Experts agree: Either National Tourism or else why develop tourism in Belarus at all?

The transition from tourist developments based on individual entrepreneurship to the design and implementation of a national programme indicates planning on an appropriate scale. One project was conceived and implemented at the level of individual farmsteads, routes and attractions but could be replicated in the longer term to cover the entire country. Tourism must also be considered holistically as an integral component of the broader life and activity of the state, to which it is dynamically linked while still retaining characteristics of its own. Experience in the successful implementation of individual projects is not sufficient for the development of a programme of national scale. The current situation is now such that there is an accumulation of knowledge and skills in respect of individual projects and western designs and prototypes which are freely shared. However the proliferation of such experience, while valuable in itself, is not sufficient for the development of tourism as an integrated sector of the economy. In contrast the announcement of a National Programme for the Development of Tourism, which includes rural tourism, is aimed precisely at this task.

Belarusian Tourism: "Sovetikus"

The central principle for such a programme is the question of what kind of tourism Belarus wishes to develop. Depending on the answer to this question the primary avenues for the promotion of tourism can go in completely different directions.

The Belarusian State when formulating its approach, traditionally operates, in the spirit of Soviet examples:

·     Determined, ambitious, but inflexible modes of action. In fact problems are addressed via a standard palette of reactions that do not stand up to close scrutiny in regard of production difficulties or other essential pre-requisites for developing a programme of national scale. Most issues are addressed using “off the shelf” approaches developed largely on ideological, rather than analytical grounds.

·     Low-cost, and reliant on enthusiasm (or rather on administrative resources) regardless of necessary material, managerial and human resources. Since the vertical operation of power in Belarus does not provide operational feedback, the needs and requirements for maintaining tourism facilities are formulated in the same place where central plans are devised. Examples of successful enterprises play a rather negative role here as they show that it is possible to survive and break even without any central support. This makes it feasible not to spend any extra funds, to exploit the enthusiasm, and when this starts to wane, to apply  methods of coercion.

·     Standardization of action and reliance on "view from above" indicators that affect only the external accounting plan and do not reflect substantive performance. Traditionally, all indicators are formulated quantitatively (the number of estates, services, profit, etc.). In reporting there is no distinction between those that invested in new ideas and experiments, and those that only formally match specific standards. The latter, perhaps, would be deemed more successful, as they do not incur additional costs and risks.

These characteristics of the development programmes are self evident and all those involved in tourism, observe and discuss this as a major problem. But behind all these characteristics there is a more serious issue – the overall approach to tourism development. This, in our view, is now a more important subject of discussion.

Why is tourism necessary?

When it is a question of which approach, or the potential of a range of different approaches, the essential question is how the tourism field in general and rural (agro-based, eco-and so on) tourism in particular is viewed. It is obvious that the country has always considered tourism as one of the points of development - that will enable the country to rise to  a new level. But the answer to the question, what exactly can develop tourism, has been less clear.

The state response to this question is: “socio-economics”. In the absence of rich natural resources, tourism helps the economy to raise revenue, creates jobs etc. and ultimately improves the general standard of living. These are the terms of reference of government officials. Investing in tourism is an investment in economic development (the size of investment and a real willingness to invest - is a separate question). According to this conceptual approach, the basic categories in which directions of activity are described are also defined: development of infrastructure, personnel selection, marketing of tourist services, etc. All of them thought considered as a purely economic or administrative and managerial categories. So infrastructure - roads, information networks, hotels or places of recreation and equipment etc. Investment in infrastructure makes sense if it will pay, however that pre-supposes that a tourist boom in Belarus is really hindered by the lack of roads and hotels. However, there is a suspicion that this is just a stereotypical view of the constraints on development for the tourism sector and does not address the core of the problem. For this, it is necessary to define who the customer is and what is really missing from the customer's point of view. Bearing in mind the nationwide programme, it is impossible to confine the debate to individual views and case studies, the question touches upon how the "customer" schedules his or her time, the structure of social organization and lifestyle and so on.

Rural tourism – for locals, but not for all

The main clients for rural tourism worldwide are residents of their own country, particularly those who lead a generally urban lifestyle. This characteristic is the key to understanding the customer for rural tourism. It is an overall lifestyle, rather than simple fact of living in settlements termed “cities”, the organization of such a life may differ markedly from life in rural areas. A change in lifestyle during a vacation is the main factor that attracts such clients. Accordingly, to expand rural tourism there must be at least two clear and distinct modes of living - urban and rural, as well as the availability of sufficient numbers of people who live in such a way.

