Theano S. Terkenli Department of Geography University of the Aegean University Hill, Mitiline

1. Networks of dependency and partnership: problems and prospects of tourism sustainability in the Aegean Theano S. Terkenli Department of Geography University of the Aegean University Hill, Mitiline Lesvos 81100, Greece Tel: ++30-210-6197846, ++30-693-2222994 E-mail: t.terkenli@aegean.gr

2. The contours of the context • As global competition grows, established but also aspiring tourist destinations struggle to survive and/ or carve a niche in the tourism market, either by overcoming chronic and/ or emerging problems, or by creating new and viable opportunities for growth. • The Aegean archipelago has been exerting a powerful attraction primarily on Northern and Western Europeans for centuries—blessed with unique landscapes of global recognition. • Tourism, nowadays, represents its primary economic activity. • With grave difficulties in ‘catching up’ with the rest of Europe on socio-economic grounds, this region faces a series of challenges and concerns vis-à-vis a desirable sustainable (tourism) future. • Its insularity probably represents the most significant provenance of its problems and potentials; it is on small islands where such processes are usually played out at their most dramatic. • This presentation suggests that in networks of connectivity, at various geographical scales, lie both solutions and shortcomings of tourism growth and economic sustainability for the Aegean.

4. Objectives and disclaimers • The study addresses problems and prospects brought about or remedied through various sorts of networks and partnerships, in the context of local tourism development. • It pursues this objective with the aid of a) an attempt towards a typology of tourism networks/ partnerships, b) a case study on the island of Lesvos, Greece, and c) a conclusive discussion, aiming to synthesize findings and insights into the paper’s theoretical background. • The study elucidates the role (both positive and negative) of networks of dependency and partnership in local tourism development and highlights the significance of cooperation and levels of participation of the local community in various forms of networks. • Such networks and partnerships lead to relationships of inter- and intra-regional dependency and/ or to the restoration of various sorts of inequalities (in terms of access and resources in tourism development). • The term network here is employed in its broader social sense, rather than in its conventional geographical sense in terms of transportation facilities or services.

5. Tourism trade inequalities and dependencies • International tourism, especially as organized through networks of transnational corporations and companies, has been documented to have contributed directly towards an extension of metropolitan dominance over weaker destination peripheries, leading to a loss of self-reliance for local societies and small communities or regions (Britton 1982; Bianchi 2002). • However, unequal exchange in terms of trade, generally speaking, has received less attention in tourism—an area to which this study partly aims to contribute. • Meanwhile, recent research on the role of the state in tourism development has emphasized that the political is necessarily interrelated with the economic in the political economy of tourism (Williams 2004).

6. Types of networks and partnerships • Beyond economic and political networks of connectivity, other trade-related networks of (inter)dependence or mutuality may play a significant role in local tourism development and growth. • These networks include partnerships of various sorts among tourism stakeholders (i.e. state, local, private, social etc.) in terms of tourism planning (i.e. intra-regional top-down initiatives or development investments), policy/ administration (i.e. national institutions or organizations) and/ or trade (i.e. farmers’ cooperatives or networks of cultural/ natural paths). • Such forms of partnership networks operating in tourism are explored here, in an attempt towards a categorization and investigation of the ways in which they may promote or impede local tourism development.

7. Networks and partnerships in tourism • Traditionally, tourism partnerships have referred to the relationship of public-private shares in undertaking all sorts of tourism development initiatives. • Partnerships are fairly common in developed countries and also emerging in some developing countries. They are increasingly advocated as a part of ‘good governance’, together with wider community participation and empowerment in tourism-related decision making (Bramwell and Lane 2000). • There is also growing recognition of the potential benefits of collaborative tourism planning that includes various industry segments, public sector agencies, and (rather less often) other groups in civil society. • However, in recent years, central governments of DC’s have tended to opt for disengagement from tourism development endeavors, in favor of both local authorities and the private sector (Jarafi 2000). • Most commonly, public-private sector partnerships are found in the areas of tourism promotion and marketing functions, leaving all the rest to local tourism endeavors (Jafari 2000). • There seems, however, perhaps less appreciation of the substantial problems associated with shared decision-making (Bramwell 2004).

8. Towards a typology of partnership networks • Partnerships in tourism refer to all cooperative activities sustained between the private and public sectors, or even strategic alliances practiced within the industry itself (Jafari 2000) • They share certain defining characteristics: they seek a better collaboration and cooperation between public and private organizations in a tourism destination, they are action-oriented, focused on implementing initiatives rather than research and strategy formulation, and they normally include development, marketing, information and environmental advisories (Long 1994). • A typology of tourism partnership networks includes any form of inter- or intra-connection (networking) between the following four categories of tourism actors: • Governmental/ political (at all scales of government) • Institutional/ legal (i.e. universities, research centers) • Private/ economic (tourism intermediaries, entrepreneurs, investors) • Socio-environmental/ cultural (NGO’s, cooperatives, unions, etc.) • Normally, all combinations of the above present potentialities or obstacles to local tourism development, as this case study begins to show.

