analysis of the social, cultural, and economic impacts of tourism at any one location. The variations between these four cases alone suggest that each community has significantly different factors to consider in any assessment of the effects of tourism. POLITICAL

ECONOMY,

TOURISM,

AND ABORIGINES

Any discussion of Aborigines and tourism must be considered as a part of the NT political economy. The NT has many features that make it atypical of Australia. It covers a massive land area that totals 1.3 million square kilometers (over a sixth of the Australian continent) but has a small population, totaling 155,000 in the 1986 census. A significant feature of the NT polity, in Australian terms, is the importance of the Aboriginal population and the existence of federal land rights legislation that pre-dates self-government. Currently, Aboriginal people comprise 22% of the population and Aboriginal land, held under inalienable title, totals nearly half a million square kilometers or about 34% of the NT. Two significant features of the NT economy are its extremely narrow base (focused almost entirely on the public sector, mining, and primary industries) and its extremely high dependency on federal funding. These features can be put in both statistical and historical perspectives. A recent publication by the NT Treasury, Th Northern %ritory Economy (1987), notes that the public sector accounts for 25 % of Territory product and 40% of total employment. The next most significant sector is the production of minerals, oil, and gas that accounts for an estimated 18% of ‘Territory product and is the most important private industry. Tourism is identified as the Territory’s second largest, and fastest grow-

458

TOURISM DILEMMAS

1

L

Tennant Creek

a

Ma,or road Abor,g,"al

0

100

200

land

km

Figure 1. Case Study Locations in North Australia

ing industry, contributing 4.6% of Territory product. In 1986/87, 750,000 visitors traveled in the Territory (NT Treasury 1987:14-23). Gerritsen and Jaensch (1986: 147-49) provide a concise summary of the Territory political economy over the past decade. They note that throughout the 197Os, and into the early 198Os, the NT economy and population expanded rapidly. This economic growth was initially fueled by the reconstruction of Darwin after the 1975 cyclone, and then by extremely generous levels of Commonwealth funding negotiated in a

JON ALTMAN

459

Memorandum of Understanding in 1978. Commonwealth funding of the NT increased from $440 million in 1979/80 to $846 million in 1984/85. By 1986/87, it peaked at $978 million or $6300 per capita. (All monetary units in this article are Australian dollars.) This per capita figure was 4.3 times the average per capita Commonwealth grant to the states. Generous federal subvention of the NT since self-government has created standards of living and material aspirations that are artificially high, particularly in the predominantly non-Aboriginal urban electorates. In the late 198Os, as the fiscal squeeze on the Australian states has been extended to the NT, the Territory Government is discovering that the electorate is vehemently opposed to any measures that will reduce these standards. A high proportion of the population are interstate migrants who have moved to the NT for employment and economic betterment. Consequently, one finds that there is bipartisan and, at times, unquestioning adherence to “developmentalism” in formal NT party politics and within the bureaucracy (Heatley 1986). The term developmentalism is used here to refer to unbridled economic growth. Because of tourism’s fast growth, there is increasing support for the rapid expansion of this industry in NT policy circles (Gerritsen and Jaensch 1986; Heatley 1986). The optimistic belief that tourism will become a leading economic sector and will provide a substitute for federal funds is fueled by tourism growth throughout Australia (Kennedy 1987). However, the industry faces major hurdles, primarily because the NT manufacturing sector is small and there are few linkages between tourism and the rest of the economy. As Gerritsen and Jaensch note: The tourist industry is the latest candidate for the Territory’s economic salvation. The total numbers of tourists are increasing, but the hopes that the Territory will become part of the international “high rollers” circuit appear misplaced (1986:150). Optimism about tant paradoxes.

the growth

of NT

tourism

also ignores

two impor-

Paradox I: Tourismj_Dependence on Aboriginal Land The NT only enjoys two distinct comparative advantages in the tourism arena: the environment and Aboriginal culture. These two areas correspond to what is termed “ethnic” and “environmental” tourism in the anthropology of tourism literature (Smith 1978:3). Interestingly, while Smith suggests that environmental tourism is often ancillary to ethnic tourism (1978:2), in the Northern Territory, it is ethnic tourism that is ancillary to environmental tourism. Aboriginal cultural tourism is a form of ethnic tourism, but it is not referred to as such because the term “ethnic” is generally associated in Australia with postwar migrants from southern Europe. The tourism industry recognizes its dependence on access to the environment. It is especially significant that the two most important tourist destinations, Kakadu and Uluru National Parks, are owned by

460

TOURISM

DILEMMAS

Aboriginal people. In recent years, there has also been a growing trend to market the NT on the basis of the uniqueness of its Aboriginal heritage and of the vitality of contemporary Aboriginal culture. The Northern Territory Tourist Commission is attempting to recruit Aboriginal individuals, and groups, to provide ethnic tourism for visitors. It is paradoxical that two of the NT’s main tourist destinations are not only owned by Aboriginal people, but are leased-back to, and run, by the federal Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service (ANPWS). F ur th ermore, while the NT Government vehemently opposes Aboriginal land rights and the running of some of its national parks by the federal government, it is dependent on Aboriginal interests if its developmentalist policies, at least in the tourism arena, are to be implemented. The articulations and cross-cutting cleavages between Aboriginal interests, the tourism industry, and formal Territory and federal political institutions and parties are complex and have been discussed elsewhere (Altman and Dillon 1988). Paradox 2: Development