In Belarus, despite 70% of the population living in urban areas, there is not really an “urban lifestyle” in the usual sense, people live in units. In fact there is no real rural way of life either. This is the result of deliberate policy of Soviet authorities, and the continuation of this tradition by the Belarusian state. It was and is intentional policy to erase the boundaries between urban and rural areas and lifestyles and replacing them with a uniform substitute where the principles of social organisation are founded on entirely different ground. Without exploring this topic in detail, we can at least ask: How will demands for infrastructure, which aims to develop the state program be assessed if real customers do not currently exist? To ensure that this brings the planned economic effect, such improvements would have to ensure tourism which gave a profit regardless of market conditions. As a result, the programme will mimic the traditional Soviet-governance action plans, based on supply side demands.

Giving away what we don’t like ourselves?

In fact, an economic approach to the other types of tourism (hunting, historical, etc.) leads to the same result. While this attempts to make profitability "unnecessary". But this is just because few people require such services. The economic benefits of tourism arise only when what is proposed, has its own value in the eyes of the seller. First we need for ourselves, for Belarusians, to preserve historical monuments, areas of special interest, nature, etc., and then they can become interesting for others through value placed upon them by the owners.

Are there other possible approaches to tourism, other than purely economic ones? What else can develop tourism? Tourism can be viewed not as a point of economic growth, but as a point of reconstruction and development of the normal social fabric. Here, rural tourism becomes a strategic mechanism for restoring life to rural areas. After all, development of rural estates is not just a tourist business – but also a business in rural areas, hence it supports new rural life (lost during the years of Soviet power) and lives in rural areas. This is a way of life beyond both agriculture, and peasantry. Given the constant need to reduce farm labour in the modern world, this provides a new means of existence in the countryside - a chance for life there to continue. Efforts are being made to rapidly re-settle agro-ravaged villages via rural development programmes however the results are not encouraging. The attractiveness of rural life is based only on consumer sentiment and paternalistic people. Resettlement in rural areas is purchased by guaranteeing a certain level of life: "free housing", work, etc.

The organization of eco and agro-tourism restores or rather defines a new meaning and value for life in rural areas. The land, territory, and all it contains – this is the new concern, and this creates a business that can be transferred to descendants. We can say that this is one of the few chances to rethink and re-value rural life. And the differences, compared to the cities, are not defined in terms of different levels of life but by special meaning and purpose.

In implementing this approach the basic categories under which activities can be described have a different content. The infrastructure of rural tourism - is not so much the logistical facilities, but how to secure and support various ways of life: rural - urban, entrepreneurial and peasantry. Manpower selection - not so much connected with the preparation of personnel, but with the development of entrepreneurship as a vocation and profession, etc. The very question of what could be “infrastructure” within this approach is an issue that requires reflection and consideration.

Obviously, with such an approach the question of economic efficiency moves from the national level (the entire program), to the specific requirements of entrepreneurs - whose economic success is the basis for the continuation of the project. State revenue may begin to benefit when new, consolidated operational grounds are established.

Such an approach requires a complete re-orientation of the programme, but only this can make the tourist sphere in Belarus adequate by European standards and hence competitiveness in the market.

The question of pricing

In discussing the introduction of a new national programme it is important to understand the consequences of failure in this area. Knowing the price of failure serves as an additional measure of responsibility and justification for the planning of each project and even individual actions.

It is hard to doubt that estates will be established in sufficient quantities, since a national programme has been declared and aimed at the country's administrative resources. But they may be inefficient, that is, not fulfilling their intended purpose. What then? Without going into the economic calculations and trusting the Ministry of Economy estimates - Belarus will continue with an inadequate budget and use only 0.05% of possible "tourist potential". But it is clear that this does not undermine the country's economy. Failure will have a greater impact in other areas. What will sprout like mushrooms will be estates, farms and houses that will not receive tourists, but will contribute to "the numbers" as part of the tourist infrastructure. How is this part of the program? They will finally discredit the principle of rural life.

In addition, strangely enough, the evolving state program threatens to swallow and actually destroy existing and successful examples of rural estates and farms, which were able to establish themselves in the field of rural tourism. And although the example of such estates is now used as an something to be emulated, in the emerging field of rural tourism, they are alien element. They are incompatible on basic principles and approach, as they were established (perhaps not fully consciously) as hotbeds of a new way of life in rural areas. Will they survive the standardized national program, this is the big question.

Tatyana Vodolazhskaya

[email protected]