Development First Framework and the Private Sector

In section 2.7 the Development First framework was introduced. Hughes and Scheyvens created this framework to promote long-term initiatives, indigenous partnerships, the enhancement of environmental, cultural and social wellbeing and the hope of equitable sharing of benefits when businesses engage in CSR (Hughes & Scheyvens, 2016). One of the important aspects of the Development First approach it its ability to address power imbalances and scalability to mass tourism. Table 1, from section 2.7, is a list of questions for businesses to ask themselves when designing their CSR. These questions can equally be applied to a PPP model.

This section analyses Carnival's CSR and PPP activities in relation to the Development First approach questions.

Table 7 - Analysing Carnival's facilitation for development using the Development First framework (Adapted from Hughes & Scheyvens, 2016)

Category Question Carnival CSR and PPP _development

Sustainable human development

Does CSR have a long-term or

short-term focus? Both. PPP (MOU) is 3-year renewable. CSR is short-term.

Does CSR focus on building

local capacities? Somewhat. PPP focussed on building tourism focussed capacities

Does CSR reduce

vulnerabilities? Somewhat. P&O Pacific Partnership built aid posts which helps reduce

vulnerabilities. The PPP only reduces vulnerability through improving economic

outcomes. Is there evidence of collaboration

with other actors, locally, regionally or nationally, and alignment with government goals for enhancing local well-being?

Yes, both Carnival's CSR and PPP activities involve

collaboration and alignment with government.

Holistic focus Does CSR contribute to social, cultural and environmental well- being, as well as contributing to economic benefits to

communities?

Limited. The CSR activity supports health and education infrastructure. The PPP has a strong economic focus. Can multiplier effects be

identified?

Limited. Economic multiplier effects are prioritised, social impacts require assessment. Culture is central Is cultural capital valued rather

than commodified or museumised?

Culture is appreciated, but not a central aspect of PPP. Acknowledged by Save the Children as part of CSR Is local knowledge valued and

respected? No evidence

How is cultural capital sustained? No evidence Community-

focussed goals

Who defines local development needs to be addressed by CSR

DFAT define PPP in consultation. Save the Children define CSR How are the poorest or most

marginalised sections of the community represented in decision making?

No evidence

Does CSR help the community

achieve goals that they value as a people?

No evidence. Vanuatu state development goals are considered.

Building relationships

How are meaningful

relationships between a tourism business and local community supported?

Limited - discussed in 7.5.2, could be improved.

Are initiatives developed and implemented in conjunction with communities?

No evidence

Is there accountability for CSR to

local communities? No evidence Distribution of

benefits Who benefits and how are benefits shared/distributed? No evidence Who does not benefit or is

marginalised?

No evidence

Does CSR counteract or

reinforce existing inequalities?

PPP possibly increases inequalities as those with access to capital have more opportunity to become involved with tourism.

Monitoring and evaluation

Is there evidence of monitoring and evaluation practices in place?

Yes, both DFAT and Save the Children have robust

monitoring and evaluation processes.

Neither MFAT or DFAT monitor social impact. Who is responsible for (a)

determining positive indicators of change and (b) conducting monitoring and evaluation

DFAT and Save the Children in collaboration with various partners.

Does monitoring and evaluation lead to reflection by tourism business, and changes in their practices?

No evidence

Table 7 is a basic analysis using the Development First approach. Carnival does not engage in any direct development engagement as all initiatives are carried out by third parties. This is makes the Development First framework slightly more difficult to apply with responsibility resting with multiple parties. What can be seen from the

Development First analysis is that there are weaknesses to the development objectives initiated by Carnival, Save the Children and DFAT. As discussed in section 7.5.2 the 'building relationships' section could be improved. There too little evidence for the 'distribution of benefits' section to be commented on. Culture and community elements are similarly lacking, supporting the need to implement social monitoring of the impacts of cruise tourism. Improving communication to build stronger relationships with

communities would improve the cultural and community aspects of this framework.

Both DFAT and Save the Children are highly respected development organisations that adhere to best practice. The development initiatives designed and implemented by these organisations are extensively assessed, evaluated and externally audited (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2017; Save the Children Australia, 2017). However, the nature of the partnership with Carnival makes this less transparent, especially as very

little is publicised. Also, the political focus on economic development means that DFAT is constrained around the type of development, and impact evaluations that they can implement. Without Carnival expressly publishing what they do, where and why, their development activities are difficult to separate from those of Save the Children and DFAT in their own capacities. It is appropriate at this point to explore Carnival's role as a facilitator of development.