tirsus Development&m

Aboriginal people are the NT’s permanent residents. They are primarily rural residents with a different cultural perspective from mainstream Territorians about economic growth. Their different perspective is partly a result of the economic marginalization of Aboriginal people who have never enjoyed boom times, and partly because these people place a high value on the social and cultural costs frequently associated with economic growth. The relative poverty of Aboriginal people can be demonstrated with social indicators, despite the shortcomings of such measures (Altman 1987b). For example, in the 1986 Census of Population and Housing, the average income of Aboriginal individuals over the age of 15 was only 41% of that of the average non-Aboriginal in the NT. In 1986, about 25% of the Aboriginal population over 15 was formally employed, in contrast to 65 % of non-Aboriginals. It is frequently alleged that Aboriginal people are anti-development, and this view in itself is paradoxical because poor people are usually in favor of growth, especially when they own resources and are assured a share of the economic benefits. It would be more accurate to represent Aboriginal people, in particular those who are the owners and/or residents of Aboriginal land, as anti-developmentalism. In other words, they challenge implicit mainstream assumptions that “quality of life” issues will be given due consideration in calculations of progress. Aboriginal interests often consider development options in a context that includes social and cultural as well as economic components. In this broader perspective, development is not limited to issues like material expansion, increased cash income, and high formal employment, but also involves social and cultural issues, the potential for increased political power, and the possibility of widened future options. This perspective on development on Aboriginal land is given political expression by Aboriginal land councils. Land councils are statutory bodies created by the Land Rights Act and their functions include the responsibility to represent the interests of traditional Aboriginal owners

JON ALTMAN

461

of land with respect to any commercial development on that land. It has been argued elsewhere that Aboriginal people who are owners and residents of Aboriginal land have no natural political party with which to affiliate in the NT polity and that land councils are becoming paragovernmental institutions (Altman and Dillon 1988). Increasingly, land councils are addressing issues related to the development of Aboriginal land and broader Aboriginal economic and political aspirations, but they cannot operate as developmentalist institutions, because there is a great heterogeneity in their “constituencies.” Land councils are required to act as intermediaries between tourist developers and Aboriginal land owners, but the law also requires that they ascertain and express the wishes of Aboriginal people with respect to the management of Aboriginal land (s.23 of the Land Rights Act). The implication of these two paradoxes is that if Aboriginal statutory rights to land remain unaltered, and if tourism continues to grow at current rates, then Aboriginal land owners, and their political institutions, will hold an increasingly powerful position in the NT political economy. THE

CASE

STUDIES:

AN OVERVIEW

Four cases are examined in this paper. Similar to most communities studied in anthropology, there is nothing random in the selection of these cases. Indeed it is their differences that make them especially interesting and allows a tentative leap from particular to general conclusions. The four cases are Uluru National Park, Kakadu National Park, Gurig National Park, and Melville and Bathurst Islands. A brief introduction to each is provided, emphasizing features salient to tourism. Uluru National Park Uluru National Park was originally proclaimed as the Ayers RockMount Olga National Park in 1958. It was vested in Aboriginal ownership in October 1985, after a prolonged political struggle, with the passage of the Aboriginal Land Rig&s (Northern Territory)Amendment Act, 198.5. The period of 1958 to 1985 has a complex history that is covered in some detail elsewhere (ANPWS 1986a; Central Land Council et al. 1987). A condition of the 1985 land grant was that the national park be leased back to the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. The area of the Park is 1,325 square kilometers; it is surrounded by Aboriginal land except for an enclave of some 104 square kilometers north of the Park, excised for the Yulara township site in 1976. The Aboriginal population of the Park fluctuated between 120 and 151 in three censuses conducted between August 1985 and November 1986 (Altman 1987a, 1988). Tourism to Uluru has increased rapidly since 1958, the first year for which visitor statistics are available. In that year, 2,296 people visited Ayers Rock; by 1987 it was estimated by the Yulara Corporation that there were over 200,000 visitors. An important impetus to tourism has been the decentralization of accommodation facilities out of the Park to

462

TOURISM

DILEMMAS

the tourist village at Yulara some 25 kilometers from Ayers Rock. This township, established as a tourist center, was completed in 1984 at a cost of about $200 million. The township has a resident white population of about 500. While Uluru National Park is now managed on a day-to-day basis by the ANPWS, policy is formulated by a board of management (the Uluru-Kata Tjuta Board) with an Aboriginal majority. This means that while the Park has been leased back to ANPWS for 99 years, decisions about visitor use of the Park are determined by the Board. However, the NT Government and private sector interests own and control Yulara where almost all tourist facilities are located. This gives them economic control of regional tourism. Kakadu National Park Stage 1 of Kakadu National Park was proclaimed in 1979 and covers an area of some 6,144 square kilometers, almost all of which is Aboriginal land. The establishment of this national park was linked to the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry and a land claim by traditional Aboriginal owners. Stage 2 was proclaimed in 1984 and covers an area of some 6,929 square kilometers (only 8% of Stage 2 is Aboriginal land). Stage 3 was proclaimed in 1987 and covers an area of 4,479 square kilometers. The emphasis here is on tourism in Stages 1 and 2. For a history of the Park’s growth see ANPWS (198613) and Gillespie (1988). The Aboriginal population of the Park region grew rapidly after 1979, as people with traditional affiliations returned to live in the area. A series of population surveys undertaken since 1982 reveal that the Park’s Aboriginal population has stabilized at between 260 and 280 (Altman 1988:186). This population is living at about 15 different communities in the Park. It is estimated that when the mining towns of Jabiru and Jabiru East are included in the count, Aboriginal people account for about 15% of the regional population. In 1986, 35% of the Aboriginal population in the region were members of the regional Gagudju Association (incorporated to receive mining royalties in 1979) and recognized traditional owners of the Park. The discussion of Kakadu National Park cannot be divorced from the establishment of the large Ranger uranium mine and the ancillary mining town at Jabiru. Of great significance from the Aboriginal perspective is the payment of mining royalty equivalents of about $3 million per annum to the Gagudju Association under ss.64(3) and 35(2) of the Land Rights Act (Altman 1983). As at Uluru, the granting of title to Aborigines over parts of Kakadu National Park was dependent on a lease-back agreement with ANPWS. However, at Kakadu there is no formal institutional structure (such as a board of management with an Aboriginal majority) to safeguard Aboriginal interests. Instead, these safeguards are provided by the Northern Land Council, which represents the interests of traditional owners, and by informal consultative processes. It is likely that a formal board, with an Aboriginal majority, will be established at Kakadu soon (ANPWS 1986b: 12).