9. The case study of Lesvos • These issues are investigated in depth in a case study undertaken on the island of Lesvos, Greece, during late spring and early fall of 2008. • The methodology adopted was ethnographic: in-depth interviews with key tourism factors of Lesvos, including stakeholders representing tourism, broader community interests, as well as various state agencies, actively seeking to promote sustainable forms of local tourism development. • The survey, supplemented by statistical data collection, was undertaken in the context of a larger project, examining the prospects of collaborative partnership in regional cross-border cultural tourism development, jointly between NE. Aegean islands and the Turkish coast. • Specifically, four travel agents, the Mayor’s Representative, the Prefecture Head, the chair of the Greek National Tourism Organization, the Marketing Manager of the Prefecture on Tourism Affairs, the Head of the Commercial Charter of Lesvos and the Chair of the Hoteliers Union of Lesvos were interviewed for the purposes of this study. • Results indicate both limitations/ constraints and opportunities/ potentials stemming from existing/ planned partnerships or networks in local tourism development. Findings agree with, support and compement the theoretical context of the study. • These findings are hoped to serve as indicative tendencies in local tourism development cases in other parts of the world, suggesting possible similarities in characteristics and repercussions of tourism partnership and networking initiatives, around the world.

12. On the negative side of Lesvos tourism • Tourism on Lesvos is problematic in terms both of quantity and quality. These problems mainly stem from networks of dependency of the island’s tourism trade on larger tourism organizations (economic dependencies) or international treaties (institutional obstacles) that local tourism stakeholders have failed to put in the service of local tourism. • On a much promising—in terms of tourist attractions—Greek island, such as Lesvos, with enormous potential for alternative forms of tourism growth, but diminishing tourist arrivals in the past 4-5 years and a decline in package tour alliances, dependence on big tour operators remains a precarious matter and serious concern. • Charter tourism is strewn with limitations and problems; however, it readily remains the ‘easy solution’, as seen from a bottom-up perspective. • Cooperation with the main state institution/ instrument of tourism policy in the country and on the island of Lesvos, the Greek National Tourism Organization, is of minimal/ inconsequential help (political deficiencies). • Furthermore, a most serious shortcoming stems from the inability of the local side to take substantial advantage of cruise tourism, one of the most successful and dynamic forms of tourism in the Aegean, on the basis of a lack of necessary legal and infrastructure conditions concerning port amenities in Lesvos (legal shortcomings, limitations of Schengen Treaty).

13. Ills of and threats to Lesvos tourism • Legal/ institutional constraints. Employment insecurity and inadequate training, price inflation, bureaucracy in transit procedures and obtaining legal documents of entry (from Turkey), insufficient/ inefficient laws/ policies (new ministry, old problems). Solution: inter- and intra- gov’tal cooperation in tourism stewardship (at various levels), as well as with tourism stakeholders in order to establish a viable, on-going and efficient framework of support for training, price/ cost control, flexible laws and policies and substantial planning and management top-down measures. Until last year: 80 TL fee to exit Turkey. NTOG today: mainly legal, administrative, technical and executive instrument; minimal planning/ research and development responsibilities. ‘The state is virtually absent for local tourism agencies’. • Deficient infrastructures and environmental/ landscape deterioration. Pollution, garbage, traffic congestion. Port, marina, airport, road network issues. Inadequate accommodation units and services. Solution: cooperation between city/ regional planners and agents of infrastructure or environmental monitoring, management and implementation. Collaboration between administration and entrepreneurs in boosting tourism supply side. • Insufficient advertisement and place promotion. Solution: sustainable partnerships between gov’tal agencies at various scales and local factors of tourism development, organized around ‘destination management’ initiatives, w/ the aid of experts. Cross-border political cooperation: essential.

