A total of 73 million jobs could be created in travel and tourism in the next decade. This according to the UK International Development Committee’s (IDC) ‘Jobs and Livelihoods’ 2015 report, which stresses the importance of creating adequate jobs in countries where DFID works.[1] But the way in which the global tourism industry is structured means that almost all the profits stay in rich countries. If tourism is to play a meaningful role in development, there needs to be a change in the distribution of profits (and taxes).

As part of ActionAid’s efforts to change people’s lives for good, we are calling for the diversification of local economies so that everyone can access a decent job. For us it is not only about creating large amounts of jobs, but also making sure that they are decent – i.e. with fair wages, considerate of care responsibilities (generally down to women) and sustainable.

Without writing off the huge growth potential that the manufacturing sector can bring to many countries (like Bangladesh, Uganda and Vietnam) in the long run, it is also true that services should figure in national development strategies. As the IDC suggests, tourism is worth exploring; though we would highlight an important caveat: there needs to be a redistribution of profits and taxes. For redistribution to happen, it is imperative that local businesses, relevant sectoral chambers and national government agencies in partner countries are brought on board as early as possible in projects and programmes.

The way in which Global Value Chains (GVC) work within the industry means that the highest value is generated in rich countries, and very few local providers manage to jump on the bandwagon. For instance, what does the average British consumer do to shake off the January blues? We plan summer holidays (with sunshine, adventure, culture, etc.). We search online for destinations, package holidays, flights, hotels and activities. The vast majority of us will pre-purchase as much as we can, reducing our on-site expenses. We have good reasons for doing that: limited budget for leisure; wanting to know what to expect; looking for value for money, etc. But those practices reinforce entry barriers for small providers in, for instance, Tanzania, Vietnam or Guatemala, who are too small or too marginalised to advertise online, or even to be of interest to outward facing tour operators. Additionally, this setup results in profits and taxes not reaching destination countries – which defeats the purpose of using tourism as a driver of local economic growth.

While the GVC is unlikely to change drastically in the near future, there are alternatives for new and better practices, actively supported by donor countries. For example, why not call for international efforts to force large operators to set up their businesses in such a way that they also pay taxes where they operate, and not only where they are registered? Alternatively, support mechanisms could help destination countries develop programmes and structures to help broader sectors of their population join the tourism workforce – albeit with decent wages and working conditions. What this means in practice and how it is done can and should only be decided by partner countries; they are, after all, those who ought to be benefitted. In the months to come we will develop some thinking to support them.