JON ALTMAN

463

In the period 1982 to 1987, visitor numbers at Kakadu have increased fourfold from 45,800 to 195,000 (Gillespie 1988). Growth has been linked to improved facilities in the region (resulting from ANPWS expenditure and improved transport links associated with the Ranger mine) and to the World Heritage listing of Stage 1 in 1981 and Stage 2 in 1987. In 1986, about 129,000 visitors came to Kakadu National Park. Gurig National Park

Gurig National Park is located on the Cobourg Peninsula, some 200 kilometers by air or 570 kilometers by road from Darwin. The Park occupies 2,207 square kilometers. In 1924, the Peninsula was declared a Flora and Fauna Reserve and in 1964 it became a Wildlife Sanctuary. In 1978, prior to NT self-government, a land claim was lodged over the Peninsula. Subsequently, this claim was resolved by negotiation between the NT Government and the Northern Land Council acting on behalf of traditional owners. The regional history of the area is discussed by Peterson and Tonkinson (1979) and the Conservation Commission of the NT (CCNT 1987). The passage of the Cobourg Peninsula Aboriginal Land and Sanctuary Act, 1981 embedded this agreement in legislation. The Cobourg Act vests ownership of the Peninsula in the Cobourg Peninsula Sanctuary Land Trust in perpetuity, but the Peninsula was also simultaneously established as a national park leased by the NT Government from traditional owners. The Cobourg Act is complex, not least because it attempts to combine many of the institutional structures created by the federal Land Rights Act with Territory legislation. It is administered by the Cobourg Board that has an Aboriginal majority, but is run on a day-today basis by the Conservation Commission, the NT parks authority. Since 198 1, the park has been called Gurig National Park in accordance with wishes of traditional owners. Peterson and Tonkinson (1979:31) estimate that the pre-contact Aboriginal population of the Peninsula was about 200-250. In 1979, when the claim book was prepared, only 48 claimants were identified for the Peninsula. Since 1982, the Aboriginal population of Gurig has numbered between 40 and 50 persons residing at five locations within the Park (Altman 1988; CCNT 1987). Data on visitor numbers are limited, but visitation is small scale. Since 1931, permits have been required to enter the region overland (as access was via the Arnhem Land Aboriginal Reserve); and from 1964, permits have also been required to enter the sanctuary. Permit records indicate that in 1978, 3 17 visitors came to Gurig and that by 1986 this number had grown to 1,347. The rate of growth has been similar to Kakadu, but from a minuscule base. Melville and Bathurst Islands

Melville and Bathurst Islands are located 80 kilometers directly north of Darwin and are cut off from the mainland by the Clarence Strait. Melville has a land area of some 5,700 square kilometers, while

464

TOURISM

DILEMMAS

Bathurst has an area of some 2,070 square kilometers. The Islands are the home of the Tiwi people, a linguistically homogeneous group that numbers about 1,650 persons. Melville and Bathurst Islands are held under inalienable Aboriginal title. Under the Land Rights Act, they were automatically transferred to Aboriginal ownership, because they were schedule 1 (Aboriginal reserve) lands before 1977. An important difference between this case and Uluru and Kakadu is that tourist visitation to the Islands has always required a permit. Access to the Islands has never been unrestricted, because the Islands were never totally alienated from Aboriginal ownership. As traditional owners, the Tiwi people have absolute control over tourist development. Their interests are represented by the Tiwi Land Council, a pan-Islands institution that has statutory responsibility to administer Tiwi lands. There are three main Tiwi communities; Nguiu on Bathurst Island, and Milikapiti and Pularumpi on Melville. Their respective populations in 1986 were 1,008, 397, and 226 Aboriginal people. Tourist visitation to the Islands is limited. In 1981, the sole operator to the Islands, Tiwi Tours, carried 454 passengers on half-day, full-day, and some overnight camping tours. By 1986, visitor numbers had increased to about 2,000. During 1986 and 1987, a fishing lodge was established at Port Hurd on Bathurst and a small tourist camp at Putjamirra on Melville. In 1987, 3,500 visitors are estimated to have visited Melville and Bathurst Islands (Altman 1988). Commonalities and Differences In discussing the commonalities and differences between these four cases, it is important to distinguish the significant from the insignificant factors in tourism development. Table 1 provides a synoptic summary of the following factors: land tenure, tourism management, Aboriginal controls over tourism, nature of access, and nature of attraction.

Table 1. Synoptic

Table of Significant

Commonalities

Fart.or UlUr” Land Tenure Federal Land Rights Act NT legislation Lease-back arrangements Tourism Management Aboriginal Board/Council ANPWS CCNT Private wxtor Aboriginal Controls Veto of tourism No veto Permit system Nature of Acmes Sealed roads year around Seasonal roads Air Sea Nature of Frbnary Attraction Environment Aboriginal culture

Location KXdUldU

X

X

X

X

::

X

X

and Differences

X

Tiwi

G&g

x

X

X

X

X

X

X X X

X

X

::

