By Jonathan Mbiriyamveka
VICTORIA FALLS – For decades, the image of African tourism has been polished for postcards: sweeping savannahs, exotic wildlife, luxury lodges flown in by foreign carriers, and profits that often land in overseas bank accounts.
That model, according to a new push underway at the 23rd UN Tourism Committee on Sustainable Tourism Meeting in Victoria Falls, is no longer acceptable.
Under the theme “Advancing from Empowerment to Leadership: Driving Structural Change in the Tourism Sector in Africa,” the gathering has placed economics front and centre—not just how much tourism contributes to continental GDP, but who owns it, who benefits, and what happens when the next crisis hits.
The numbers that demand change
Tourism is not a niche sector for Africa. According to UN Tourism data, the continent’s travel and tourism sector contributed approximately $169 billion to Africa’s economy pre-pandemic, supporting over 24 million jobs—roughly one in every 14 employed Africans.
Yet the structural weaknesses exposed by COVID-19 were brutal. When international flights stopped, destinations that relied almost exclusively on foreign arrivals collapsed.
Local supply chains failed. Millions of informal workers—guides, artisans, drivers, market vendors—had no safety net.
“The pandemic did not create these vulnerabilities,” one senior African tourism official told reporters on the sidelines of the Victoria Falls meeting. “It simply revealed them.”
What ‘structural change’ actually means
Behind the conference rhetoric, delegates are wrestling with three concrete economic shifts:
1. Revenue retention
Most African countries retain less than 40 cents of every tourism dollar spent within their borders, according to industry estimates. Leakages occur through foreign-owned hotel chains, international tour operators, imported goods, and profit repatriation.
Structural change means policies that incentivize local ownership—whether through equity requirements, tax breaks for locally sourced supplies, or mandatory partnerships between international brands and community trusts.
2. Beyond enclave tourism
The classic model builds a luxury resort behind a fence. Guests fly in, stay inside, take guided tours, and leave. Minimal interaction with the local economy.
“We need tourism that flows into communities, not around them,” said a delegate from East Africa. “That means homestays, local guides, village-based crafts, community-owned conservation areas. That is structural change.”
3. Resilience as an economic asset
The UN’s push for resilience by 2027 is not just about climate adaptation—it is about economic survival. Destinations that diversify their source markets, develop domestic tourism, and build local processing capacity (e.g., turning farm produce into hotel supplies) are less vulnerable to external shocks.
Zimbabwe’s model: Heritage and community first
Delivering host nation remarks, Zimbabwe’s Minister of Tourism and Hospitality Industry, Hon Barbara Rwodzi, used the platform to showcase her country’s approach—one she credited in part to the country’s Tourism Patron, Her Excellency the First Lady Dr. Auxillia Mnangagwa.
“The First Lady’s work in empowering communities to safeguard our heritage is not charity,” Rwodzi said. “It is economics. When a community owns its heritage, it defends it. And it profits from it.”
Zimbabwe has been piloting community-based tourism models near Victoria Falls and in eastern highlands, where local trusts co-manage campsites, craft centres, and guiding services.
Early data suggests that for every dollar earned in these models, up to 70 cents remains locally—dramatically higher than traditional enclave tourism.
The resistance and the road ahead
Not everyone is comfortable with structural change. Foreign investors warn that aggressive local ownership requirements could deter capital. Some governments fear that shifting power to communities means losing control.
But UN Tourism Secretary-General Her Excellency Shaikha Al Nuwais was unequivocal in her keynote address.
“This Committee’s mandate is not symbolic,” she said. “It is instrumental. Empowerment gave communities a seat at the table. Leadership means they own the table.”
She added: “Structural change is uncomfortable. That is why it is called structural.”
From jobs to wealth
For the informal workers who form tourism’s backbone across Africa, the difference between empowerment and leadership is tangible.
“Empowerment meant someone trained me,” said a Victoria Falls craft vendor who requested anonymity. “Leadership means I decide what to charge, who to sell to, and where my money goes.”
That distinction—between being helped and being in control—is the economic engine driving this week’s discussions. And with the UN’s 2027 sustainability targets now set, the pressure to deliver structural change has never been greater.
The sunsets over Victoria Falls will still be beautiful. But the question now is who profits from the view.
About Author