14. On the positive side of Lesvos tourism • On the other hand, one of the most thriving tourism-related businesses on the island is farmers’ and women’s cooperatives (social/ economic initiatives), mainly in gastronomy and arts & crafts—areas much tied to alternative forms of tourism, such as ecotourism and agrotourism, fast growing on the island. • Therein lies much opportunity for Lesvos tourism, as well as in spill-off tourism from the Aegean coast of Turkey. One such attempt is currently undertaken by a joint project on Mitiline-Ayvalik cooperation in cultural tourism development, by the Departments of Geography of the University of the Aegean, Lesvos and Ege University, Izmir. • The latter study shows that cross-border intraregional partnerships in matters of tourism represent a contested field of Greek-Turkish cooperation, on the basis of inherent trade and bureaucracy inequalities, unfavorable port regulations, etc. • Such partnerships, though much desired by certain key stakeholders and local agents and entrepreneurs, are opposed by others on more political/ legal/ bureaucratic grounds. Moreover, the Chamber of Commerce of Lesvos is opposed to such partnerships, on the basis of inherent inequalities, i.e. multi-fold flows from Greece vs. from Turkey; structural obstacles from the side of the Turkish state in obtaining visas to Greece (→ticket cost at 30 EURO), etc. • These are ultimately bound to tie Lesvos to networks of inequality and dependence on the already established and thriving package tourism of the Turkish side of the Aegean—'organized on a more professional basis than ours’. In general, also higher level of control on tourism from Turkish side.

15. Opportunities/ potential to Lesvos tourism • Lesvos tourism is not yet fully developed—far from it. ‘So far, tourism is virtually inconsequential to the economy of Mitiline’. Thus, no detrimental tourism impacts, translating into great future potential, on the basis of its multiple attractions. Solution: comprehensive and concerted planning, on the basis of participatory decision-making, involving all tourism factors on the island, i.e. in terms of accommodation, entertainment/ animation and infrastructure supply. • Package tourism in the Aegean tends to include Turkish coast. Greek side seems to be underminded; Turkish side favored. Solution: cross-border collaboration in both research and management/ planning between the two sides, a) at the institutional level (joint university projects; port authority pacts and chamber of commerce cooperation), b) inter-municipality initiatives (Ayvalik-Mitiline cross-border festivals) and c) travel agency and ferry company cooperation in tours/ excursions between the 2 countries. In these ways, “Turkey may and should become the primary tourism market for Lesvos”. • Limited package tourism: positive (‘we don’t want any’), though some focus on short-term profit gains from this form of tourism. Solution: alternative forms of tourism, promoting place identity—among these, cooperatives rank very high. Certain forms of alternative tourism (religious, lesbian) are deemed by some as unfavorable and undesirable for the island: create a bad concept/ image for the island, i.e. ‘religious tourism=only old ladies that go to monasteries’. Other promising forms of alternative tourism: social t., convention t., cultural/ educational t., thermal/ therapeutic t., ecological t., gastronomic t. etc.

16. Agrotourism: a missed opportunity on Lesvos • ‘Development policies= la grande bouffe’. Minimal control on all types of accommodation units, in terms of quality, amenity, standardization, etc.

17. Focus on women’s cooperatives of Lesvos • At present, 12 functioning women’s cooperatives on Lesvos, making, exhibiting and selling/ catering all sorts of local/ ‘traditional’ food and drink products and, in some cases, renting ‘traditional’ rooms, mostly to tourists. • Objectives: women’s empowerment and economic autonomy, building women’s entrepreneurship, promoting local products, local landscape preservation, population retention and curbing out-migration. ‘Economically successful’. • Women’s Cooperative of Petra, the oldest one on the island: 35 members today (15 active). • Emphasis on cooperation, mutuality, inter-group support, joint decision-making processes, equitable and fair labor and revenue apportionment. Fulfills most ‘partnership’ clauses. • Problems: mainly in networking (network participation, connection with local travel agencies, product outlets) and reaching out (advertisement, organization of promotion events). Also, very little specialization, no business consulting, no product standardization and specification.

18. Women’s Cooperative of Petra Advertisement on the Web: ‘Here, you do not just rent a room; you enjoy the humanness and warmth of family. You get to know a farmer’s life in the village’.

19. Conclusions • Although the rationale for government involvement in tourism has been changing in recent years—due to constraints on public sector budgets and a changing political and socio-economic climate—according to WTO, the importance of partnership approaches in tourism development is still crucial (Jafari 2000). • The findings of this study point to the significance of bottom-up networks and partnerships of mutuality and reciprocity, as the most promising venues for the future development of various forms of tourism in Lesvos. • Besides fostering tourism, cross-border partnerships, for instance, contribute to political, cultural, historical and social bridges between Greece and Turkey, while women’s cooperatives mobilize and organize human potential in the service of tourism etc. in mutually beneficial ways. • There is a catch in this scenario, however: these initiatives must overcome legal, structural or functional barriers and constraints inhibiting tourism growth. • Top-down limitations and national, international or inter-regional institutional networks and constraints seem to pose insurmountable obstacles to or deliberately antagonize incoming Lesvos tourism, binding it in unfavorable terms to networks of dependency or competition—unless met with bottom-up resistance. To conclude, since tourism is a primary, or—in some local cases—the main source of income on many Aegean islands, its further deterioration would be of broader detrimental impact to the islands, with escalating grave consequences.