:: X

X X

X

X

x

JON ALTMAN

465

The cases can be divided into two broad categories. In the cases of Uluru and Kakadu National Parks, ease of access and national and international recognition have resulted in a rapid growth in tourism and visitor numbers that are currently in excess of 200,000 per annum. While Aboriginal interests have a degree of leverage in these two locations, they have limited means to stop or reduce tourist visitation. The only option available is to limit access to parts of each park. There have been discussions about increasing entry fees at Uluru, and entry payments have recently (January 1989) been introduced at Kakadu (Gillespie 1988). However, in the current NT political environment, these charges cannot be used to limit tourist visitation. In these two cases Aboriginal interests have allied themselves with the federal government and have become entangled in federal versus NT antagonisms (Altman and Dillon 1988). Tourism at these two locations is imposed. The situation at Gurig and on the Tiwi Islands is somewhat different. Informed decisions can still be made because Aboriginal interests have far greater economic leverage. While a leaseback arrangement does exist at Gurig National Park, the historically low and restricted tourist visitation to Cobourg Peninsula provides more scope for control. At Melville and Bathurst Islands, permits are required to enter Aboriginal land and there is no overland access. At both, visitation rates are currently below 4,000 visitors per annum and tourism facilities are undeveloped. At these localities, tourism is invited rather than imposed. Available information suggests that the primary attraction of most locations is environmental. For example, in a questionnaire administered as part of a tourism study at Uluru, Central Land Council et al. (1987) found that 86% of respondents stated that they were visiting the Park to see the Rock. ANPWS (1986b:74) research at Kakadu suggests that visitor activities concentrate on appreciation of wildlife, landscapes, and rock art. Similar environmental attractions are listed by the as the recreational attractions of Gurig National CCNT (1987:86) Park. It is only at Melville and Bathurst Islands that ethnic tourism is of primary significance. ABORIGINAL

INVOLVEMENT

IN TOURISM

The empirical evidence presented below is by necessity of a summary nature. The emphasis is on Aboriginal involvement in employment, enterprises, manufacturing of artifacts, provision of hunting and ritual culture, and lease and sale of resources. Em+rical Evidence Employment. Tourism-related

employment is most evident at Uluru and Kakadu National Parks. At Uluru, two employment surveys were undertaken in May and November 1986. In the former, 29 Aborigines were employed by ANPWS and 3 by Maruku Arts and Crafts, a regional community-owned craft enterprise. In the latter, 10 were employed by the park service and 5 by Maruku. While these figures

466

TOURISM DILEMMAS

appear small, they represented 72 % and 47 % of jobs and 60 % and 48 % of employment income during the respective months. At Kakadu, in December 1986, of 58 Aborigines employed, 25 (or 43 %) worked with ANPWS and a further 6 (10%) with the Gagudju Association in tourism-related activities. Overall, at Kakadu, tourism related activities accounted for over half the jobs filled by Aboriginal people. ANPWS wages alone accounted for 26% of total cash income and 38 % of employment income. Enterprises. In 1986, Aboriginal people owned, or had a share in, tourism enterprises in both Kakadu and Uluru National Parks. At Kakadu, the Gagudju Association was outright owner of the Cooinda Hotel (established at a cost of over $5 million), Yellow Waters boat tours, the Coonjimba Hostel in Jabiru, the Border Store, and a small screen printing enterprise. Some of these enterprises were of a mixed nature. For example, the Border Store serviced tourist needs and those of Aboriginal communities. The Coonjimba Hostel provided accommodation for visitors to Kakadu as well as longer term Aboriginal residents. All Gagudju’s investments were financed from mining royalty equivalents received with respect to the Ranger uranium mine. Another regional royalty association, the Djabulukgu Association, had a onethird stake in the Kakadu Holiday Village whose majority owner was a white entrepreneur. At Uluru National Park, Aboriginal people owned Malpa Trading Company and Maruku Arts and Crafts. Both of these enterprises had retail branches (selling souvenirs, take-away foods, and artifacts) dealing almost exclusively with tourists. However, Malpa is also the local Aboriginal community store, and Maruku wholesales artifacts throughout Australia. At Gurig National Park Aboriginal people owned the local Gurig Store and some cabins that had been built for tourists, but neither had begun to operate in 1986. Sale of artifacts. Major artifact wholesale/retail operations were operating at Uluru National Park and at Bathurst Island in 1986. Maruku Arts and Crafts was established by the Mutitjulu community in 1984 to act as a wholesaler/retailer for Aboriginal people throughout the Pitjantjatjara lands in central Australia. Data collected for the period April 1985 to May 1986, revealed that 645 people in over twenty communities in the region earned nearly $150,000 from sales to Maruku. It is significant that the Maruku operation utilizes the locational advantage of being based within Uluru National Park to service a large region. Only 19% of Maruku payments were to local Mutitjulu residents, the rest went to regional producers. In 1984/85, Maruku’s turnover was about $100,000, but had grown to $225,000 by 1985186. Another interesting feature of this enterprise was that with the growth of tourism at Uluru, a higher proportion of turnover was sold locally, increasing from 39 % in 1984185 to 51% in 1985186 and 86% by the first half of 1986/87. This expansion of retail trade was associated with the establishment of an attractive craft camp (or cultural center), with traditional shelters and windbreaks, near Ayers Rock. Bathurst Island has a range of tourism enterprises that include Tiwi

