Connecting the Sites

Although the Rupununi is comprised of numerous tourism sites and heritage resources, stakeholders do not feel they are effectively connected. Out of the 119 questionnaire participants in this study, 83 (70%) felt that there does not appear to be an overall plan that links the different tourism sites in the Rupununi, particularly between the south and north Rupununi (Interview V4, 2012). CI (2010: 48) states that this absence of interconnection between the sites is a detriment to development and “…it is to the advantage of all for the region to be marketed and perceived as a single destination, with various distinct products”. Furthermore, CI (2003: 16; 2010: 39) claims that the different sites need to be organised and that there should be a concentrated effort on identifying and mapping all heritage resources. Interviewees agreed with a member of the voluntary sector (Interview V3, 2012) asserting, “…having a plan is important on…how to coordinate between these sites”. A media stakeholder (Interview M2, 2012) commented on the importance of having a plan for the Rupununi and how stakeholders should be “…creating a story out of that and linking it together” which would “…take away some of the fragmentation of it”.

While 70% (83/119) of all questionnaire participants agreed there was not a plan linking Rupununi tourism, only 50% (60/119) of the industry participants agreed. Presumably, this is most likely because industry interviewees included several tour operators who are consistently organising tours for visitors amongst the many Rupununi sites. As a result, they are more likely to see the Rupununi as already connected within an informal plan. On promoting the Rupununi as a single destination product, an industry stakeholder (Interview I1, 2012) remarked, “Absolutely, that’s what we are currently selling at the moment” and “…because of [that] everything is linked together”. A voluntary sector interviewee (Interview V4, 2012) stated she also felt that the sites are “…linked already, informally linked” and that creating a plan would “…just be to make it more formal”.

169

This ‘formality’ in creating a plan is likely to share the informal link understood by actively involved stakeholders with potential visitors and creating a destination which is more holistic in appearance and functionality.

One possible manifestation for this plan could be a Rupununi website which promotes each community and attraction under the Rupununi brand. As many communities do not have access to the internet, this would allow for each of them to promote their individual tourism products with detailed information while still maintaining a holistic Rupununi image. This has positive implications for attracting more tourists and boosting the local economy, particularly since there is currently not sufficient information on the internet to “…encourage potential visitors to the Rupununi” (CI 2010: 48). CI (ibid) asserts that there should be a designated organisation responsible for producing and maintaining this website and work closely with local representatives and tour operators.

Another method for connecting the sites could be through the on-site interpretation by tour guides. Once a formal plan is created and the information is organised, it should be shared with all tourism stakeholders, particularly local tour guides and those who interact directly with tourists. A member of the media (Interview M2, 2012) stressed the importance for tour guides in telling the story of the entire Rupununi. He (ibid) stated:

“I think it definitely would be greatly beneficial to have the Rupununi story that allows [guides] to link up and tell [tourists], so when people are going

around they always feel like they are always in the Rupununi … teaching

[guides] how to interpret their surroundings through a story, thinking about the bigger picture”.

One of the few existing examples of a Rupununi tourism plan that is aimed more at fulfilling the objective of sustainable development than design is the aforementioned Community Tourism Enterprise Development Blueprint (2010) by CI. A member of the voluntary sector (Interview V1, 2012) commented on this lack of formalised plans. He (ibid) stated, “I think the only agency who has attempted to come up with a blueprint for the Rupununi is Conservation International”. The blueprint details all of the indigenous communities in the Rupununi, showcasing their operational strengths and weaknesses and revealing links between each entity and is designed for stakeholders involved directly with development. The document presents the Rupununi as a whole, with

170

individual parts that have unique properties and stresses that resources need only to be organised and presented as such.

CI (2010: 35) also advocates networking in the Rupununi with the overall objective being to “...create a consortium or product club of export market-ready businesses, organisations and communities engaged in tourism to support and push the development of a range of sustainable tourism experiences in the Rupununi region”. A deliverable from doing this could be a Rupununi Tourism Experiences Guide (CI, 2010: 35) which would assist in converting a document such as the blueprint into a version targeted at tourists. In fact, an industry member (Interview I1, 2012) revealed that in recent tour guide training programmes (2011) facilitated by the US Agency for International Development (US AID), the instructors were asking each community or lodge to “produce a booklet” that would provide “…information on the actual lodge, the actual product”. She (ibid) added that the book would then be sent back to US AID for review and where it will eventually “…be a sharing tool amongst all people”. The booklets from each community can be combined to form a comprehensive text promoting the entire Rupununi and made available for visitors. Although each of these tools can be useful for connecting sites in the Rupununi, they are limited by certain challenges which are covered in the following sub-section.

6.3.2 Challenges

Stakeholders revealed a few key challenges to creating a plan for Rupununi tourism. One community member (Interview C2, 2012) stated that although he believed a plan would be a positive action, “It requires a lot of planning and effort from us the leaders” and “We don’t have a good understanding…as to how we could closely link…the communication needs to be strengthened”. Another community member (Interview C3, 2012) agreed that one of the challenges for stakeholders is “…getting them to understand what it is all about…once people fully understand…you would have the support”. These comments indicate that there would be a need to explain to local stakeholders the basic principles behind creating a single tourism destination, where each community is promoted and linked together.

Other stakeholders emphasised the administrative challenges for creating a plan. An industry professional (Interview I2, 2012) asserted, “It’s funding and management, the organizational aspect”. He (ibid) also reiterated, however, that in creating a plan it is

171

important “…to make sure it is not irrelevant but that it continues and is understood by all concerned of its value”. The lack of finances is a challenge that was mentioned by stakeholders from the public sector (Interview P2, 2012) and voluntary sector (Interview V2, 2012). For example, one interviewee argued that although there has been a tentative plan for Rupununi tourism before, “The problem was that there was no funding” (ibid). Another voluntary sector stakeholder (Interview V3, 2012) commented that to develop a plan, “You need a lot of coordination because you have a lot of people involved already”. He (ibid) advocated for a well-resourced team who act as a “…hub that can coordinate these things”. In summary, there are several benefits to developing a plan for Rupununi tourism but to do so requires training stakeholders on its importance, as well as having funding and the right leadership to carry out the operation.