JON ALTMAN

467

Pima Art, Tiwi Designs, Tiwi Pottery, and Bima Wear. These enterprises manufacture and market artifacts, cloth and garments screenprinted, with both Tiwi and modern designs, and distinctively Tiwi pottery. In 1984/85, the turnover of these four enterprises totaled about $316,000, with about 20% being sold directly to tourists who visited the Islands with Tiwi Tours. In 1986, sales to Tiwi Tours passengers exceeded $100,000. There is no doubt that tourism to Bathurst assists these enterprises, as most sales are cash sales and are transacted by the white entrepreneur who runs Tiwi Tours without charge. On the other hand, none of these enterprises are financially independent and all receive subsidies from the Aboriginal Arts Board, the Tiwi Land Council (from mining royalty equivalents), and the federally-funded Aboriginal Development Commission. Tour operators, resort managers, and the NT Tourist Commission (NT Development Corporation and NT Tourist Commission 1984) are adamant that there is a tourism demand to observe Aboriginal ritual (in the form of open ceremonial dance) and Aboriginal hunting and gathering practices. These two facets of Aboriginal culture are featured in tourism marketing, but there is little evidence that Aboriginal people wish to supply these activities and, if they do, that they result in significant financial returns to providers. At Uluru National Park, tourists have the opportunity to participate in Liru Walks, also called “bush tucker” tours. Aboriginal women employed and paid by ANPWS demonstrate the techniques for digging up witchetty grubs and finding edible indigenous flora. In 1986, this was the only activity at the case-study communities that provided tourists with a glimpse of Aboriginal hunting and ritual culture. In 1987, two small enterprises based on Aboriginal hunting culture were established. The first, at Bamarru Djadjam or Goose Camp in Kakadu, was operated by an Aboriginal entrepreneur who was also the Chairman of the Gagudju Association and employed by ANPWS as a cultural adviser. On this tour, visitors were taken to a normally closed and inaccessible part of Kakadu National Park and provided with an eloquent commentary on identification and use of flora and fauna. The second, at Putjamirra, Melville Island, established a small camp where up to 24 visitors could stay. Three Tiwi were employed on a daily basis to demonstrate hunting, fishing, and gathering to tourists. Both these enterprises are just beginning and their success or financial viability is not clear as yet. Sale of hunting and ritual culture.

Lease of tourism resources. At all four locations, there was some leasing of resources, charging of entry fees, or levying of bounties on animals hunted on safari tours. However, few are of a commercial nature and Aboriginal interests only extract a small proportion of the tourism rent (or profits) generated by the resources they own. Kakadu received the least: an annual lease payment of $7,502 stipulated in a leaseback agreement concluded with ANPWS in 1978. This peppercorn rental appears acceptable to traditional owners, primarily because they receive over $3 million per annum in mining royalty and rental payments from the nearby Ranger uranium mine.

468

TOURISM

DILEMMAS

At Uluru National Park, under a memorandum of lease signed between members of the Uluru-Kata Tjuta Land Trust and the Director of ANPWS in 1985, traditional owners receive $75,000 per annum plus 20% of any gate fees (set at $1.50 per adult). In 1986, this amounted to over $100,000. However not all traditional owners lived in Uluru and some of these moneys were distributed to other locations. At Gurig National Park, in 1986, traditional owners received lease and license payments from a variety of sources. A park rental fee of $30,000 was paid by the NT Government, as well as an annual payment of $24,000 from a tour operator who rented and operated the Gurig Store and four cabins owned by the local Gurig Association. Next, there were park entry fees, levied on a per capita per day basis that totaled $15-20,000. Finally, there were royalties of $48,000 payable by two safari operators whose clients could shoot a total of 20 banteng cattle, 20 sambar deer, 20 feral water buffalo, and unlimited feral pig per annum. All told about $120,000 was paid with respect to tourism activities in 1986. At Melville and Bathurst Islands, visitor fees were introduced in 1986 in association with a fishing lodge established at Port Hurd. These fees totaled $12,000 in 1986/87. From the start of 1987, entry fees of $10 per visitor per day were also levied on tourists traveling with Tiwi Tours and with Australian Kakadu Tours (to Putjamirra). In 1987, these payments amounted to about $40,000. Current Economic Benefits of Tourism There is no readily available method to measure the economic benefits of tourism. The possibilities are numerous. Benefits can be measured in aggregate regional or community terms ignoring distribution, or in per capita terms. Alternatively, benefits can be assessed in terms of current income or potential future income streams. Finally, the Aboriginal share, either of tourism revenue or of tourism rent, can be estimated. A common problem with any income assessment is that the significance of imputed subsistence income at locations where Aboriginal people continue to hunt, fish, and gather is usually ignored. The economic effects of tourism are assessed here in broad per capita terms. Gurig National Park. The economic benefits from tourism are greatest at Gurig National Park. The bulk of tourism income here comes from lease payments and from royalties levied on the hunting of game. Overall, it was estimated that in 1986 per capita community income increased by 43 % as a result of tourism. However, this estimate must be qualified: there were only 50 Aboriginal people residing at Gurig National Park at that time. Uluru National Park. In 1986, employment linked to tourism provided 18% of household income, and the manufacture of artifacts a further 6 % . Overall, tourism-related activities accounted for 24 % of household income. However, at Uluru, it is likely that in the absence of tourism employment, people would have received welfare and in the absence of a local artifacts market, craft items would have been exported.

JON ALTMAN

469

Kakadu National Park. The situation at Kakadu is somewhat different than at other locations. This is because of the availability of employment opportunities at the Ranger uranium mine and the regional consequences of mining royalty equivalents paid with respect to the mine. In general, local Aboriginal people do not work at the mine, preferring employment with ANPWS and the Gagudju Association. Overall, it was estimated that 26% of regular household income in 1986 came from ANPWS employment alone. Again, the net income effect of tourism employment would be far less than this if people chose welfare in preference to employment. An interesting distinction can be made at Kakadu between the income status of Park communities where people are mainly employed, and those where people are mainly on welfare. Per capita cash income at the former was double that at the latter. Melville and BathurstIslands. The economic benefits of tourism are smallest at Melville and Bathurst Islands. This is because tourist visitation is still relatively small, while the Islands’ population is relatively large for an Aboriginal-owned tourist destination. An indication of this can be provided by calculating the ratio of Tiwi people to visitor days on the Islands. In 1986, this ratio was 1 : 0.008, whereas even at Gurig it was 1 : 0.67. At high visitor locations like Uluru, this ratio is about 1:6. It is estimated that tourism income only adds a maximum 5% to the Islands’ gross domestic product (Altman 1988:280). This figure cannot be readily translated to either community or per capita terms, but it implies that the current economic import of tourism is limited. Direct and Indirect Tourism The empirical evidence suggests that economic opportunities in the tourism sector can be divided into direct, indirect, and induced types. Direct opportunities require a direct physical interface between hosts and guests and a direct economic linkage with tourism. Indirect opportunities also involve a direct economic linkage, but are not dependent on direct physical interface. Induced effects, as another form of indirect contact, require no direct physical interface, and the economic link is indirect. This typology emphasizes the different levels of face-to-face contact between Aborigines and tourists, because this is frequently articulated as a significant consideration (Altman 1988; Central Land Council et al. 1987; Kesteven 1984). The data collected at the casestudy communities suggest that the five types of involvement between Aborigines and tourism can be classified as shown in Table 2. It illustrates the variety of options for participation in the tourism industry. Table 2. The Nature of Economic Opportunities Nstwe

of lnvolvrment

Employment Enterprises Sale of Artifarts Sale of Hunting/Ritual Culture Lease/Sale of Resources

Direct

Indirect

Ye8 Yes Yes

YeS YeS YeS

Yes No

NO YCS

in Tourism lnclurrd YeS YeS Yl?S

470

TOURISM

DILEMMAS

Take, for example, the sale of artifacts at Uluru. The Maruku craft camp provides opportunities for artists to interact directly with tourists and to demonstrate their skills and sell items. Indirect spin-offs from this enterprise are enjoyed by Mutitjulu residents who may wish to market their artifacts via Maruku, but have no direct social interaction with tourists. Induced effects are generated for regional producers who do not live at Mutitjulu, but benefit from the tourist concentration at Uluru. It is particularly significant that the greater economic impacts of tourism are frequently indirect or induced. For example, Aboriginal residents of Gurig National Park and Melville and Bathurst Islands accrue a higher proportion of tourism rent than people at Uluru or Kakadu. While precise data are not available, it has been estimated that Aboriginal residents of Uluru National Park only receive 1.3 % of the gross revenue from tourism in the Ayers Rock region (Altman 1988: 153). The implication of this is that where tourism is invited, Aboriginal interests have greater economic leverage which is reflected in a higher share of tourism rent. Where tourism is imposed, the levying of charges is severely constrained. TOURISM

DEVELOPMENT

DILEMMAS

The term dilemma is used here in its dictionary sense. It refers to “a position that leaves only a choice between equally unwelcome possibilities.” In the tourism arena, these choices can be made at individual, group, or community levels, or by special interest groups, like traditional Aboriginal owners of land. The three dilemmas that are identified here are fairly self-evident, but the discussion will focus on aspects of tourism that make these dilemmas more acute for Aboriginal people. Dilemma 1: The Tourism Road to Economic Advancement

The principal dilemma is whether tourism provides Aborigines with a means to alleviate their relative poverty and high welfare dependence. Just as the NT in general has few economic options, the opportunities at remote Aboriginal communities are extremely circumscribed. In many ways, tourism represents a Hobson’s choice for Aboriginal interests: it is tourism or nothing. While greater Aboriginal involvement in tourism provides access to cash that is independent of welfare agencies and government departments, the dilemma is that the net economic effect may still leave Aboriginal people relatively poor compared to average Australians and extremely poor in comparison to domestic and international visitors. Indeed, it is possible that Aboriginal people will be poorer with tourism than without. This possibility can be demonstrated when both the economic benefits and costs of tourism are examined. The economic impact of tourism on Aboriginal communities is limited, but positive. This is due to a number of factors that include the limited possibilities for levying high lease and license fees, the limited demand for artifacts, and the limited returns from the provision of ethnic tourism. The two main avenues for economic advancement are

JON ALTMAN

471

the ownership of enterprises and employment in the tourism industry. Such opportunities are most readily available at Kakadu and Uluru. The enterprise option is problematic. Significant capital resources are needed to establish tourism enterprises and this is a major hurdle for poor people. Even when Aboriginal interests have discretionary financial resources, tourism enterprises do not necessarily result in economic betterment. This is because Aboriginal enterprises are usually owned by communities and not individuals and any profits have to be widely distributed. Management of enterprises is also a perennial issue. There is a real shortage of competent Aboriginal entrepreneurs, and reliance on outsiders frequently results in financial mismanagement or embezzlement. Perhaps the outstanding example is the Cooinda Hotel in which the Gagudju Association has invested $5 million. On financial grounds alone this has been a poor investment; it has generated little income for Association members and many of the 300 Aboriginal owners of Cooinda still live on welfare. It could be argued that Cooinda has been a good investment because of capital gains, but the reality is that this asset will never be sold because it was bought to increase the Aboriginal land base in Kakadu and to increase regional political leverage. Cooinda has had a number of problems with management, and in 1986 the Gagudju Association relinquished direct control in favor of Four Seasons that have a management agreement to operate the resort. The employment option is also limited. This is partly because Aboriginal people frequently lack the skills necessary to work in the tourism industry. Many Aboriginal people do not like the intense social interaction with visitors required in many jobs. However, it should be emphasized that while there are people who could be termed “tourist avoiders,” there are others who are “tourist seekers.” Welfare also plays a role in people’s reluctance to seek jobs in tourism. It has been argued elsewhere that for many Aboriginal people in north Australia welfare has an unintended, but positive, consequence: it enables people to pursue their own priorities while receiving the equivalent of a minimum income from the state (Altman 1987b). This could be termed “welfare entrapment” except entrapment has connotations of compulsion, whereas the “welfare option” may be a conscious choice. When on welfare, people can supplement their income by participating in other activities like hunting, gathering, and artifact manufacture. The empirical evidence is variable. At Uluru, for example, Aborigines did not attend work regularly in 1986 and were not interested in weekend work. Indeed, full-time employment does not appear to be a high priority. Consequently some Aboriginal people take up employment for short periods and then move back onto welfare. This example can be juxtaposed with the situation at Kakadu where several Aboriginal rangers have been employed by ANPWS in regular full-time positions for a number of years. In assessing the economic benefits of tourism, the economic costs are frequently overlooked. One potential cost is the reduced Aboriginal access to the land utilized by tourists. At all the case study locations, people continue to participate in hunting, gathering, and fishing activities to varying degrees. These activities provide an income-in-kind.

472

TOURISM

DILEMMAS

Hunting and gathering remains of cultural and economic significance and there are indications that Aboriginal people are reluctant to participate in such activities within view of tourists both for safety and public relations reasons (Gillespie 1988). Some Aboriginal people at Kakadu feel that their hunting and fishing rights are not adequately protected (Kesteven 1984: 17). There are indications, also at Kakadu, that Aboriginal people would like tourism growth to slow down and tourism infrastructure development to be decentralized from Stage 1 of the Park (Lawrence 1985: 107-108). Another potential cost is linked to the operation of the “needs criterion” used by the federal government as the basis for funding Aboriginal communities. The consequence of this funding regime is that where communities gain access to additional financial resources, this usually results in a reduction in normal program support. Hence while the greatest economic benefits from tourism in per capita terms occur at Gurig National Park, these positive financial effects are ameliorated by a restricted Aboriginal access to normal government funding of community infrastructure, especially housing. A similar offset has been identified in the Kakadu situation; although in this case, it results from the payment of substantial mining royalty equivalents to the Gagudju Association (Altman 1983 : 124). Aboriginal communities contemplating the tourism road to economic betterment face the dilemma that the benefits from tourism may be offset by costs associated with reduced access to subsistence and reduced government program and welfare funding. It is possible that involvement in tourism may result in a negative net economic benefit. Dilemma 2: Minimizing Non-economic Costs Will commercial involvement provide Aboriginal communities with greater regional leverage and the means to minimize social, cultural, environmental, and economic costs associated with tourism? The dilemma here is whether to get involved in commercial enterprises for non-economic reasons, or to allow non-Aboriginal interests to run enterprises with the associated risk that Aboriginal people will experience all the social costs and none of the economic benefits of tourism. Any discussion of non-economic costs is extremely complicated, because they are difficult to quantify. Three recent reports have identified costs associated with rapid economic change. These reports looked at the issues of social impacts of mining and tourism in the Alligator Rivers, Ayers Rock, and East Kimberley regions, respectively (AIAS 1984; Central Land Council et al. 1987; East Kimberley Impact Assessment Project 1989). The costs of economic growth are diverse and may include environmental damage and desecration of sacred sites, tourism trespass into Aboriginal communities, and the negative consequences frequently associated with access to liquor outlets intended primarily for tourists. At both Uluru and Kakadu, Aboriginal interests have attempted to reduce the negative effects of tourism by direct involvement in the industry. For example, in April 1986, the Mutitjulu community was closed off to tourists and a popular retail outlet at the community was

JON ALTMAN

473

moved to another location. This shift had a real economic cost, because the community’s service station became a financial liability without the tourist trade. Nevertheless, the community felt that the improved quality of life at Mutitjulu, resulting from the absence of tour buses driving through living areas, more than offset this financial cost. As already mentioned, the Gagudju Association bought the Cooinda Hotel as much for social as for economic reasons. In particular, senior members of the Gagudju Association were keen to own the Hotel so that they could control liquor sales to its members. This strategy has been only partially successful due to the existence of other liquor outlets in the region, and difficulties in policing the Association’s policies. Aboriginal interests face a tradeoff: whether to become actively and directly involved in tourism in order to control it, or whether to find other means to limit the social costs of tourism. The alternative is to gain a majority of policy formulating bodies like the Uluru Kata Tjuta Board or the Gurig Board. At Gurig in particular, the Board (with its Aboriginal majority) is empowered to make by-laws to regulate tourism. At Uluru, the Board can regulate tourism within the Park, but at the tourist resort of Yulara it is powerless.

Dilemma 3: The Costs of Tourism Avoidance

The costs associated with tourism can obviously be restricted if tourism is discouraged, although it is only at Melville and Bathurst Islands that Aboriginal people have the power to totally veto visitation. The tradeoff is that limitation on tourism will also limit the possibilities for economic advancement. However, the evidence presented here suggests that tourism has inherent problems as a means to improve the marginal economic status of many Aboriginal communities. Powerful political factions at both Milikapiti and Pularumpi appear to be development-oriented and pro-tourism NT Government policies are supported. At Nguiu on the other hand support for tourism is far more guarded. This demonstrates variability in attitudes to tourism even within one culturally homogeneous region. As the most heavily populated of the four tourist destinations discussed, the Tiwi have a special problem: significant per capita returns from tourism will require a rapid growth in visitor numbers. Rapid growth in turn raises the probability of incurring social and cultural costs. At Gurig, senior traditional owners believe that tourists should be limited to certain areas, but that there is enough room for tourism growth as well as the land needs of local people. While the Aboriginal majority on the Cobourg Board can veto any tourism development, the current policy is to allow some concessions, on condition that Aboriginal interests receive a reasonable share of profits generated by any commercial development. The greatest potential for positive economic spin-offs from tourism exists at Gurig, primarily because of the region’s small Aboriginal population. The dilemma for traditional owners here is that tourists come to Gurig to enjoy the wilderness but any rapid increase in tourist numbers may prove to be commercially counterproductive.

474

TOURISM

DILEMMAS

CONCLUSIONS The data collected during fieldwork suggest that the economic significance of tourism, and associated development dilemmas faced by Aboriginal communities in north Australia, are highly variable. It is often argued that property rights to tourist destinations will provide Aboriginal people with considerable leverage either in providing commercial concessions if they choose to become directly involved in the tourism industry, or to extract a significant proportion of tourism rent. The empirical evidence indicates that property rights cannot be readily translated into financial returns. It is also said that where tourism is imposed, Aboriginal interests should become commercially involved in the industry in order to gain regional political power to control tourism and minimize any associated economic and non-economic costs. The evidence from north Australia suggests that legislative protection and legally binding lease-back agreements may provide far more effective means to control the negative impacts from tourism than commercial participation in the industry. These findings imply that Aboriginal people need to ensure that their interests are given statutory recognition and protection before, and not after, tourism growth. This necessity is amply demonstrated by the Uluru and Kakadu situations where Aboriginal interests have extremely circumscribed commercial options. It is of interest that while Aboriginal people are provided with a statutory guarantee of a share of mineral rent raised on Aboriginal land (Altman 1983), there is no such guarantee with tourism rent. This distinction might be based on an assumption that mineral resources are finite, whereas tourism resources are inexhaustible. However, such an assumption may prove false in situations where excessive tourism pressure results in environmental (and associated cultural) degradation. It may appear self-evident that given the extent of Aboriginal poverty and dependence on welfare and program funding, economic opportunities in tourism should be maximized. But such a strategy opens up a new range of dilemmas for Aboriginal people: there is the possibility that the autonomy enjoyed under a welfare funding regime is preferable to direct involvement in tourism employment; returns from tourism enterprises and leasing arrangements may jeopardize government program funding; and there are the ever-present problems of distributing proceeds in situations of corporate ownership of both cultural and environmental resources. These case studies, therefore, indicate that Aborigines may be justified in their wariness in rushing headlong into tourism. Just as tourism may not be the panacea for the fiscal problems of north Australia, it may likewise not be a panacea for Aboriginal poverty and economic dependence on the state. The tourism option needs careful consideration and informed appraisal, particularly by those Aboriginal communities that can still exercise a veto on commercial developments on their land.00 Acknowledgements-An mas of Development”

earlier version of this paper was presented at the session “Dilemat the 5th International Conference on Hunting and Gathering

JON

ALTMAN

475

Societies, Darwin (August 29-September 2, 1988). The author wishes to thank Linda Allen, Francesca Baas Becking, Michael Dillon, and Luke Taylor for helpful comments.

REFERENCES Altman, J. C. 1983 Aborigines and Mining Royalties in the Northern Territory. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. 1987a The Economic Impact of Tourism on the Mutitjulu Community, Uluru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park. Working Paper No. 7, Department of Political and Social Change. Canberra: Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University. 1987b The Potential for Reduced Dependency at Aboriginal Communities in the East Kimberley. East Kimberley Working Paper No. 18. Canberra: Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University. 1988 Aborigines, Tourism and Development: The Northern Territory Experience. Darwin: North Australia Research Unit. Altman, J. C., and M. C. Dillon 1988 Aboriginal Land Rights, Land Councils and the Development of the Northern Territory. In Contemporary Issues in Development, Northern Australia: Progress and Prospects, Volume 1, D. Wade-Marshall and P. Loveday, eds., pp. 126-154. Darwin: North Australia Research Unit. AIAS: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies 1984 Aborigines and Uranium. Consolidated Report on the Social Impact of Uranium Mining on the Aborigines of the Northern Territory. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. ANPWS: Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service 1986a Uluru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park Plan of Management. Canberra: ANPWS. 198613 Kakadu National Park Plan of Management. Canberra: ANPWS. CCNT Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory 1987 Gurig National Park Plan of Management. Darwin: CCNT. Central Land Council, Pitjantjatjara Council and Mutitjulu Community 1987 Sharing the Park: Anangu Initiatives in Ayers Rock Tourism. Alice Springs: Central Land Council. East Kimberley Impact Assessment Project 1989 Land of Promises: Aborigines and Development in the East Kimberley. Canberra: Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University and Aboriginal Studies Press. Gerritsen, R., and D. Jaensch 1986 The Northern Territory. In Australian State Politics, B. Galligan, ed., pp. 139156. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire. Gillespie, D. 1988 Tourism in Kakadu National Park. In Contemporary Issues in Development, Northern Australia: Progress and Prospects, Volume 1, D. Wade-Marshall and P. Loveday, eds., pp. 224-250. Darwin: North Australia Research Unit. Heatley, A. 1986 The Northern Territory: The Politics of Underdevelopment. In The Politics of Development in Australia, B. W. Head, ed., pp. 226-244. Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Kennedy, J. (Chairman) 1987 The Renort of the Australian Government Inauirv into Tourism. Canberra: Australian &Government Publishing Service. L ’ Kesteven, S. 1984 Summary of Report to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs on a Fieldtrip to Kakadu National Park to Discuss Tourism with Aboriginal Traditional Owners and Residents of the Park Area, 21-31 March 1984. Unpublished Report, Department of Aboriginal Affairs (File 83/465), Darwin. Lawrence, R. 1985 The Tourist Impact and the Aboriginal Response. In Aborigines and Tourism:

476

TOURISM

DILEMMAS

A Study of the Impact of Tourism on Aborigines in the Kakadu Region, Northern Territory, K. Palmer, ed., pp. 52-122. Darwin: Northern Land Council. NT Development Corporation and NT Tourist Commission 1984 Initiatives for Tourism Facilities, June 1984. Darwin: NTDC/NTTC. Northern Territory Treasury 1987 The Northern Territory Economy, 1987. Darwin: Government Printer. Peterson, N. and M. Tonkinson 1979 Cobourg Peninsula and Adjacent Islands Land Claim. Darwin: Northern Land Council. Smith, V. L. 1978 Introduction. In Hosts and Guests: The Anthropology of Tourism, V. L. Smith, ed., pp. l-14. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Submitted 14 October 1988 Accepted 19 December 1988 Final version submitted 13 January Refereed anonymously

1989